Allowed

Salmon Ram @ Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC23 Jun 2023CRA/1335/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In an appeal against conviction for murder and caste atrocity, the High Court held that the trial Court's finding of confession before police was perverse. Relying on Balwan Singh and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the Court found circumstantial evidence insufficient, set aside conviction, and acquitted the appellant giving benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentences under IPC Sections 458 & 302 and Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam Sections 4 & 5 set-aside; appellant acquitted; set at liberty forthwith.

Salmon Ram @ Lal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Caste Atrocities | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 7

¶2

(Cr.A.No.1335/2014)

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.1335 of 2014

¶6

{Arising out of judgment dated 25-11-2014 in Special Sessions Trial No.50/2013 of the Special Sessions Judge, Jashpur }

¶7

Salmon Ram @ Lal, S/o Sukhram Lohar, aged about 22 years, Occupation Agriculturist, Caste Lohar, R/o Village Tekul Saraitoli, Chowki Lodam, Police Station Jashpur, Civil and Revenue District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶8

(In Jail) ---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Jashpur, Civil and Revenue District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Appellant: Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, JJ.

¶14

Judgment On Board (23-6-2023)

¶15

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶16

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment and order dated 25-11-2014 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and the Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (for short, ‘the Act of 1989’), Jashpur, in Special Sessions Trial No.50/2013 by which the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 458 & 302 of the IPC and 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years & pay fine of ₹ 3,000/-, in default,

¶17

Page 2 of 7

¶18

(Cr.A.No.1335/2014)

¶19

additional rigorous imprisonment for one year; imprisonment for life and pay fine of ₹ 5,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for two years; rigorous imprisonment for one year & pay fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for two months; and rigorous imprisonment for two years & pay fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months, respectively, with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

¶20

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 3-7-2013 at 12 mid night, the appellant unauthorisedly trespassed the house of Albina Ekka and murdered her by axe and thereby committed the offence. Further case of the prosecution is that Luis Bakhla (PW-1) reported the matter to Police Station Jashpur that he used to stay along with his mother – deceased Albina Ekka and his nephew Arvind (PW-2), on 3-7-2013 at night 8.30 p.m. he and his wife were sleeping in new house and his mother and nephew were sleeping in old house, at about 12.30 mid night his nephew came and informed him that some one illegally trespassed the old house and and killed his maternal grand-mother Albina Ekka on which in the light of torch, he and his wife found his mother in injured condition and bloodstained axe was lying therein, as the villagers were suspecting that his mother Albina Ekka used to involve in the act of witchcraft because one Shrawan, S/o Sukhram, died one week prior to the date of incident. Pursuant to the report lodged by Luis Bakhla (PW-

¶21

1), morgue was registered vide Ex.P-19 and FIR was also registered vide Ex.P-20. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-7.

¶22

Page 3 of 7

¶23

(Cr.A.No.1335/2014)

¶24

Dead body of deceased Albina Ekka was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. R.N. Kerketta (PW-8) vide Ex.P-12 and cause of death was stated to be excessive external and internal haemorrhagic shock due to injury over head and face, and death was homicidal in nature. Axe and other articles were seized from the place of incident vide Ex.P-8 and same were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur from where report Ex.P-25 was received according to which human blood was found on axe, E1 – mosquito net & E2 - sari.

¶25

Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After due investigation, the accused / appellant was charge-sheeted for offences under Sections 458, 302 of the IPC; 4, 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, & 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989, and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court i.e. Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur, and the case was committed to the Court of Special Judge, Jashpur where trial was conducted.

¶26

The accused / appellant abjured the guilt and entered into witness. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as fifteen witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The defence has examined none and exhibited no document in support of its case.

¶27

The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, acquitting the accused/appellant under Section 3(2)(v) of the Act of 1989, convicted and sentenced him in the

¶28

Page 4 of 7

¶29

(Cr.A.No.1335/2014)

¶30

manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred.

¶31

Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that there is no legal evidence against the appellant either in shape of direct or circumstantial evidence and the prosecution by recording perverse finding has convicted the appellant. Therefore, conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant deserve to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted by allowing the appeal.

¶32

Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and oppose the appeal as also the submission made on behalf of the appellant and would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced, as such, conviction of the appellant is well merited and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection.

¶34

The first question whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative considering the postmortem report Ex.P-12, which has been proved by Dr. R.N. Kerketta (PW-8) in which cause of death was stated to be excessive external and internal haemorrhagic shock due to

¶35

Page 5 of 7

¶36

(Cr.A.No.1335/2014)

¶37

injury over head and face, and death was homicidal in nature. Such finding, in our considered opinion, is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶38

The trial Court has convicted the appellant by recording finding in shape of incriminating circumstances. The first circumstance that has been relied upon by the trial Court is, the appellant has given extrajudicial confession to Luis Bakhla (PW-1) and the villagers and has also informed to Luis Bakhla (PW-1) and others that he has climbed over the kachha roof of the house of deceased Albina Ekka and entered into the house and murdered her. However, a careful perusal of the statement of Luis Bakhla (PW-1) would show that upon receiving information, the police party came to the house of Luis Bakhla (PW-1) and in front of the police as also the persons of the village, the accused / appellant is said to have given extrajudicial confession to the villagers / police personnel that he has killed deceased Albina Ekka. As such, this confessional statement given by the accused before the police is hit by Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and therefore there is no such extrajudicial confession which is truly and voluntarily given by the appellant before Luis Bakhla (PW-1) and which can be relied upon as true and voluntary. As such, the finding of extrajudicial confession recorded by the trial Court is perverse.

¶39

Similarly, Arvind Minj (PW-2), who has informed about the incident to Luis Bakhla (PW-1) – his maternal uncle, nowhere states that he

¶40

Page 6 of 7

¶41

(Cr.A.No.1335/2014)

¶42

has seen the appellant assaulting his maternal grand-mother, but he has clearly stated that one week prior to the date of offence, the accused/ appellant met him on road and asked him as to where his maternal grand-mother used to sleep and that is why he is suspecting upon the appellant.

¶43

The next incriminating circumstance is that admittedly, axe has been seized from the place of incident on the basis of the statement of Luis Bakhla (PW-1) in paragraph 29 vide Ex.P-8 which has been proved by James Minj (PW-5) on which human blood has been found. However, the fact remains that the said axe has not been seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, therefore, it cannot be an incriminating circumstance though human blood has been found on the said axe.

¶44

The other circumstance that has been found proved by the trial Court as per paragraph 19 of the judgment is, the appellant’s full pant stained with blood has been seized, but no human blood has been found on it. In light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and another 1, in the absence of positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human origin and of the same blood group as that of the accused, it would be difficult for the Court to rely upon the aspect of recovery, and such recovery does not help the case of the prosecution and it will be no use to the prosecution.

¶45

The other circumstances found proved by the trial Court are not of such nature on the basis of which the appellant can be convicted

¶46

1 (2019) 7 SCC 781

¶47

Page 7 of 7

¶48

(Cr.A.No.1335/2014)

¶49

under Section 302 of the IPC in light of the principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 2. As such, we are of the opinion that the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶50

In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Sections 458 & 302 of the IPC and 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, as the conviction is not well merited. As such, conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant under these Sections are liable to be set-aside and are hereby set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charges giving him benefit of doubt. Since he is in jail, we direct that he be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained under any other process of law.

¶51

The criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶52

Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and action, if any.

¶53

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel) Judge Judge

¶54

Soma

¶55

2 (1984) 4 SCC 116 : AIR 1984 SC 1622

Salmon Ram @ Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Salmon Ram @ Lal v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

A compact analysis

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Bhagchand Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Hiru Kodaku Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Sukho Bai Vs (Deleted) Smt. Amrita Devi (Died) Though Lrs.

Sheetal Somawar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mitthu Kawasi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Dokra @ Rajendra Rathiya Vs State Of Chhattisgarh