High Court allowed criminal appeal, setting aside murder conviction. Bench held circumstantial evidence insufficient due to hostile witnesses, lack of seizure memo for key, and benefit of doubt favoring the accused.
Appellant acquitted of Section 302 IPC. Conviction and sentence set aside. Bail continued for 6 months.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.149 of 2020
Manoj Kumar Burman, S/o Ramashankar Burman, aged About 23 Years, R/o Village - Bundela, P.S. Shivrinarayan, District - JanjgirChampa Chhattisgarh ---- Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O., P.S. Shivrinarayan, District - Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ---Respondent
For Appellant: Shri Ravindra Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent: Shri Trivikram Nayak, PL.
Division Bench: Hon'ble Shri Goutam Bhaduri, J & Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J Judgment On Board
Per Deepak Kumar Tiwari, J 24.11.2023
2
Shivrinarayan, the accused/Appellant came there and informed them that he killed his wife by throttling her neck at about 8.00 am as he got fed up on account of frequent quarrels that took place between them and after committing the said crime, he locked the door of the house and also disclosed that he was having the key. The said fact was recorded in the daily diary vide Entry No.1299 on 24.05.2019 at police station Shivrinarayan (Ex.P-1c). Inspector NP Tandon (PW-3) along with Praveen Sahu (PW-9) and PS Sen (PW-10) proceeded to the spot to verify the fact mentioned by the Appellant and the said fact was recorded vide Entry No.1300 in the daily diary (Ex.P2c). After reaching the spot, they found that the house of the Appellant was locked and after obtaining the key, got the door opened by Head Constable-Saroj Kumar Patle (PW-1) and found that the dead body of the wife of the Appellant namely Usha was lying on the floor inside the house. On the spot, 0-merg and 0-FIR (Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10) were registered at about 16.00 hrs. Spot map (Ex.P-7), crime details form (Ex.P-11) were also prepared. After giving the notice (Ex.P-4), inquest report ( panchnama) (Ex.P-5) was prepared. Numbered FIR (Ex.P-17) was registered on the same day at about 17.40 hours and thereafter, the Appellant was arrested on the same day at 7.45 pm vide Ex.P-14. Dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem and vide report Ex.P-12, Dr. Anvita Dhruv (PW-5) opined that the cause of death was throttling and it is homicidal in nature.
3
4
many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. The learned trial Court, after evaluating the evidence and facts, convicted the accused/Appellant as aforesaid. Hence this Appeal.
5
accepted. He further submits that the prosecution has also failed to prove any motive for such crime and there is no direct evidence and the case is based on the circumstantial evidence and the chain is also not complete. He further submits that according to Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden of proving the fact beyond reasonable doubt rests on the prosecution. He placed reliance on the judgment rendered in the matter of Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 1249.
6
7
living happily and due to fear of caste community of the deceased, the deceased was not going for work to earn her livelihood.
8
help of the said key, opened the door of the Appellant’s house and found that the dead body of the deceased/wife of the Appellant namely Usha was lying on the floor inside the house and the Appellant has made confession, therefore, on the spot, 0-merg and 0- FIR were registered vide Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-10 respectively. Death inquest proceeding has been done after giving notice vide Ex.P-4 and inquest memo ( naksha panchnama ) (Exp-5) was prepared. He further deposed that spot map (Ex.P-11) was prepared and from the spot, in presence of witnesses Munna Singh (not examined) and Dujbai Barman (PW-2), broken bangles of blue colour and one ear phone of mobile were recovered vide Ex.P-6. Dujbai Barman (PW-2) stated in para-2 of her evidence that from the spot, broken bangles were recovered vide Ex.P-6 and at para-4, she deposed further that one ear phone of mobile was also seized from the spot and the said fact was unrebutted in the cross-examination. Though she has admitted the said fact, but she has not read over the seizure memo that from the spot inside the house of the Appellant, broken bangles and one ear phone of the mobile were found.
9
the neck, there was a bluish color measuring 4” x 1”. The fact that the deceased died on account of throttling and death was homicidal in nature was not challenged by learned Counsel for the Appellant and the case of defence is that some unknown person has killed the wife of the Appellant, therefore, the material question is whether the prosecution is able to prove the author of the said crime beyond all reasonable doubts.
1966 SC 119) also, the Appellant has lodged the FIR and on perusal of his statement, the axe and the dead body of the deceased were discovered from his house. With regard to the fact that to what extent, the information given by the accused before the police in the form of FIR amounts to a confessional statement and whether such information can be used by the prosecution with the help of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the relevant paras-18 and 21 are required to be dealt with, which read as under:-
“18. If the first information report is given by the accused to a police officer and amounts to a confessional statement, proof of the confession is prohibited by Section 25. The confession includes not only the admission of the offence but all other admissions of incriminating facts related to the offence contained in the confessional statement. No part of the confessional statement is receivable in evidence except to the extent that the ban of Section 25 is lifted by Section 2.”
XXXX
“21. Section 27 applies only to information received from a person accused of an offence in the custody of a police officer. Now, the Sub-Inspector stated he
10
arrested the appellant after he gave the first information report leading to the discovery. Prima facie therefore, the appellant was not in the custody of a police officer when he gave the report, unless it can be said that he was then in constructive custody. On the question whether a person directly giving to police officer information which may be used as evidence against him may be deemed to have submitted himself to the custody of the police officer within the meaning of Section 27, there is conflict of opinion. See the observations of Shah, J. and Subba Rao, J. in State Of Uttar Pradesh v. Deoman Upadhyaya . For the purposes of the case, we shall assume that the appellant was constructively in police custody and therefore the information contained in the first information report leading to the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi is admissible in evidence. The entire evidence against the appellant then consists of the fact that the appellant gave information as to the place where the dead bodies were lying and as to the place where he concealed the tangi, the discovery of the dead bodies and the tangi in consequence of the information, the discovery of a blood-stained chadar from the appellant's house and the fact that he had gone to Dungi Jharan Hills on the morning of August 11, 1963. This evidence is not sufficient to convict the appellant of the offences under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.”
11
12
of Maharashtra reported in AIR 2021 SC 1249 and the relevant para-
32 reads thus:-
“32. It is more than settled principle of law that if two views are possible, the benefit shall always go to the accused. It will be apposite to refer to the following observations of this Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra):-
“163. We then pass on to another important point which seems to have been completely missed by the High Court. It is well-settled that where on the evidence two possibilities are available or open, one which goes in favour of the prosecution and the other which benefits an accused, the accused is undoubtedly entitled to the benefit of doubt. In Kali Ram v. State Of Himachal Pradesh .. (1973) 2 SCC 808 , 1973 SCC (Cri) 1048, this Court made the following observations : (SCC p. 820, para 25)
“25. Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence.”
13
Sd/Sd/-
(Goutam Bhaduri) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) JUDGE JUDGE
Priya
2 issues framed by the court
Whether the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
Whether the benefit of doubt should go to the appellant given the hostility of material witnesses and lack of direct evidence.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State of MaharashtraExplained¶16
AIR 2021 SC 1249 · Who else cites this
Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of BiharExplained¶13
AIR 1966 SC 119 · Who else cites this
Sharad Birdhichand SardaReferred¶50
5 provisions across 3 enactments
Manoj Kumar Burman
State Of Chhattisgarh
Goutam Bhaduri
Deepak Kumar Tiwari
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
