Allowed

Parsu Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC11 Jul 2023CRA/256/2015

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the conviction and sentence of life imprisonment under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court acquitted the appellant on the basis of doubt, citing hostile prosecution witnesses and the insufficient evidentiary value of the weapon recovery due to the absence of an FSL report.

What did the court decide?

The conviction and sentence were set aside; the appellant was acquitted and directed to be released from jail if not involved in other matters.

Parsu Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 256 of 2015

¶5

Parsu Ram S/o Ram Sai Manjhi, aged about 30 years, R/o Village: Navagaon Shyampur, Police Station & Tahsil: Dharamjaigarh, Civil and Revenue District: Raigarh, C.G.

¶6

----Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh through the Station House Officer, Police Station: Dharamjaigarh, Civil and Revenue District: Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

For Appellant	: Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate.
For State	: Mr. Ashish Tiwari, G.A.

¶11

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶12

Judgment on Board 11.07.2023

¶13

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶14

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2014 passed in Sessions Trial No. 147/2014 by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District: Raigarh (C.G.) by which the appellant stands convicted & sentenced as under:-

¶15

¶16

Conviction		Sentence	In D	efault
U/s 302 of IPC	Life	imprisonment	In default	of payment
	with	a fine of	of fine	amount
	Rs.5,	000/-	additional	RI for 2
			years

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.06.2014, at about 8:00 pm at Village: Dharamjaigarh, Gram: Navagaon (Shyampur), the appellant assaulted his Uncle ( Bua's Husband ) namely Hem Kumar by Lathi, by which he suffered grievous injury and died. Further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Hem Kumar had kept Bua of the appellant as his wife and they used to quarrel with each other after consuming liquor. On the date of incident also they were under the influence of liquor and were quarreling with each other due to which the appellant reached therein and tried to console them. It is the case of the prosecution that the deceased assaulted the appellant herein, pursuant to which the appellant assaulted the deceased by Lathi due to which he suffered grievous injury and died, pursuant to which Dehati Nalsi Ex.P/1, Dehati Merg Intimation Ex.P/2 and FIR Ex.P/17 were registered and thereafter, the inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/5. Thereafter, dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. S.S. Bhagat, (PW-5) who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-11, in which cause of death was stated to be due to head injury and the death was homicidal in nature . Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant

¶18

¶19

recorded vide Exhibit-P/8, wooden stick was recovered from the possession of appellant vide Exhibit-P/9 and Exhibit-P/10 which was sent for FSL but no FSL report has been brought on record.

¶20

After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence.

¶21

In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 6 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶22

The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶23

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has not properly appreciated the overall material available on record for holding the appellant guilty. He further submits that at the most, offence under Section 304 Part II of the IPC is made out as the appellant had gone to intervene in the quarrel which was taking place between Ramkumari Manjhi and her husband. As such, the appellant is in jail since 07.06.2014, therefore, he may be sentenced to the period already undergone by him.

¶24

¶25

Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶26

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

¶27

The first question for consideration as to whether the death of the deceased- Hem Kumar was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report Ex.P-11 proved by Dr. S.S. Bhagat (PW-5), which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding.

¶28

10. The prosecution case is based on the testimony of Sadhram Kanwar (PW-1), cousin brother of the deceased and wife of the deceased Ramkumari Manjhi (PW-2). PW-1, in his statement has stated that he has lodged Dehati Nalsi and Dehati Merg Intimation and has categorically stated that the appellant has assaulted deceased Hem Kumar with Lathi by which he suffered grievous injury and died, however in his cross-examination, in Para 4, he has clearly stated that he has not seen the incident and on the statement of

¶29

¶30

Sarpanch Devyesingh Sidar (PW-3) he has informed about the incident. As such, this witness has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶31

11. PW-2, Ramkumari Manjhi, who is the wife of the deceased has clearly stated that on the date of the incident she was quarreling with her husband, in between the appellant came to her house and immediately thereafter, she left her house. Thereafter, a quarrel took place in the house of the appellant and the dead body of her husband was brought by the appellant to her house but in Para 5, she has clearly stated that she has not seen the incident. As such, this witness has also not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶32

12. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, the Lathi in question was seized from the possession of the appellant but the FSL report has not been brought on record and it could not be established that it was stained with human blood, therefore, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and another¹ recovery is of no use. In this matter Supreme Court has held that if recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood and held in Para-24 as under:

¶33

1(2019) 7 SCC 781

¶34

¶35

“24. In the instant case, then, we could have placed some reliance on the recovery, had the prosecution at least proved that the blood was of human origin. As observed supra, while discussing the evidence of PWs 9 and 16, the prosecution has tried to concoct the case from stage to stage. Hence, 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 of the weapons and tabbal, and such recovery does not help the case of the prosecution.”

¶36

13. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu² , considering the nature, scope and applicability of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, has held that discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and has observed the following in paragraph 26 of the judgment :-

¶37

“26. The discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon and conviction in such a serious matter cannot be based upon the discovery. Once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution case. We have already held that the prosecution has failed to prove that the house where alleged bloodstains were found belonged exclusively or was possessed exclusively by the appellant, we have further pointed out that the discovery was absolutely farcical. There is one other very relevant factor ignored by both the courts that the prosecution never made any attempts to prove that the clothes

¶38

2(2009) 17 SCC 273

¶39

¶40

belonged to the appellants. There is literally no evidence to suggest anything to that effect. Therefore, even if we accept the discovery, it does not take us anywhere near the crime. Both the courts below have ignored this very important aspect. Once these two important circumstances are disbelieved, there is nothing which would remain to support the prosecution theory.”

¶41

14. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matters of Balwan Singh (supra) and Mani (supra), it is quite vivid that the star prosecution witnesses i.e. the wife of the deceased Ramkumari Manjhi, PW-2 has turned hostile and Sadhram Kanwar PW-1, cousin brother of the deceased has also in Paragraph 4 specifically said that he has not seen the incident and made statement in the Court upon information given by Divyesingh Sidar (PW-3), who has also turned hostile. Furthermore, the recovery of Lathi, which has been seized pursuant to the memorandum of the appellant, is of no use in absence of FSL report. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. The learned trial Court is totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2014, passed by the learned trial Court is liable to be set-aside.

¶42

¶43

15. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as well as the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside. He is acquitted of the said charge. Since the appellant is in jail from 07.06.2014, we direct that he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/case.

¶44

16. In the result, the criminal appeal is allowed.

¶45

17. 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.

¶46

Sd/-

¶47

Sd/-

¶48

( Sanjay K. Agrawal ) ( Radhakishan Agrawal ) Judge Judge

¶49

Saurabh

Parsu Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Parsu Ram 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

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Hirva Satnami (Died) and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Gannuram

Rajkumar @ Bhusu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Madhumangal @ Uday Bhoi Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Shiva Ram Pando @ Ganjedi Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Dr. Rajendra Kumar Singh Raj Vs State of Chhattisgarh