Allowed

Amarnath Mane v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC9 Oct 2023CRA/384/2009

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed the appeal against conviction under Section 201 IPC. The court acquitted the appellant after finding the prosecution witnesses hostile and noting an FSL report negating blood on the seized shirt, deeming the conviction unsafe.

What did the court decide?

Judgment impugned set aside; accused acquitted of the charge levelled against him.

Amarnath Mane Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Cheating and Forgery | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

NAFR

¶2

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶3

CRA No. 384 of 2009

¶4

Amarnath Mane S/o Bapu Rao Mane, aged about 39 years, R/o Khaswapur, Tehsil Sangora, Sholapur (Maharashtra), Present address – Gondpara, In front of Ambika Jewellers, Bilaspur, CG --- Appellant

¶5

Versus

¶6

State Of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Mungeli, District Bilaspur, CG

¶7

		--- Respondent
For Appellant	-	Ms. Anusha Naik,Advocate
For State	-	Shri Shrikant Kaushik, PL

¶8

Order on Board by Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput

¶9

09/10/2023

¶10

This appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure arises out of the judgment dated 30.04.2009 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli in Sessions Trial No. 20/2008 by which the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced as hereunder:-

¶11

Conviction	Sentence
U/s 201 IPC	RI for 04 years and fine of Rs. 500/- in
	default of payment of fine to further
	undergo RI for six months

¶12

Briefly stated facts of the case are that on 22.01.2008 complainant Govind (PW-21) lodged a report in Police Station Mungeli to the effect that on that very day two persons namely Hemant and Shyamu Sahu came to him and informed that his mother Agasiya Bai was killed by someone, and after he reached his house, it was found that his father Juguru Dewangan was about to take his mother to hospital. Thereafter, he also went to the hospital where he saw bleeding injuries on the head of his mother who was not in a position to talk. On the basis of information given by PW-21, an offence under Section 307 IPC was registered against an unknown person. Further case of the prosecution is that accused Satish Verma came to the house of Jugru Dewangan (PW-22) and

¶13

-2-

¶14

told him that his son Ajay had taken his wife away, kept her with him and thus made his children without mother thus asked this witness to make his son (Ajay) understand. Thereafter, accused Satish Verma, asked the accused/appellant herein to take this witness (PW-22) to a betel shop, and in the meanwhile he would make his wife (deceased) understand. The accused/appellant took Jugru Dewangan little away, and after some time returned without chewing betel. While returning, accused Satish Verma met on the way and told to have made his wife (deceased) understand. Accused/appellant herein then went away with accused Satish Verma. Thereafter, this witness (PW-22) went to his house and found his wife lying by the side of the door drenched with blood. One hammer was also lying nearby, and there was injury on the back side of her head. She was taken to CHC Mungeli from where referred to CIIMS Bilaspur where the doctors declared her dead. On the basis of intimation given by Chief Medical Officer (Ex.P-11), merg (Ex.P-12) was recorded. Subsequently, Govind Dewangan (PW-21) lodged FIR (Ex.P-23). Inquest was made on the dead body vide Ex.P-2; seizure of plain and blood stained soil and that of blood stained hammer was made under Ex. P-3 followed by spot map Ex.P-4 being drawn and arrest of the accused and the co-accused being made under Ex. P-7 and P-8. Dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Jubed Khan (PW-15) who gave his report Ex. P-13A. PM report shows that number of lacerated wounds, abrasions and depressed fractures were found head of the deceased and her death was opined to be as a result of head injury. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL Raipur from where report Ex. P-25 was received After completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed against both the accused persons under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B IPC. Charge against the coaccused Satish Verma was however framed under Section 302 and against the present appellant under Section 201 IPC alone.

¶15

Prosecution, in order to establish its case, has examined as many as 27 witnesses. Statements of the accused persons were also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which they denied their guilt, pleaded their innocence and claimed trial.

¶16

-3-

¶17

Learned Court below vide judgment under challenge has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant herein as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

¶18

Counsel for the appellant submit that the the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 201 IPC and the resultant sentence as mentioned above is not based on proper appreciation of the evidence of the witnesses, and therefore it is liable to be set aside. She further submits that the allegation against the appellant herein is that he had hidden the blood stained clothes of co-accused Satish Verma and thus committed the offence under Section 201 IPC. She submits that his conviction is based on the memorandum of the accused/appellant (Ex.P-6) and the seizure of blood stained clothes of coaccused Satish Verma made under Ex. P-9 whereas the evidence of the witnesses to memorandum and seizure is not trustworthy and does not inspire confidence. She further submits that case of the prosecution is that clothes of the accused Satish Verma were stained with blood, but the FSL report (Ex.P-25) does not say so. FSL report on the contrary suggets that no blood was found on the T-Shirt seized on the memorandun of the appellant marked as “article-D”. She as a last resort submits that if this Court is not inclined to interfere with the conviction part of the judgment impugned so far as it relates to the appellant, looking to the fact that the appellant has already remained for about 2 years in jail and therefore the sentence at least may be reduced to the period already undergone.

¶19

On the other hand, counsel for the respondent/State supports the judgment impugned and submits that the conviction of the accused/appellant under Section 201 IPC is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record and therefore no interference with the same is called for.

¶20

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material collected by the prosecution, and the evidence adduced by the parties.

¶21

It may be noted here that co-accused Satish Verma was convicted by the trial Court under Section 302 IPC, and the same has been affirmed by the Division Bench of this Court as well by judgment dated 24.2.2014 passed in

¶22

-4-

¶23

Criminal Appeal No. 503/2009.

¶24

Conviction of the appellant under Section 201 IPC is based on the memorandum (Ex.P-6) and seizure of articles made based on that under (Ex. P- 10). The witness to the memorandum and seizure namely Jabbar (PW-4) has stated that he knew both the accused persons, and that accused Satish Verma told in Police Station Mungeli to have assaulted and had hidden the white T-Shirt kept in a bag, in the house of the present appellant. He has further stated that the appellant herein also told the Police that accused Satish Verma assaulted, and he did not tell anything else, and thus he has been declared hostile. This witness has denied that he was informed by the police that accused Satish Verma had assaulted the deceased and he hid his T-shirt in the house of the present appellant. This witness has denied that accused Satish Verma did not give his statement to the police. He however has clarified that accused Satish Verma made a statement to the police in his presence. Another witness to the memorandum is Shailendra Kumar Masih (PW-5) has stated that the present appellant did not state anything to the police. He has however admitted his signature on the memorandum Ex.P5 and Ex. P6. He at this stage has been declared hostile by the prosecution. Witness to the memorandum and seizure is Sundar Yadav (PW-6) who has stated that seizure of clothes was made in his presence from the house of the present appellan but the appellant herein was not present at the time of seizure of clothes, and that at this stage he has been declared hostile. In the cross examination he has stated that he was not in a position to tell as to whom the clothes so seized belonged. He has denied the suggestion that he was making a false statement in order to save the appellant herein merely because he was his neighbour. Kailash Rajak (PW-7) is also one of the seizure witnesses but he has also been declared hostile. In cross examination also he has denied that the accused/appellant was present at the time of seizure of clothes.

¶25

Thus from the aforesaid discussion made in the light of evidence on record, there appears to be nothing conclusive on the basis of which it could be said that the accused appellant was involved in the offence punishable under

¶26

-5-

¶27

Section 201 IPC. Even the witnesses to memorandum and seizure have been declared hostile. Most importantly, the T-shirt said to be stained with blood purportedly seized at the instance of the accused appellant gets falsified from the FSL report Ex.P-25 which clearly indicates that no blood was found on that article marked as “D”. The finding of the trial Court as regards the conviction of the present appellant is primarily based on the statement of the investigating officer, but looking to the fact that the memorandum and seizure witnesses have been declared hostile and the FSL report which negates the presence of blood on the T-shirt, this Court is of the opinion that it would not be safe to hold the accused appellant guilty on the basis of such evidence. This apart, there is nothing to show that the clothes seized allegedly belonging to accused Satish Verma were identified by any of the witnesses. In these circumstances, the trial Court appears to have gone wrong in convicting the accused appellant particularly when there is not an iota of evidence against him.

¶28

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment impugned so far as it relates to the present appellant is hereby set aside and the accused stands acquitted of the charge levelled against him. The accused appellant is already on bail and therefore the bail bonds furnished by him will remain in force for six months in view of Section 437-A CrPC.

¶29

Sd/-

¶30

(Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge

¶31

Jyotishi

Amarnath Mane v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Amarnath Mane 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

Statutes considered

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Smt Krishna Devi Agrawal (Bansal) Vs Leela Ram Soni

Ajay Kumar Sahu @ Biru Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Kumar Sahu @ Biru Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rahul Singh Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Saddam Ansari Urf Laddu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajkumar Vs Diken @ Dikendra Sahu