Allowed

Gone @ Surendar Ram Nagesiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC4 Dec 2023CRA/437/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

In a criminal appeal against conviction for murder and aggravated injury, the High Court found that prosecution eyewitnesses were unreliable due to admissions in cross-examination and no FSL report was produced. Consequently, the court acquitted the appellant due to insufficient evidence.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentences set aside; appellant acquitted and entitled to release forthwith.

Gone @ Surendar Ram Nagesiya Vs State Of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

Page 1 of 6

NAFR

(Cr.A.No.437/2016)

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.437 of 2016

¶6

{Arising out of judgment dated 19-2-2016 in Sessions Trial No.61/2015 of the Sessions Judge, Jashpur}

¶7

Gone @ Surender Ram Nagesiya, Aged about 19 years, S/o Ganesh Ram Nagesiya, R/o Village Tekul, Chowki Lodam, P.S. Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶8

(In Jail) ---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O., Chouki Lodam, P.S. Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant: Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, Advocate / Panel Lawyer appointed by the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee.

¶13

For Respondent/State: Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer.

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Agrawal, JJ.

¶15

Judgment On Board

¶16

(04/12/2023)

¶17

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶18

This appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-2-2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Jashpur, in Sessions Trial No.61/2015, by which the appellant has been convicted for offences under Sections 302 of the IPC, 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005, and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & pay a fine of ₹ 3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months; rigorous imprisonment for one year & pay a fine of

¶19

Page 2 of 6

¶20

(Cr.A.No.437/2016)

¶21

₹ 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month; and rigorous imprisonment for two years & pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months, respectively, with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently.

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16-4-2015 at 3.00 p.m., at Village Tekul, Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur, the appellant assaulted Chhandi Bai by stone holding that she is tonhi by which she suffered grievous injuries and died, and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. The incident was witnessed by Jeet Ram (PW-1), Radhika Bai (PW-2), Sangeeta (PW-3) & Revati Bai (PW-4) and thereafter, the matter was reported by Jeet Ram (PW-1) and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-1. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-8 and dead body was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Ashutosh Tirkey (PW-7) vide Ex.P-18 and cause of death was stated to be shock due to head injury and nature of death to be homicidal. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the FSL but no FSL report has been brought on record. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC..

¶23

Upon due investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offences under Sections 302 of the IPC, 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 before the jurisdictional criminal court which was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

¶24

The trial Court has framed charges under Sections 302 of the IPC,

¶25

Page 3 of 6

¶26

(Cr.A.No.437/2016)

¶27

4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 against the appellant and proceeded on trial. The accused / appellant abjured guilt and entered into trial.

¶28

The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents Exhibits P-1 to P-30. The defence has examined none and not exhibited any document in support of its case. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶29

The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC, 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 and sentenced him in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by him.

¶30

Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submits that Jeet Ram (PW-1), Radhika Bai (PW2), Sangeeta (PW-3) & Revati Bai (PW-4) are eyewitness, but they have not supported the case of the prosecution and the prosecution has declared them hostile, as such, the conviction is based on conjectures and surmises. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant deserves to be acquitted.

¶31

Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt

¶32

Page 4 of 6

¶33

(Cr.A.No.437/2016)

¶34

and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶35

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.

¶36

The question whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature has rightly been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of the medical officer Dr. Ashutosh Tirkey (PW-7), who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-18, which is a pure and simple 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.

¶37

Case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of four eyewitnesses namely Jeet Ram (PW-1), Radhika Bai (PW-2), Sangeeta (PW-3) & Revati Bai (PW-4). We will consider their testimony one by one.

¶38

Jeet Ram (PW-1) – son of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that on 16-4-2015 at 3.00 p.m., the appellant assaulted his mother by which she died, his daughter Radhika came on the spot and informed him that the appellant has assaulted her grand-mother, whereupon he reached to the spot and saw the appellant and the appellant was dragging the dead body. However, in crossexamination, he has clearly stated that when he reached to the spot, the appellant had left the place of occurrence and he could not see the appellant and he started searching for the appellant. As such, he cannot be said to be eyewitness who has seen the incident.

¶39

Page 5 of 6

¶40

(Cr.A.No.437/2016)

¶41

Radhika Bai (PW-2) – daughter of Jeet Ram (PW-1), who has informed Jeet Ram (PW-1) about the incident, though in her examination-in-chief has supported the case of the prosecution and stated to be eyewitness, but in her cross-examination, she has stated that she was informed about the incident by one Anjali, but the said Anjali has not been examined. Radhika Bai (PW-2) has further stated that when she came to know that her grand-mother is being assaulted by the appellant, she became frightened and went to inform her mother, as such, she is not eyewitness.

¶42

Sangeeta (PW-3) – daughter of the deceased, has supported the case of the prosecution in her examination-in-chief, but in crossexamination, she has clearly stated that when she reached to the spot, she did not see anything and saw that brain was lying therein on the spot and saw the dead body being dragged, whereupon she has informed to his brother-in-law ( jeeja ), who has not been examined.

¶43

Revati Bai (PW-4) – daughter-in-law of the deceased, is also stated to be eyewitness. She has stated in her evidence that when she reached to the spot, she did not see anything and body of her mother-in-law Chhandi Bai was lying dead.

¶44

As such, all four i.e. Jeet Ram (PW-1), Radhika Bai (PW-2), Sangeeta (PW-3) & Revati Bai (PW-4) are not eyewitnesses. Stone – the weapon of offence, has been seized from the spot and sent to the FSL for chemical analysis, but FSL report to establish that it was stained with blood, has not been brought on record. The trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record, relied upon

¶45

Page 6 of 6

¶46

(Cr.A.No.437/2016)

¶47

by the prosecution, has convicted the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment. However, the prosecution has not been able to prove the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.

¶48

In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC, 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 and therefore he is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. Consequently, conviction and sentences imposed upon the appellant under Sections 302 of the IPC, 4 & 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Nivaran Adhiniyam, 2005 are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. He is in jail since 17-4-2015. He be released forthwith if his detention is not required in any other offence.

¶49

The criminal appeal is allowed.

¶50

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. A certified copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent forthwith wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence.

¶51

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Agrawal) Judge Judge

¶52

Soma

Gone @ Surendar Ram Nagesiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Gone @ Surendar Ram Nagesiya 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

Chandrakant Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Yashwant Singh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gopal Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Avdhesh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pradeep Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Anand Ram Jaiswal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh