Allowed

Suklal Manjhi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2023CRA/484/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Criminal Appeal challenging life imprisonment for murder. The High Court held that key eyewitnesses retracted statements and the last seen theory lacked required corroboration due to missing FSL report and time gap. The appeal was allowed, conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted and released.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted of charge under Section 302 IPC. Impugned conviction and sentence set aside. Appellant to be released forthwith if not required in any other case.

Suklal Manjhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

Page 1 of 8

¶2

( Cr.A.No.484/2014 )

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.484 of 2014

¶6

{Arising out of judgment dated 12-3-2014 in Sessions Trial No.86/2013 of the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh}

¶7

Suklal Manjhi, S/o Arjun Manjhi, aged about 45 years, Occupation Agriculturist, R/o Bhalupakhna, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, Civil and Revenue District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

(In Jail) ---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Dharamjaigarh, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------For Appellant: Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.

¶14

Judgment On Board

¶15

(06/03/2023)

¶16

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶17

By this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the appellant herein takes exception to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12-3-2014 passed by the 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial No.86/2013, by which he has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of ₹ 2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 12-4-2013 at 4:30 p.m., at Village Chirodih, Chowki: Reruma Khurd, Police Station

¶19

Page 2 of 8

¶20

( Cr.A.No.484/2014 )

¶21

Dharamjaigarh, the appellant assaulted his wife Sukanti by wooden stick by which she suffered injuries and died. Further case of the prosecution is that on 12.04.2013, Dashrath (PW-1) – brother of the deceased, has gone to Village Chirodih society for bringing rice from the fair price shop and his sister Sukanti (deceased) and her husband Suklal Manjhi (appellant) had also gone there to purchase rice; at 4:30 p.m., when Dashrath (PW-1) was returning, he noticed outside Chirodih basti, that the appellant was assaulting his wife and on being asked, he informed that she has consumed liquor and was lying there, not getting up, then Dashrath (PW-1) instructed him to pick her up and take her to home. Next day, on 13-4-2013 at 8:00 a.m., Sarpanch Khemsagar (PW-5) informed Dashrath (PW-1) that the appellant had killed his wife, then Dashrath (PW-1) visited the spot along with the Sarpanch on which he noticed the dead body of Sukanti lying there, there were injuries on her body and the appellant absconded from the spot. On the report of Dashrath (PW-1), morgue intimation and first information report were registered and thereafter, spot map was prepared and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-3 and on the recommendation of panchas, dead body was sent for postmortem to Civil Hospital, Dharamjaigarh vide Ex.P-5A and postmortem was conducted by Dr. Uma Agrawal (PW-2) vide Ex.P-5 according to which, death occurred due to syncope as a result of internal bleeding caused by hard & blunt object and death was homicidal in nature. Thereafter, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P11 pursuant to which danda was seized vide Ex.P-12 which was

¶22

Page 3 of 8

¶23

( Cr.A.No.484/2014 )

¶24

sent for chemical examination to the FSL, but no FSL report was brought on record. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC..

¶25

After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC before the jurisdictional criminal court which was committed to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh, from where the learned 1^st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.

¶26

The trial Court has framed charge under Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant and proceeded on trial. The accused / appellant abjured guilt and entered into trial. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as seven witnesses and exhibited 22 documents Exhibits P-1 to P-22. Articles A-1 to A-3 – photographs of the deceased have been exhibited on behalf of the defence. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured guilt and pleaded innocence.

¶27

The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life as noticed in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by him.

¶28

Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that except the evidence of last seen by

¶29

Page 4 of 8

¶30

( Cr.A.No.484/2014 )

¶31

Dashrath (PW-1), Ramsai (PW-3) & Sukhsai (PW-4), there is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the offence and they have not supported the case of the prosecution, yet the trial Court has relied upon their statements and convicted the appellant which is totally unsustainable and bad in law.

¶32

Mr. Neeraj Pradhan, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the testimonies of Dashrath (PW-1), Ramsai (PW-3) & Sukhsai (PW-4) inspire confidence and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, as such, 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-5, which has been proved by Dr. Uma Agrawal (PW-2) in which cause of death was stated to be due to syncope as a result of internal bleeding caused by hard & blunt object and death was homicidal in nature. The finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Sukanti was homicidal in nature, 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.

¶35

Case of the prosecution is based upon direct as well as circumstantial evidence. The prosecution has relied upon and projected Dashrath (PW-1) – brother of the deceased as one of the

¶36

Page 5 of 8

¶37

( Cr.A.No.484/2014 )

¶38

eyewitnesses and also one of the witnesses of last seen.

¶39

A careful perusal of the statement of Dashrath (PW-1) before the Court would show that in his examination-in-chief, he has stated that while coming from Chirodih society after purchasing rice, he has seen that the appellant was assaulting his sister Sukanti, but in cross-examination, he has clearly disowned the statement and stated that no such statement of him was recorded by the police at that time and he has only stated that his sister was under too much influence of liquor and the incident was informed to him by Sarpanch Khemsagar (PW-5). In paragraph 4, he has clearly stated that he has not seen the incident and the matter was informed by the Sarpanch to the Inspector at police station. As such, he cannot be held to be the eyewitness. Therefore, reliance placed upon the statement of Dashrath (PW-1) by the trial Court is perverse finding and is liable to be set aside.

¶40

The next eyewitness is Ramsai (PW-3). In his statement before the Court, he has stated that he has seen the incident whereby the appellant has assaulted his wife by stick, but in paragraph 6, he has stated that on being threatened by the police, he has said that he has seen the incident, whereas he has stated before the police that he has not seen the incident, however, in paragraphs 8 & 9, he has clearly stated that he has seen the incident by which the appellant has assaulted his wife. Looking to the wavering statement of Ramsai (PW-3) in his examination-in-chief and in crossexamination, we are of the considered opinion that it would be inappropriate to rely upon the statement of this witness without any

¶41

Page 6 of 8

¶42

( Cr.A.No.484/2014 )

¶43

further corroboration and in order to rely upon his evidence, it requires corroboration and it would be unsafe to base conviction only on the basis of his self-serving statement.

¶44

Sukhsai (PW-4) is also stated to be the witness of last seen. In cross-examination paragraph 5, he has omitted and stated that he has only seen the deceased on the spot.

¶45

The trial Court has relied upon the statements of Dashrath (PW-1), Ramsai (PW-3) & Sukhsai (PW-4) as they have seen the appellant and the deceased together as last seen, as such, they constitute the evidence of last seen together. As per the statement of Dashrath (PW-1), he has completely disowned his statement that he has seen the appellant assaulting the deceased, whereas, he has informed about the incident in the police station along with the Sarpanch, as such, Dashrath (PW-1) cannot be said to be the evidence of last seen. Similarly, Sukhsai (PW-4) in his crossexamination has stated that he has only seen the deceased sitting alone on the place of incident. As such, Sukhsai (PW-4) also cannot be said to be the evidence of last seen together theory.

¶46

Now, the evidence of Ramsai (PW-3) remains for consideration. His testimony has to be examined in light of other supporting evidence as it requires corroboration. However, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-11, wooden stick, which is said to be used in the commission of offence, was seized vide Ex.P-12 and it was sent for chemical examination to the FSL, but no FSL report has been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution.

¶47

Page 7 of 8

¶48

( Cr.A.No.484/2014 )

¶49

In the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and

¶50

another 1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt and if human blood is found on the articles so seized, it can be relied upon even if the blood-group is not ascertained because of disintegration of blood. But in the instant case, presence of stains of blood much less human blood on the weapon of offence i.e. the seized wooden stick, is not proved in absence of the FSL report, as the FSL report was not brought on record. Furthermore, the evidence of last seen together requires corroboration as held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police 2, in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that though the evidence of last seen together could point to the guilt of the accused, but this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration, and observed in paragraph 22 as under: -

¶51

“22. PW 11 was able to identify all the three accused in the court itself by recapitulating his memory as those persons who came at the time when he was washing his car along with John Bosco and further that he had last seen all of them sitting in the Omni van on that day and his testimony to that effect remains intact even during the cross-examination in the light of the fact that the said witness has no enmity whatsoever against the appellants herein and he is an independent witness. Once the testimony of PW 11 is established and inspires full confidence, it is well established that it is the accused who were last seen with the deceased specially in the circumstances when there is nothing on record to show that they parted from the accused and since then no

1 (2019) 7 SCC 781

2 (2018) 16 SCC 161

Page 8 of 8

( Cr.A.No.484/2014 )

¶56

activity of the deceased can be traced and their dead bodies were recovered later on. It is a settled legal position that the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an important event in the chain of circumstances that would completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration.”

¶57

Moreover, the appellant is said to have been seen by Ramsai (PW3) assaulting his wife deceased Sukanti on 12-4-2013 in between 4:30 p.m. and 8:00 p.m. and the dead body was found on 13-42013 at 8:00 a.m. with a gap of more than 12 hours, as such, there is considerable time gap between last seen together and the time when the dead body of the deceased was recovered. Therefore, in absence of corroboration, it would be difficult to hold the appellant guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC and thus, he is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

¶58

We hereby set aside the conviction so recorded and the sentences so awarded by the trial Court to the appellant vide the impugned judgment dated 12-3-2014. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. He is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶59

The appeal is allowed.

¶60

Sd/Sd/(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge

¶61

Soma

Suklal Manjhi v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Suklal Manjhi 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

Ransai Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gourishankar Chouhan @ Bhakud Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Krishna Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Shrawan Kumar Khairwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Jagara Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Gajadhar @ Gajju Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh