Allowed

Jagara Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Mar 2023CRA/758/2014

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court set aside the appellant's conviction and life sentence for murder. Finding the absence of evidence proving the blood on the recovered axe was human, and noting insufficient causal link between the appellant and the crime, the court acquitted the appellant.

What did the court decide?

Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted and released from jail immediately.

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

¶1

Page 1 of 7

¶2

( Cr.A.No.758/2014 )

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.758 of 2014

¶6

{Arising out of judgment dated 19-6-2014 in Sessions Trial No.127/2013 of the Sessions Judge, Kondagaon}

¶7

Jagara Ram, S/o late Admo, aged about 35 years, R/o Marvabeda, P.S. Kondagaon, Civil and Revenue District Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶8

(In Jail) ---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Kondagaon, Civil and Revenue District Kondagaon (C.G.)

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Appellant: Mr. K.P.S. Gandhi, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate.

¶13

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

¶14

Judgment On Board (06/03/2023)

¶15

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶16

This appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19-6-2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kondagaon in Sessions Trial No.127/2013, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of ₹ 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

¶17

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 25-4-2013 at 7:00 p.m., at Village Marvabeda, Mulmula, the appellant assaulted Sukulram Markam by axe by which he suffered grievous injuries and died,

¶18

Page 2 of 7

¶19

( Cr.A.No.758/2014 )

¶20

thereby the appellant is said to have committed the offence. Further case of the prosecution is that on 26-4-2013 at 9:05 a.m., Pakluram Markam (PW-1) – son of Sukulram Markam (deceased) has lodged first information report (FIR) vide Ex.P-15 at Police Station Kondagaon that his father was living separately and on 254-2013 at 7:30 p.m., he was informed by Bitlu Mandavi (PW-4) that his father Sukulram Markam has been murdered by the appellant herein by axe pursuant to which he reached to the house of his father Sukulram Markam along with Somaru & Shivnath, at that time, appellant Jagraram ran away with axe and thereafter, they went inside and found Sukulram Markam in the pool of blood. It is also the case of the prosecution that deceased Sukulram had some dispute with the appellant on the issue of witchcraft as Sukulram used to practice witchcraft. Pursuant to the report of Pakluram (PW-1), FIR was registered under Section 302 of the IPC and morgue intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-16, thereafter, spot map was prepared and inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-18 and on the recommendation of panchas, dead body was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Centre, Kondagaon vide Ex.P-11 and postmortem was conducted by Dr. Sagar Kashyap (PW-7) vide Ex.P-12 according to which, cause of death was due to shock as a result of head injury and death was homicidal in nature. Thereafter, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-1 pursuant to which axe was seized vide Ex.P-2 which was sent for chemical examination to the FSL from where the FSL report Ex.P24 was received according to which blood has been found on the

¶21

Page 3 of 7

¶22

( Cr.A.No.758/2014 )

¶23

seized axe. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under

¶24

Section 161 of the CrPC..

¶25

After due 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, Kondagaon.

¶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 eight witnesses and exhibited 24 documents Exhibits P-1 to P-24. 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. K.P.S. Gandhi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of the statement of Bitlu (PW-4) as well as the seizure of axe on which blood was found. He would further submit that only on the basis of the statement of Bitlu (PW-4) and recovery of bloodstained axe, no conviction can be recorded and therefore the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the appeal be allowed.

¶29

Page 4 of 7

¶30

( Cr.A.No.758/2014 )

¶31

Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶32

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.

¶33

The first question whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report Ex.P-12, which has been proved by Dr. Sagar Kashyap (PW-7) in which cause of death was stated to be due to shock as a result of head injury and death was homicidal in nature. The finding recorded by the trial Court that death of deceased Sukulram Markam 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.

¶34

The next question is, whether the appellant is the author of the crime in question?

¶35

First of all, the trial Court has relied upon the statement of Bitlu (PW-4) who has seen the appellant coming out from the house of the deceased.

¶36

A careful perusal of the statement of Bitlu (PW-4) would show that on the date of incident, Bitlu (PW-4) had gone to the house of deceased Sukulram, who used to practice witchcraft, along with his

¶37

Page 5 of 7

¶38

( Cr.A.No.758/2014 )

¶39

daughter and when he reached near the house of Sukulram, he has seen the appellant coming out from the house of Sukulram and absconded, and when he entered the house of Sukulram, he has seen the dead body of Sukulram stained with blood and injuries were present on neck, back portion and stomach upon which he has informed to Paklu – son of the deceased. Bitlu (PW-4) has clearly admitted in his cross-examination that he has not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased, even otherwise, he has not stated that he saw the appellant coming out from the house of deceased Sukulram armed with any deadly weapon or the weapon of offence – axe, he has also admitted that the deceased was his maternal uncle and further admitted that the appellant and the deceased, both have old enmity.

¶40

As such, except the fact that Bitlu (PW-4) has seen the appellant coming out from the house of deceased Sukulram unarmed, there is no other evidence to connect the appellant with the crime in question and thus, it is not established by the prosecution that the appellant is the assailant of Sukulram, particularly when he was not holding any weapon, dangerous or ordinary and more particularly, the reason for abscondence of the accused may be after seeing Sukulram stained with blood, the possibility of his false implication has been apprehended by him which cannot be ruled out. As such, the statement of Bitlu (PW-4) alone is not sufficient to base the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶41

The next piece of evidence sought to be relied upon and found favour with by the trial Court is recovery of axe from the accused /

¶42

Page 6 of 7

¶43

( Cr.A.No.758/2014 )

¶44

appellant vide Ex.P-2 pursuant to his memorandum statement Ex.P-1. According to the FSL report Ex.P-24, blood has been found on the recovered axe and lungi of the deceased.

¶45

The Supreme Court in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and another 1, has clearly held that if the 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 observed in paragraphs 23 & 24 as under: -

¶46

“23. From the aforementioned discussion, we can summarise that if the 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. The court will have to come to the conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove, that the blood groups match.

¶47

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.”

¶48

1 (2019) 7 SCC 781

¶49

Page 7 of 7

¶50

( Cr.A.No.758/2014 )

¶51

In the instant case, the weapon of offence axe was found to be stained with blood, but presence of human blood has not been established by the prosecution as per the FSL report Ex.P-24.

¶52

Now, only the recovery of weapon remains for consideration which itself is a weak piece of evidence in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter Mani v. State of Tamil Nadu 2 in which it has been held that discovery is a weak kind of evidence and cannot be wholly relied upon.

¶53

No other valid piece of evidence, direct or circumstantial, has been brought on record to hold the appellant guilty. Thus, we are unable to affirm the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and in our considered opinion, he is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

¶54

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 19-6-2014. 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.

¶55

The appeal is allowed.

¶56

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

¶57

Soma

¶58

2 (2009) 17 SCC 273

Jagara Ram v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagara 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

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

Gajadhar @ Gajju Yadav Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Suklal Manjhi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh