Allowed

Shatruhan Satnami v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC28 Nov 2023CRA/898/2016

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against murder conviction. Bench held that conviction based on weak circumstantial evidence, including finding of body at appellant's house and subsequent conduct of fleeing, was perverse due to unexamined witnesses and lack of inclusive hypothesis excluding innocence. Appellant acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Appellant acquitted of the charge under Section 302 IPC and set at liberty unless required for other offences.

Shatruhan Satnami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2023)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 898 of 2016

¶5

Shatruhan Satnami, S/o. Bhagirathi, Aged About 45 Years, R/o. Village Lohjharti, R/o. Thana Pandatarai, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh.

¶6

---Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Pandatarai, Distt. Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh, Civil & Revenue Distt. Kabirdham.

¶9

---Respondent

¶10

For Appellant :- Mr. N.K.Malviya, Advocate For Respondent :- Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy.Govt.Advocate

¶11

(Division Bench)

¶12

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

¶13

Judgment On Board (28.11.2023)

¶14

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶15

1 . This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 12.05.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham, in Sessions Trial No.03/ 2016, by which, appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code

¶16

¶17

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 6 months additional rigorous imprisonment.

¶18

2 . Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 09.12.2015 at about 10:00 A.M., the appellant herein assaulted his wife Hema Bai (now deceased) by axe, due to which, she suffered grievous injuries and died. The matter was reported by Avinash Kumar (PW-7) to Police Station Pandatarai that on 09.12.2015, after having breakfast, he went to his mobile shop at village Mohagaon and at about 10:00 A.M., his friend Suraj (not examined) informed him that his father & mother were quarreling with each other and his mother has become unconscious. Then, he immediately came back to his house and his grand-mother namely, Agahan Bai (not examined) who was then sitting in the courtyard, informed him that his father & mother were quarreling with each other and have locked the door from inside. After some time, his father opened the door and absconded. When the complainant went inside the house, her mother (deceased) was lying dead there in a pool of blood and a blood stained iron axe was also lying therein. Smt. Gayatri (PW-8) had seen

¶19

¶20

the appellant absconding from the spot. Thereafter, the FIR was registered vide Ex.P-21, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-2 and dead body of deceased Hema Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. R.K.Chandravanshi (PW-6), who has proved post-mortem report vide Ex.P-18, in which, cause of death was stated to be coma due to head injury and excessive bleeding and death was homicidal in nature. Axe was seized from the spot vide Ex.P-4 and the cloths of appellant were seized vide Ex.P-5, which were sent for examination to FSL, but the FSL report has not been brought on record. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

¶21

3 . In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents and the appellant-accused in support

¶22

¶23

of his defence has not examined any witness, but has exhibited the documents Ex.D-1 & Ex.D-2.

¶24

4 . The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

¶25

5 . Mr. N.K.Malviya, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that there is no eye-witness account to the incident and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant by recording a finding, which is perverse to the record and, as such, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶26

6 . On the other hand, Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, submits that initially there was a quarrel between appellant and deceased and after killing deceased, appellant fled away from the spot. He submits that Smt. Gayatri (PW-8) sister-in-law of

¶27

¶28

deceased has duly supported the case of the prosecution. He supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is well merited and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶29

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

¶30

8 . The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Hema Bai was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report Ex.P-18 proved by Dr. R.K.Chandravanshi (PW-6), according to which, cause of death was coma due to head injury and excessive bleeding and death was homicidal in nature, 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.

¶31

¶32

9 . The case of the prosecution is not based on direct evidence, but it is based on circumstantial evidence. The five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1

¶33

which must be fulfilled for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence, in paragraph 153 as under: -

¶34

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established:

¶35

(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

¶36

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra² where the following observations were made:

¶37

1(1984) 4 SCC 116

¶38

2(1973) 2 SCC 793

¶39

¶40

Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

¶41

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty,

¶42

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency,

¶43

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

¶44

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

¶45

10. The trial Court has convicted the appellant holding that the appellant and deceased both were living together and on the date of offence, they had quarreled with each other and Smt Gayatri (PW-8) had seen the appellant absconding from the spot and dead body was

¶46

¶47

found inside the house and deceased had suffered grievous injuries on her head and neck, which was homicidal in nature. Since the dead body was found inside the house, therefore, appellant is guilty of offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

¶48

11. Now the question is, whether, the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. ?

¶49

12. Admittedly, the dead body was found inside the house of the appellant herein, but though the trial Court has held that quarrel has taken place in between appellant and deceased and according to the prosecution, Suraj has informed Santosh Kumar (PW-2) that his father and mother had quarreled, but surprisingly Suraj has not been examined. Similarly, when Santosh Kumar (PW-2) came to the house, he met his grand-mother Aghan Bai, who informed him that his father and mother had quarreled, but Aghan Bai has also not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Furthermore, the only evidence is that as per statement of Smt. Gayatri (PW-8), she had seen the appellant absconding from the spot.

¶50

¶51

13. The fact that appellant was seen running out from his house is subsequent conduct of the accused, which is relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, for convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C., but very recently in the matter of Subramanya v. State of Karnataka 3, the Supreme Court has clearly held that subsequent conduct of the accused may be relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, but it cannot form basis for conviction that too for offence of murder and observed in para 95 as under :

¶52

“95. In the aforesaid context, we would like to sound a note of caution. Although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, yet the same, by itself, cannot be a ground to convict him or hold him guilty and that too, for a serious offence like murder. Like any other piece of evidence, the conduct of an accused is also one of the circumstances which the court may take into consideration along with the other evidence on record, direct or indirect. What we are trying to convey is that the conduct of the accused alone, though may be relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, cannot form the basis of conviction.”

¶53

3 2022 SCC OnLine SC 1400

¶54

¶55

In that view of the matter, the appellant cannot be convicted on the basis of his subsequent conduct.

¶56

14. The next circumstance is, the trial Court has recorded that the appellant and deceased both were living together, but according to the statement of Santosh Kumar (PW-2), at that time, Aghan Bai, mother of the appellant and Smt. Gayatri (PW-8), sister-in-law of deceased were also in the house along-with the appellant and, as such, it is not the case that appellant and deceased were the only inmates in the house. It is clear from the statement of Smt. Gayatri (PW-8) that it is the joint family as Smt. Gayatri (PW8) and her husband, appellant and his wife and their mother Aghani Bai all were living together. In that view of the matter, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the dead body was found in the house of appellant, therefore, he is liable to be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. is also a perverse finding and is liable to be set aside.

¶57

15. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. The conviction of the appellant for the offence under Section 302 is hereby set aside. The

¶58

¶59

appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of I.P.C. He shall be forthwith set at liberty, unless he is required in connection with any other offence.

¶60

16. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

¶61

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

¶62

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

¶63

Ashok

Shatruhan Satnami v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Shatruhan Satnami 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

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Lalit Chouhan Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bhuwanlal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amar Sana Vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

Raju @ Hem Prakash Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Hemant Mandal Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ram Charan Patel Vs State Of Chhattisgarh