Allowed

Lalit @ Loha Rathiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC15 Feb 2024CRA/1027/2017

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

This criminal appeal was preferred by the appellant convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC facing life imprisonment. The High Court held that the prosecution failed to prove that the appellant informed the police prior to recovery. Relying on Raja Naykar and benefit of doubt, the court acquitted the appellant finding the conviction unjustified.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment set aside; appellant acquitted and shall be set at liberty.

Lalit @ Loha Rathiya Vs State Of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

Page 1 of 6

¶2

NAFR

¶3

(Cr.A.No.1027/2017)

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

Criminal Appeal No.1027 of 2017

¶6

{Arising out of judgment dated 24-10-2016 in Sessions Trial No.59/2016 of the 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh}

¶7

Lalit @ Loha Rathiya, S/o Brij Lal Rathiya, aged about 24 years, R/o Devgaon, P.S. Tamnar, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

(In Jail) ---- Appellant

¶9

Versus

¶10

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

¶11

---- Respondent

¶12

For Appellant: Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate. For Respondent/State: Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General.

¶13

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

¶14

Judgment On Board

¶15

(16/02/2024)

¶16

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶17

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay a fine of ₹ 500/-, in default, to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

¶18

Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 20-2-2016 at 11:00

¶19

a.m., at Village Devgaon, Police Station Tamnar, District Raigarh,

¶20

Page 2 of 6

¶21

(Cr.A.No.1027/2017)

¶22

the appellant has assaulted his wife Samari Bai by axe by which she suffered grievous injuries and died, and thereby committed the offence. According to the prosecution case, the appellant informed his brother Govind Rathiya (PW-3), who has turned hostile, about the incident and in turn, Govind Rathiya (PW-3) informed Roop Singh (PW-1) who got registered dehati morgue intimation Ex.P-1 that he was informed by the appellant (Lalit @ Loha Rathiya) himself that he has assaulted his wife by axe suspecting her character by which she died and thereafter, the appellant absconded from the spot and the axe is lying therein pursuant to which dehati nalishi was registered vide Ex.P-2 and thereafter, panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-13 in which it has been mentioned that dead body and axe were found in the house of the appellant. Thereafter, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded on 20-2-2016 at 05:10 p.m. vide Ex.P-14. Dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. D.S. Painkara (PW-8) vide Ex.P-21 who opined that mode of death is due to head injury caused by cardio respiratory arrest and nature of death is homicidal. Axe was found on the spot which was seized and sent for chemical examination and according to the FSL report dated 12-5-2016, blood was found on all the articles A1, A2, B1, B2, C1, C2, D & E.

¶23

Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the accused / appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and

¶24

Page 3 of 6

¶25

(Cr.A.No.1027/2017)

¶26

the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Raigarh, from where the learned 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh received the case on transfer for trial. The accused / appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence.

¶27

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as eleven witnesses and exhibited 37 documents as also the FSL report dated 12-5-2016. The defence has examined one witness Sonkunwar (DW-1), but exhibited no document.

¶28

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering the homicidal nature of death of the deceased and also considering that it is the appellant who has caused the murder of his wife, proceeded to convict and sentence him under Section 302 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred.

¶29

Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that that trial Court is absolutely unjustified in holding that the appellant has informed the police and subsequent to the information of the appellant, dead body was found in the house of the appellant and invocation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is also unjustified, as there is no question put to the accused that he and his wife alone were in the house on the date of offence and dead body was found in the house and what is his explanation and moreover, axe found in the house of the appellant was not recovered pursuant to his memorandum statement and as such, the appellant is entitled for

¶30

Page 4 of 6

¶31

(Cr.A.No.1027/2017)

¶32

acquittal.

¶33

Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State / respondent, would support the impugned judgment and would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. As such, with the aid of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the appellant has rightly been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC.

¶34

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well.

¶35

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. D.S. Painkara (PW-8), who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-21, 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.

¶36

Now, the question is, whether the appellant is the author of the crime in question for which the trial Court has invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act holding in paragraph 17 of the judgment that the appellant himself has informed to the police and pursuant to the said information, dead body of the deceased was recovered and T- shirt & lungi of the appellant were seized vide Ex.P-16 and one broken lock was seized vide Ex.P-17.

¶37

Page 5 of 6

¶38

(Cr.A.No.1027/2017)

¶39

The first circumstance is that the appellant has given information to the police that he has killed his wife, however, the fact is otherwise. Firstly, dehati morgue intimation was lodged by Roop Singh (PW-1) vide Ex.P-1 on the basis of which dehati nalishi was registered vide Ex.P-2 which has been proved by Roop Singh (PW-1), which would show that Roop Singh has lodged morgue intimation. According to the morgue intimation, brother of the appellant Govind Rathiya (PW-3) informed Roop Singh (PW-1) that his brother i.e. the appellant herein namely, Lalit @ Loha Rathiya has murdered his wife in his own house and dead body and bloodstained axe were lying therein. As such, the first circumstance that the appellant has informed to the police is incorrect on the face of record.

¶40

Furthermore, panchnama was prepared on 20-2-2016 at 03:25 p.m. vide Ex.P-13 and dead body was noticed and axe was also lying therein. Thereafter, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded at 05:10 p.m. in which the appellant is said to have stated that the dead body was lying in the house of the appellant and axe was also lying therein and he will get the same recovered, however, the same was already recorded vide Ex.P-13. As such, the fact that dead body and axe were recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, is incorrect. Axe was found on the spot as per panchnama Ex.P-13 and therefore it was not recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant and as such, it is of no use to the prosecution, as it was not recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant. Moreover, dead body was also not recovered pursuant

¶41

Page 6 of 6

¶42

(Cr.A.No.1027/2017)

¶43

to the memorandum statement of the appellant. Though blood has been found on other articles like T-shirt & lungi of the appellant, but in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh 1, only on the basis of mere recovery of bloodstained articles, accused cannot be convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. No other evidence is available on record. In that view of the matter, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt.

¶44

Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 24-10-2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.59/2016 by the 3^rd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted of the charge framed against him for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. He is in jail. He shall be forthwith set at liberty, unless he is required in connection with any other case.

¶45

The appeal is allowed.

¶46

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.

¶47

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

¶48

Soma

¶49

1 2024 SCC OnLine SC 67

Lalit @ Loha Rathiya v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Lalit @ Loha Rathiya 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

Mintu Verma Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Lakkhu Podiyami Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Sahdev Singh @ Birjhu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Rama Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amar Vilas Dhanuwar Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Bakhru Ram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh