High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed appeal against conviction and sentence for murder under Section 302 IPC. Court acquitted appellant due to failure to prove chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt.
Conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted on benefit of doubt; released from jail forthwith.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Page 1 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 1032 of 20 17
[Arising out of judgment dated 27.04.2017, passed in Sessions Trail No.25 of 2016 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Suresh Majhi), by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kunkuri Ramanujganj, District Jashpur (C.G.)]
Suresh Majhi, Son of Baiga Ram Majhi, aged about 30 years, Resident of Village Bhatamunda, Godikala, Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station- Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (Chhattisgarh)
---- Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed through Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board (21.02.2024)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
(1) This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.04.2017, passed by the Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kankuri, District Jashpur (CG) in Sessions Case No.25 of 2016, whereby he has been convicted for offence under
Page 2 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
Section 302 of IPC (on two counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- on each count and, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month on each count.
(2) The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 22.03.2016, at about 01:30 PM in the afternoon, the accusedappellant herein, in his own house situated at Village Bhatamunda, Godikala Majhipara within the ambit of Police Station Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (CG), with the intent to kill his wife, namely, Lalita Bai and daughter aged about 01 years (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased persons”) assaulted them by means of wooden leg of cot, due to which they suffered grievous injuries and died and, thereby, the appellant is said to have committed offence under Section 302 of IPC on two counts.
(3) It is further case of the prosecution that on the report so lodged by Ramsai Sidar (PW-13), father of the deceased- Lalita Bai on 22.03.2016, the police registered marg intimations (Ex.P/18 & P/19) against the appellant and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/01A & P/01 and inquest proceedings were also conducted vide Ex.P/02 & P/02A. Spot panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/04. FIR was also registered vide Ex.P/20. Nazari Naksha and panchnama were prepared vide Ex.P/09. The dead-
Page 3 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
bodies of the deceased persons were sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem reports (Ex.P/12 & Ex.P/13), conducted by Dr. Jems Minj (PW-08), it was opined that the cause of death of the deceased persons is shock due to head injury and nature of death is homicidal. The accused-appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/06 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/05, pursuant to which, blood stained wooden leg of cot and blood stained clothes (t-shirt and towel) were seized vide Ex.P/07. The aforesaid seized articles were sent for chemical examination and, as per FSL reports (Ex.P/24 & Ex.P/25), it has been opined that blood stains were found on the said wooden leg of cot and clothes (t-shirt and towel) seized from the appellant. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent court of criminal jurisdiction and, ultimately, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents apart from Final Report, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence, has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.
Page 4 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
(5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
(6) Mr. Ravindra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there is no direct evidence available on record against the appellant to connect him with the crime in question and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Court is based on conjectures and surmises. There are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt.
(7) Per-contra , learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. In view of statements of
Page 5 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.
(8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
(9) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased persons was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the postmortem reports (Ex.P/12 & Ex.P/13), wherein it has been opined that the cause of death of the deceased persons is shock due to head injury and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. Jems Minj (PW-08). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem reports (Ex.P/12 & Ex.P/13) and the statement of Dr. Jems Minj (PW-08), who has conducted postmortem of the deadbodies of the deceased persons, we are of the considered opinion that the death of the deceased persons is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirm the said finding.
(10) Now, the next question would be whether the accused-
Page 6 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
appellant herein is the author of the crime or not, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by relying upon circumstantial evidences as culled out in Paras- 31 & 32 of the impugned judgment. Since, the present case is based on circumstantial evidence, therefore, it is profitable here to note following five golden principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra1 which constitute the ‘panchsheel’ of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and same read as under:
“153. …. (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
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 & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made:
"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."
(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,
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
Page 7 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(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.”
(11) In the instant case, the learned trial Court has culled out incriminating circumstances in Para-32 of the impugned judgment by holding that: (i) Badan Sai (PW-07) and Sunita (PW09) have seen the appellant herein armed with wooden leg of cot standing in front of the dead-bodies of the deceased persons in the common courtyard shared by them with the appellant; (ii) when the appellant informed the matter to the police, the police personnel came alongwith him and unlocked the house of the appellant when he supplied the keys and the dead-bodies were recovered and (iii) pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, blood stained wooden leg of cot and blood stained clothes (t-shirt and towel) were seized vide Ex.P/07, in which, as per FSL reports (Ex.P/24 & Ex.P/25) blood stains were found.
(12) We shall now consider each of the above-stated incriminating circumstances one by one.
: As regards incriminating circumstance No.(i)
Page 8 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
(13) The learned trial Court has relied upon the statements of Badan Sai (PW-07) and Sunita (PW-09), wherein they have stated that they have seen the appellant herein armed with wooden leg of cot standing in front of the dead-bodies of the deceased persons in the common courtyard shared by them with the appellant. However, the date of incident is 22.03.2016 and the statements of Badan Sai (PW-07) and Sunita (PW-09) were recorded on 16.04.2016, i.e. with a delay of almost one month and no plausible explanation at any point of time has been offered by the prosecution in this regard. Further, a bare perusal of the statements of Badan Sai (PW-07) and Sunita (PW-09) would show that according to them on the date of offence when they returned back to their house at about 12:30 PM after performing their routine work, they found the dead-bodies of the deceased persons lying in the common courtyard, situated between their house and the house of the appellant, and the appellant herein was also standing there armed with wooden leg of cot and, thereafter, on being threatened by the appellant, they ran away from the spot. As per spot map also prepared by the police and annexed with the Crime Details Form (Ex.P/06), the place of incident is just in front of the house of the appellant and, as Badan Sai (PW-07) and Sunita (PW-09) [both husband and wife] used to reside in front of the house of the appellant and share common courtyard, where
Page 9 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
they have seen the dead-bodies of the deceased persons lying and the appellant was also standing there armed with wooden leg of cot, but surprisingly they have not informed about the said incident to the police more particularly when they are close relative of the deceased- Lalita Bai.
(14) Furthermore, Badan Sai (PW-07), during the course of his cross-examination before the Court, has admitted the fact that at the instance of the father of deceased- Lalita Bai, a meeting was convened in the village with regard to relationship between the deceased- Lalita Bai and one Subedas Mahant otherwise than marriage. Ramsai (PW-13) has also stated before the Court that a meeting was convened in the village, wherein the appellant herein has made allegation on Subedas Mahant that he used to meet his wife (deceased- Lalita Bai) outside the village near a tank and, in the said meeting, Subedas Mahant has also stated that he used to meet deceased- Lalita Bai. As such, the conduct of Badan Sai (PW-07) and Sunita (PW-09), in not informing the matter to the police after they have seen the appellant herein armed with wooden leg of cot standing in front of the dead-bodies of the deceased persons in the common courtyard shared by them with the appellant, is improper and, as their statements were recorded with a delay of almost 01 month from the date of incident i.e. on 16.04.2016, the same is also wholly inappropriate and cannot be
Page 10 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
relied upon that too when no plausible explanation has been offered by the prosecution in recording their statements with such a delay. Moreover, as per the statements of Badan Sai (PW-07) and Sunita (PW-09), the time of incident is between 12 to 12:30 PM, whereas as per merg intimations (Ex.P/18 & Ex.P/19) and FIR (Ex.P/20), the time of incident is reflected to be 01:30 PM, therefore, the statement of aforesaid witnesses seems to be unreliable. As such, in view of aforesaid infirmities and illegalities, we are not inclined to accept the statement of Badan Sai (PW-07) and Sunita (PW-09) to the effect that on the date and time of the offence they have seen the appellant herein armed with wooden leg of cot standing in front of the dead-bodies of the deceased persons in the common courtyard shared by them with the appellant and the learned trial Court has also committed grave legal error in lying upon the same. We hereby hold accordingly.
As regards incriminating circumstance No.(ii):
(15) The next circumstance that has been relied upon by the learned trial Court is that when the matter was reported to the police by the appellant herein, the police reached to the spot alongwith him and when he supplied them keys, the police personals opened the doors of the house, wherein the dead bodies of the deceased persons were lying and recovered. However, though in the present case spot panchnama has been conducted
Page 11 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
vide Ex.P/04, which is duly proved by Rambilas Chouhan (PW02), but the lock and the keys were not recovered from the possession of the appellant and, similarly, according to the findings of the learned trial Court the appellant herein informed the matter to the police but there is no evidence available on record with regard to the same. Instead thereof, merg intimations (Ex.P/18 & Ex.P/19) and FIR (Ex.P/20) reflects that Ramsai (PW13) has reported the matter to the police. Furthermore, Badan Sai (PW-07) and Sunita (PW-09) have clearly stated that the deadbodies of the deceased persons were found lying in an open place i.e. common courtyard situated between their house and the house of the appellant. As such, we find no good reason to accept the fact that the dead-bodies of the deceased persons were found at the instant of the appellant herein from his house as a piece of incriminating circumstance and, therefore, in light of dicta of the Supreme Court in the matter of Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar2 , the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in relying upon the same as a piece of incriminating circumstance. We hereby hold accordingly.
As regards incriminating circumstance No.(iii):
(16) The last incriminating circumstance that has been putforth
by the prosecution and found proved by the learned trial Court is
2 AIR 1966 SC 119
Page 12 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
that pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P/05, blood stained wooden leg of cot and blood stained clothes (t-shirt and towel) were seized vide Ex.P/07, in which, as per FSL reports (Ex.P/24 & Ex.P/25) blood stains were found. True it is that pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, the aforesaid blood-stained articles have been seized, however, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh3 , sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained article cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated with other piece of incriminating circumstances. As such, the recovery of aforesaid articles is also of no help to the prosecution and same cannot be relied upon to convict the appellant herein with the offence in question. We hereby hold accordingly.
(17) In view of foregoing analysis, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the five golden principles to constitute the ‘panchsheel’ of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), in absence of which, the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC (on two counts) being the author of the crime in question in light of above-mentioned incriminating circumstances and same is liable 3 2024 SCC Online SC 67
Page 13 of 13
(Criminal Appeal No.1032 of 2017)
to be set aside.
(18) Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC (on two counts), as imposed upon him by the learned trial Court, are hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. Since the appellant is in jail from 22.03.2016, we direct that he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/case.
(19) This criminal appeal is allowed .
(20) Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned as well as to the Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing for necessary information and action, if any.
Sd/Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge
s@if
3 issues framed by the court
Whether the death of deceased persons was of homicidal nature based on postmortem reports.
Whether circumstantial evidence satisfies the five golden principles to convict the accused of murder.
Whether recovery of blood-stained articles alone is sufficient to sustain conviction without corroboration.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of MaharashtraApplied¶40
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of MaharashtraReferred¶42
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 · Who else cites this
Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of BiharReferred¶65
Aghnoo Nagesia vs. State of Bihar
Raja Naykar v. State of ChhattisgarhDistinguished¶70
Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh
2 provisions across 2 enactments
Suresh Majhi
State of Chhattisgarh
Sanjay K. Agrawal
Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
