Allowed

Ram Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Jul 2024CRA/1642/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court of Chhattisgarh allowed the criminal appeal against the appellant's conviction for murder. The court set aside the conviction, ruling that extra-judicial confessions were weak and uncorroborated, and recovery of the weapon alone did not justify the conviction under Section 302 IPC.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment of conviction and sentence set aside; appellant acquitted; directed to be released from jail forthwith unless required in another offence.

Ram Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶4

Criminal Appeal No. 1642 of 2018

¶5

{Arising out of the judgment dated 30.07.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.05/2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur}

¶6

Ram Singh, S/o. Sohan Singh, Aged About 56 Years, R/o. Village- Parmeshwarpur (Bagichapara), Police StationChandaura, District- Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chandoura, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

---Respondent

¶10

(Cause Title taken from Case Information System)

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Anil Gulati, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by C.G. High Court Legal Aid Committee.

¶12

For Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer

¶13

(Division Bench)

¶14

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

¶15

Judgment on Board (23.07.2024)

¶16

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶17

1 . This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.07.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpur, in Sessions Trial No.05/2018, by which, the

¶18

¶19

appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months.

¶20

2 . Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 22.03.2018, at about 6:00 p.m., the appellant herein assaulted his wife Pakanhin @ Atwaro Bai (now deceased) by axe, by which, she suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby the offence has been committed. Lal Sai Gond (PW-1) reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-5, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body of deceased was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. A.K.Vishwakarma (PW-11), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-12, according to which, cause of death was stated to be neurogenic shock resulting into cardio respiratory arrest and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-16, axe was recovered vide Ex.P-18, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along-with other seized articles and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-27), human

¶21

¶22

blood was found on the seized axe. The appellant is said to have given extra-judicial confession to Lal Sai Gond (PW-1), Shivmangal (PW-2) & Manbasiya (PW-6). After due investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted 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.

¶23

3 . In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

¶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

¶26

5 . Mr. Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the extra-judicial confessions given by the appellant to Lal Sai Gond (PW-1), Shivmangal (PW-2) & Manbasiya (PW-6) are extremely weak piece of evidence, which are not reliable. Furthermore, though the bloodstained axe is alleged to have been seized, but it could not connect the appellant for the offence in question unless there is corroborative piece of evidence. He further submits that as per FSL report, human blood was found on the axe seized from the appellant, but it was not sufficient to hold him guilty for the offence in question, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

¶27

6 . Mr. Soumya Rai, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶28

7 . We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above

¶29

¶30

and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶31

8 . The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Pakanhin @ Atwaro Bai was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report Ex.P-12, proved by Dr. A.K.Vishwakarma (PW11), according to which, cause of death was stated to be neurogenic shock resulting into cardio respiratory arrest 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.

¶32

9 . The case of the prosecution is not based on direct evidence, it is based on circumstantial evidence and 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

¶33

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1 , which must be fulfilled for convicting

¶34

(1984) 4 SCC 116

¶35

¶36

an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence in paragraph 153 as under: -

¶37

“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:

¶38

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

¶39

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:

¶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

(1973) 2 SCC 793

¶44

¶45

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

¶46

(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.”

¶47

10. The trial Court has found that the appellant had given extra-judicial confession to Lal Sai Gond (PW-1), Shivmangal (PW-2) & Manbasiya (PW-6) and dead body of deceased was recovered pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-16 and the weapon of offence i.e. axe was also recovered on which human blood was found and therefore, appellant is found to be guilty for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

¶48

11. First of all, the extra-judicial confession to Lal Sai Gond (PW-1) is concerned, he has clearly stated that though the appellant had said that he has assassinated one, but he did not say that he has assassinated his wife Pakanhin, therefore, it is of no use to the prosecution. So far as, extra-judicial confession given to Shivmangal (PW-2) is concerned, though he has stated that appellant had informed him

¶49

¶50

that he has assassinated Pakanhin @ Atwaro Bai, but in the cross-examination, he has clearly stated that he is short of hearing, he could not hear what the appellant had said, therefore, it is also of no use to the prosecution. So far as, the extra-judicial confession given to Manbasiya (PW-6) is concerned, though she has supported the case of the prosecution that the appellant had informed her that he has assassinated his wife Atwaro Bai, but it is weak piece of evidence and it requires corroboration.

¶51

12. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the Court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the Court would be fully justified in

¶52

¶53

ruling such evidence out of consideration. [ See :

¶54

Sahadevan v. State of Tamil Nadu³ ]

¶55

13. In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered the earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab⁴ and pertinently laid down the principle in paragraphs 15.1, 15.8 and 16 as under :-

¶56

“15.1. In Balwinder Singh (supra) this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10)

¶57

“10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.”

¶58

15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambigous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support

¶59

1995 Supp (4) SCC 259

¶60

(2012) 6 SCC 403

¶61

¶62

it. ( Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.⁵ and Pancho v. State of Haryana⁶ .)

¶63

The principles

¶64

Upon a proper analysis of the abovereferred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These percepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused :

¶65

(i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution.

¶66

(ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful.

¶67

(iii) It should inspire confidence.

¶68

(iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence.

¶69

(v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities.

¶70

(vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law.”

¶71

14. The principle of law laid down in Sahadevan (supra)

¶72

has further been followed with approval in the matter

¶73

(2011) 11 SCC 754

¶74

(2011) 10 SCC 165

¶75

¶76

of Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh 7 and very recently in the matter of Pawan Kumar Chourasia v. State of Bihar 8, the following principle of law has been laid down by their Lordships in paragraph 5 of the report :-

¶77

“ EVIDENTIARY VALUE OF EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION

¶78

As far as extra-judicial confession is concerned, the law is well settled. Generally, it is a weak piece of evidence. However, a conviction can be sustained on the basis of extra-judicial confession provided that the confession is proved to be voluntary and truthful. It should be free of any inducement. The evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him. Moreover, the Court has to be satisfied with the reliability of the confession keeping in view the circumstances in which it is made. As a matter of rule, corroboration is not required. However, if an extra-judicial confession is corroborated by other evidence on record, it acquires more credibility. ”

¶79

15. Furthermore, the trial Court has held that dead body of deceased was recovered pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, but it is not borne out from

¶80

Criminal Appeal No. 1304 of 2018, judgment dated 16/03/2023

¶81

2023 LiveLaw (SC) 197

¶82

¶83

the record. The recovery panchnama of dead body was prepared on 23.03.2018, which has been proved by Lal Sai Gond (PW-1) and memorandum statement of appellant was recorded on 25.03.2018, after two days from recovery of dead body and, as such, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified to hold that dead body of deceased was recovered pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant. However, pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant, blood-stained axe has been recovered, on which, human blood has been found. It is pertinent to mention here that the memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded on 25.03.2018 at 4:30 p.m. and axe has been recovered on the same day at 5:00 p.m., however, it has been received by FSL on 18.04.2018 as per FSL report (Ex.P-27) and there is no evidence on record to hold that from 25.03.2018 to 17.04.2018 i.e. for more than 20 days whether the seized articles were kept in safe custody or not, as chances of manipulation and fabrication with the seized articles cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, in view of the decision rendered by the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh9 only on the basis of recovery of

¶84

2024 SCC Online SC 67

¶85

¶86

bloodstained weapon, the accused/appellant cannot be convicted for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C.

¶87

16. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2018 is set aside. The appellant stands acquitted giving him benefit of doubt of the charge framed against him for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. Accordingly, the appellant is directed to be released forthwith from jail, unless he is required in any other offence.

¶88

17. In the result, the appeal is allowed.

¶89

18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence.

¶90

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

¶91

Ashok

Ram Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ram Singh 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

Manaram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra @ Piluram Kurre Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Praveen Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ajay Parihar @ Banti @ Kaushlendra Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sukul Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Rajendra Prasad Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh