Allowed

Govind Ram Miri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC13 Aug 2024CRA/1867/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

High Court allowed criminal appeal against conviction under Sec 302 IPC for murder of appellant's wife. Court held presumption based on aggressiveness was insufficient without evidence; blood on weapon seized from spot was not indicative of appellant's guilt; blood on appellant's shirt lacked forensic confirmation of match. Appellant acquitted.

What did the court decide?

Impugned judgment and sentence set aside; Appellant acquitted and released on benefit of doubt; trial record remanded for compliance.

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

¶1

1 / 8

¶2

Digitally
signed by
GOPAL
SINGH
Date:
2024.08.20
18:07:07
+0530

¶3

2024:CGHC:30802-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

Criminal Appeal No.1867 of 2018

¶7

Govind Ram Miri S/o Tilak Ram Miri, aged about 39 years, R/o Village Devgaon, Police Station Sariya, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State of Chhattisgarh through District Magistrate, Raigarh, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Smt. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Shri Amit Baxi, Panel Lawyer

¶13

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

¶14

Judgment on Board (14.8.2024)

¶15

Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J.

¶16

1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 the sole Appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal calling in question legality, validity

¶17

2 / 8

¶18

and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Raigarh (Chhattisgarh) in Sessions Trial No.1 of 2018 by which he has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶19

Conviction		Sentence
Under Section 302 of the	Imprison	ment for life and fine
Indian Penal Code, 1860	of Rs.1	000 in default of
	payment	thereof additional
	rigorous year	imprisonment for 1

¶20

2. Name of deceased is Champa Bai. She was wife of the Appellant. Complainant Janiram Navrange (PW4) lodged a report in Police Station Sariya on 28.10.2017 to the effect that marriage of his daughter Champa Bai was performed with the Appellant 15 years before and from their wedlock they have two children. The Appellant used to quarrel with the deceased and beat her and in this regard a social meeting was convened. He had consumed poisonous substance and after getting treatment at Raigarh he had returned home on 25.10.2017. On receiving information on 28.10.2017 that the deceased was being beaten, the Complainant along with his wife Setin Bai and sons Rakesh and Rajesh reached to see the deceased, but, the Appellant, having seen them, rushed to assault them. They came on road and told the uncles of the Appellant, namely, Gotiram Miri and

¶21

3 / 8

¶22

Surit Ram Miri that the Appellant was not allowing them to enter his house and rushed to kill them with a lathi. Gotiram Miri went to the house of the Appellant to persuade him. The Complainant and his wife were sitting in the house of Gotiram Miri. After sometime, Gotiram Miri returned and told that he had persuaded the Appellant. He will not do anything. On this, the Complainant and his wife and sons returned their home at Amakoni at 4:30 p.m. On reaching home, the Complainant received a telephonic call from Gotiram Miri that whatever the situation of the Complainant was he may come along with 2-4 persons immediately. The Complainant and his elder son Rajesh reached Village Devgaon. On reaching, they were told by Gotiram Miri that maternal grandson of the Complainant told Gotiram Miri that the Appellant had killed the deceased with a tangi (axe). The Complainant, his son Rajesh, Gotiram Miri and neighbours entered the house of the Appellant and they found that the deceased was lying dead in a room of the house. She had suffered a deep injury on her neck. The dead body was lying down smeared with blood and an iron tangi was lying there. The Appellant killed the deceased by assaulting on her neck with the tangi. On the said report of the Complainant, First Information Report (Ex.P5) was registered against the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Merg (Ex.P6) was recorded. Inquest (Ex.P2) was conducted. The dead body was sent for post mortem examination. Post mortem report is Ex.P10. Spot map (Ex.P3) was prepared by

¶23

4 / 8

¶24

police. Plain and blood stained soil and one iron tangi fixed in a bamboo stick and stained with blood were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P14. One half shirt stained with blood was seized from the Appellant vide Ex.P16. One blouse of the deceased stained with blood was seized vide Ex.P4. Seized blood stained tangi was sent to C.H.C. Baramkela for examination and query report (Ex.P11) thereof was obtained. The Appellant was arrested vide Ex.P20, but, his memorandum statement was not recorded. The seized articles were sent to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for chemical examination. Acknowledgment thereof is Ex.P8. Spot map (Ex.P12) was prepared by Patwari. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶25

3. The Trial Court framed a charge against the Appellant under Section 302 IPC. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded false implication. He took a defence that he was not present at the spot at the time of occurrence. When he along with Gotiram Miri returned home from the market he saw crowd outside his house and when he entered his house he found that his wife (the

¶26

5 / 8

¶27

deceased) was lying dead. He did not examine any witness in his defence. 2 documents were exhibited in defence. During trial, FSL Report dated 26.2.2018 was submitted, but, not exhibited. On completion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the instant appeal.

¶28

4. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant argued that the Trial Court has not properly appreciated the evidence on record. The evidence available on record do not support the case of the prosecution. Even the son and the daughter of the deceased, who claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the offence in question, have not supported the case of the prosecution. No material on record goes to show that the Appellant is the person who committed the crime in question. Even the FSL report does not support the case of the prosecution. The case of the prosecution is based on mere suspicion, but, the same is not sufficient in the eyes of law to convict the Appellant. Hence, the Appellant deserves to be acquitted.

¶29

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Respondent/State supported the impugned judgment and submitted that considering the entire evidence available on record the Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellant.

¶30

6. We have heard the rival contentions put-forth on behalf of the parties and perused the entire evidence both oral and

¶31

6 / 8

¶32

documentary with utmost circumspection.

¶33

7. The first question for consideration is whether the death of Champa Bai was homicidal in nature?

¶34

8. The Trial Court, after appreciation of the medical evidence on record, particularly, the statement of Dr. Sanjay Patel (PW9) and taking into account the Post Mortem Report (Ex.P10), has rightly come to the conclusion that the death was homicidal in nature. This finding is a pure finding of fact based on the evidence available on record and the finding is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by Learned Counsel for the Appellant that the death was homicidal in nature. In view of the above, we hereby accept and hold that the death was homicidal in nature and we also hereby affirm this finding.

¶35

9. The next question for consideration is whether the Appellant is the person who committed the crime in question?

¶36

10. It is quite vivid that son and daughter of the deceased and Appellant, namely, Rajkiran Miri (PW13) and Priyanka Miri (PW14), who are claimed to be the eyewitnesses of the crime in question, have not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶37

11. The first basis for conviction of the Appellant is the statements of Rajesh Navrange (PW2), Janiram Navrange (PW4), Bahku Navrange (PW5) and Smt. Setin Bai (PW6) that the Appellant

¶38

7 / 8

¶39

had been doubting his wife (deceased) Champa Bai’s character and, therefore, he had consumed poisonous substance. Hence, these witnesses had visited the Appellant at his Village Devgaon. On the basis of the statements of these witnesses, the Trial Court found that when these witnesses visited the Appellant he was present at his house. He was aggressive to assault them. All these four witnesses are from maternal side of the deceased. According to the finding of the Trial Court recorded in its judgment at paragraphs 44 to 46, having seen the aggressiveness of the Appellant, these witnesses had returned to their houses and based on the statement regarding aggressiveness of the Appellant the Trial Court has presumed that it was the Appellant himself who would have killed his wife Champa Bai. This is just a presumption and a presumption cannot take place of an evidence. Therefore, the basis of a presumption cannot be a ground to hold the Appellant guilty.

¶40

12. The next ground considered by the Trial Court for holding the Appellant guilty is seizure of a tangi (axe) allegedly used for commission of the crime in question and finding of human blood on that tangi in the unexhibited FSL Report dated 26.2.2018 which is placed at page 90 of the paper-book. But, it is noteworthy that seizure of said tangi was made from the place of occurrence not from the possession of the Appellant or at his instance. Therefore, finding of human blood on said tangi cannot be a basis for holding that the Appellant was involved in the

¶41

8 / 8

¶42

crime in question.

¶43

13. The third important basis is that according to the FSL Report dated 26.2.2018 blood was found on the seized shirt of the Appellant, but, it was not examined that the said blood was of a human being or the said blood matched with the blood group of the deceased. This circumstance, in the light of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 7 SCC 781 , cannot be a basis for consideration that there was involvement of the Appellant in the occurrence.

¶44

14. From the discussion aforestated, we find that the conviction imposed upon the Appellant is not sustainable. He deserves acquittal giving him benefit of doubt.

¶45

15. Consequently, the appeal is allowed . The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted giving him benefit of doubt. He is reported to be in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in any other case.

¶46

16. Record of the Trial Court be sent back along with a copy of this judgment forthwith for necessary compliance.

¶47

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

¶48

Gopal

Govind Ram Miri v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Govind Ram Miri 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

Baby Singh Rajput Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amar Singh Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Arun Mourya Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dilharan Navratna Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Deepak Mangiya (Mandavi) Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh