Allowed

Ram Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC22 Sept 2024CRA/530/2019

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The Division Bench set aside the conviction and sentence of Section 302 IPC against the appellant. The court held that the prosecution failed to establish that the appellant was the sole inmate at the scene, rendering the invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act erroneous. The blood-stained shirt was deemed insufficient for conviction without corroboration.

What did the court decide?

Conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC set aside; appellant acquitted and released from jail forthwith.

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

¶1

Page 1 of 13 IN Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶2

Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT Date: 2024.09.25 14:38:39 +0530

¶3

2024:CGHC:37275-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶6

Criminal Appeal No. 530 of 20 19

¶7

[Arising out of judgment dated 22.02.2019, passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, District-Surajpur (C.G.) in Sessions Case

¶8

No.61/2018]

¶9

Ram Singh S/o Amar Sai Harijan, aged about 40 years, R/o Village-Jaypur, Police Station:-Premnagar, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellant

(In Jail)

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station:-Premnagar, District-Surajpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶14

---- Respondent

¶15

For Appellant : Mr. D.N. Prajapati, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, P.L.

¶16

Division Bench

¶17

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

¶18

Judgment on Board (23.09.2024)

¶19

Page 2 of 13 IN Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶20

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

¶21

Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.02.2019, passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Case No.61/2018, whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.50/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 03 months.

¶22

The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 25.04.2018 at around 06:00-07:00 in the evening, at Village Jaypur within the ambit of Police Station Premnagar, District Surajpur (CG), in his own house, the accused-appellant committed murder of his wife, namely, Fulbasiya (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) by dashing her head on “Dheki” (wooden log) and, thereby, said to have committed offence under Section 302 of IPC.

¶23

It is further case of the prosecution that when the aforesaid matter was reported to the police, merg intimation (Ex.P/12) and FIR (Ex.P/16) were registered and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of

¶24

Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶25

Page 3 of 13 IN

¶26

CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/04 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/05. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Vivek Tiwari (PW-07) and, as per PM report (Ex.09), cause of death of the deceased has been opined due to hemorrhage shock due to internal bleeding, which was homicidal in nature. The appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/19 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/08. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, his shirt was seized vide Ex.P/08. Thereafter, the said shirt alongwith other seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/22), human blood were found on the sari of the deceased and shirt of the appellant. After statements of witnesses were recorded and completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, 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.

¶27

During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. In defence, neither any witness has

¶28

Page 4 of 13 IN

¶29

Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶30

been examined nor any document has been exhibited. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶31

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.

¶32

Mr. D.N. Prajapati, 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 the appellant has been convicted invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, however Section 106 of the Evidence Act would not be applicable in the present case in view of the testimonies of witnesses- Santlal Sahu (PW-01) and Krishana (PW-02). Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the said charges on basis of benefit of doubt.

¶33

Page 5 of 13 IN

¶34

Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶35

Per-contra , 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 is absolutely justified in applying Section 106 of the Evidence Act in convicting the appellant for the said offence and therefore the appellant is not entitled to be acquitted on the basis of benefit of doubt and appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶36

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

¶37

The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/09), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of the deceased is due to hemorrhage shock due to internal bleeding, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. Vivek Tiwari (PW-07). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/09) and the statement of Dr. Vivek Tiwari (PW-07), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the death of the deceased 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.

¶38

Page 6 of 13 IN Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶39

Now, as regards the question whether the appellant is the author of crime and has caused death of his wife Fulbasiya, the trial Court has invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act to convict the appellant under Section 302 of IPC holding that his wife was found murdered in his house and it has not been explained in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC as to how and under what circumstances she died.

¶40

At this stage, it would be appropriate to quote Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which states as under:-

¶41

“106. Burden of proving fact especially within

¶42

knowledge.- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”

¶43

The said provision states that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 101, namely, that the burden is on the person who asserts a fact. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the other side. To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by prosecution is that the accused persons were in such a position that they could have special knowledge of the fact concerned.

¶44

Page 7 of 13 IN Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶45

13. In the matter of Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand1 , their

¶46

Lordships of the Supreme Court, reviewing its earlier decision on the point of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, have held that Section 106 has to be applied in criminal cases with care and caution and held in paragraphs 41 to 48 as under:-

¶47

“41. Thus, from the aforesaid decisions of this Court, it is evident that the court should apply Section 106 of the Evidence Act in criminal cases with care and caution. It cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases. The ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials in this country that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the provisions contained in Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

¶48

42. Section 106 cannot be invoked to make up the inability of the prosecution to produce evidence of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. This section cannot be used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the offence. It does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of proving that a crime was committed even though it is a matter specifically within the knowledge of the accused and it does not throw the burden of the accused to show that no crime was committed. To infer the guilt of the accused from absence of reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to the accused.

¶49

43. Section 106 obviously refers to cases where the guilt of the accused is established on the evidence produced by the prosecution unless the ac-

¶50

1 2023 SCC OnLine SC 1261

¶51

Page 8 of 13 IN

¶52

Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶53

cused is able to prove some other facts especially within his knowledge which would render the evidence of the prosecution nugatory. If in such a situation, the accused gives an explanation which may be reasonably true in the proved circumstances, the accused gets the benefit of reasonable doubt though he may not be able to prove beyond reasonable doubt the truth of the explanation. But if the accused in such a case does not give any explanation at all or gives a false or unacceptable explanation, this by itself is a circumstance which may well turn the scale against him. In the language of Prof. Glanville Williams:

¶54

“All that the shifting of the evidential burden does at the final stage of the case is to allow the jury (Court) to take into account the silence of the accused or the absence of satisfactory explanation appearing from his evidence.”

¶55

44. To recapitulate the foregoing : What lies at the bottom of the various rules shifting the evidential burden or burden of introducing evidence in proof of one's case as opposed to the persuasive burden or burden of proof, i.e., of proving all the issues remaining with the prosecution and which never shift is the idea that it is impossible for the prosecution to give wholly convincing evidence on certain issues from its own hand and it is therefore for the accused to give evidence on them if he wishes to escape. Positive facts must always be proved by the prosecution. But the same rule cannot always apply to negative facts. It is not for the prosecution to anticipate and eliminate all possible defences or circumstances which may exonerate an accused. Again, when a person does not act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, it is not for the prosecution to eliminate all the other possible intentions. If the

¶56

Page 9 of 13 IN Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶57

accused had a different intention that is a fact especially within his knowledge and which he must prove (see Professor Glanville Williams— Proof of Guilt, Ch. 7, page 127 and following) and the interesting discussion—para 527 negative averments and para 528—“require affirmative counter-evidence” at page 438 and foil, of Kenny's outlines of Criminal Law, 17th Edn. 1958.

¶58

45. But Section 106 has no application to cases where the fact in question having regard to its nature is such as to be capable of being known not only by the accused but also by others if they happened to be present when it took place. From the illustrations appended to the section, it is clear that an intention not apparent from the character and circumstances of the act must be established as especially within the knowledge of the person whose act is in question and the fact that a person found travelling without a ticket was possessed of a ticket at a stage prior in point of time to his being found without one, must be especially within the knowledge of the traveler himself:see Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, illustrations (a) and (b). 46. A manifest distinction exists between the burden of proof and the burden of going forward with the evidence. Generally, the burden of proof upon any affirmative proposition necessary to be established as the foundation of an issue does not shift, but the burden of evidence or the burden of explanation may shift from one side to the other according to the testimony. Thus, if the prosecution has offered evidence which if believed by the court would convince them of the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, the accused is in a position where he should go forward with counter-vailing evidence if he has such evidence. When facts are peculiarly within the knowledge of the accused, the burden is on him to present evidence of such facts, whether the proposition is an affirmative or negative one. He is not required to do so even though a prima facie case has been es-

¶59

Page 10 of 13 IN

¶60

Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶61

tablished, for the court must still find that he is guilty beyond a reasonable doubt before it can convict. However, the accused's failure to present evidence on his behalf may be regarded by the court as confirming the conclusion indicated by the evidence presented by the prosecution or as confirming presumptions which might have been rebutted. Although not legally required to produce evidence on his own behalf, the accused may therefore as a practical matter find it essential to go forward with proof. This does not alter the burden of proof resting upon the prosecution (Wharton's Criminal Evidence, 12th Edn. 1955, Vol. 1, Ch. 2 p. 37 and foil). Leland v. State reported in 343 U.S. 790=96 L.Ed. 1302, Raffel v. U.S. reported in 271 U.S. 294=70 L.Ed. 1054.

¶62

WHAT IS “PRIMA FACIE CASE” IN THE CONTEXT OF SECTION 106 OF THE EVIDENCE ACT?

¶63

47. The Latin expression prima facie means “at first sight”, “at first view", or "based on first impression". According, to Webster’s Third International Dictionary (1961 Edn.), “prima facie case” means a case established by “prima facie evidence” which in turn means “evi-Ideuce sufficient in law to raise a presumption of fact or establish the fact in question unless rebutted”. In both civil and criminal law, the term is used to denote that, upon initial examination, a legal claim has sufficient evidence to proceed to trial or judgment. In most legal proceedings, one party (typically, the plaintiff or the prosecutor) has a burden of proof, which requires them to present prima facie evidence for each element of the charges against the defendant. If they cannot present prima facie evidence, or if an opposing party introduces contradictory evidence, the initial claim may be dismissed without any need for a response by other parties.

¶64

48. Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply to cases where the prosecution could be said to

¶65

Page 11 of 13 IN Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶66

have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. ”

¶67

Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the above- stated principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid that the trial Court has invoked Section 106 of the Evidence Act to convict the appellant for causing murder of the deceased. It was incumbent upon the prosecution to establish that at the time of the incident which took place on 25.04.2018 at about 07:00 PM, the appellant and the deceased both were the only inmates in the house. In this regard, Santlal Sahu (PW-01) has stated before the Court that on hearing the cry of appellant’s son- Krishana (PW-02), he went inside the house of the appellant where he saw the deceased lying near “Dheki” (wooden log) under influence of liquor and blood was oozing out and then he informed to the appellant and he returned to his house. As such, the presence of Santlal Sahu (PW-01) at the time of the incident is not established from his statement. Krishana (PW-02), who is son of the appellant, has stated before the Court that on the date of offence, he came to home at about 05:00 pm and at that time his father (appellant) was not in the house, then the appellant came back home at about 07:00 pm and, when he came back, he saw that the deceased was lying on the floor under the influence of liquor in bloodied condition. Further, in Para-05

¶68

Page 12 of 13 IN

¶69

Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶70

of his cross-examination, he also stated that when he came to the house and saw the deceased lying on the floor, his father (appellant) was not present in the house and immediately thereafter Santlal Sahu (PW-01) and Chandrabhan (PW-03) came and Santlal (PW-01) informed to his father, thereafter, his father (appellant) came back to the house. As such, the presence of the appellant at place of occurence on the date & time of offence is not established. Chandrabhan (PW-03) has also stated that on the cry of Krishana (PW-02) he went inside the house of the appellant, the deceased was lying dead and the blood was oozing out and the appellant was not there. As such, from the statements of Santlal Sahu (PW-01), Krishana (PW-02) & Chandrabhan (PW-03) it is not established that at the time of the incident, the appellant and the deceased were the only inmate present in the house and, therefore, the learned trial Court has committed grave legal error while invoking Section 106 of IE Act to hold the appellant guilt for the ofence of murder of his wife (deceased). Furthermore, though pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, his shirt has been seized, in which, as per FSL report stains of human blood were found, but in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh2 ), the

¶71

sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained article cannot form

¶72

2 2024 SCC Online SC 67

¶73

Criminal Appeal No.530 of 2019

¶74

Page 13 of 13 IN

¶75

the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated with other piece of incriminating circumstances and, as such, the recovery of said article is of no help to the prosecution. We hereby hold accordingly.

¶76

Accordingly, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC, as imposed upon him by the learned trial Court, is hereby set aside. He is acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. Since the appellant is in jail, we direct that he be released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other matter/crime.

¶77

16. This criminal appeal is allowed .

¶78

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.

¶79

Sd/Sd/-

¶80

(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶81

Raghu Jat

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

Rameshwar Tirkey Vs Statef of Chhattisgarh

Suresh Ekka Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Raika Ispat Udyog Pvt. Ltd., Vs the Principal Commissioner of Income TAX-1 Raipur

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) - 2 Vs M/S Shree Jagdamba Construction Co.

Shyamlal Sori Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dy. Commissioner of Income Tax (Central) 2 Vs M/S Shree Jagdamba Construction Co.