Allowed

Jagannath Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC8 Dec 2024CRA/574/2020

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

The High Court allowed an appeal by two accused convicted of murder. Finding the death cause undetermined due to decomposition, the court held that circumstantial evidence failed to exclude innocence, acquitting the appellants.

What did the court decide?

Conviction under Sections 302 & 201 IPC set aside; appellants acquitted; direct to furnish bail bond.

Jagannath Ratre Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

2024:CGHC:48386-DB

RAHUL JHA

Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2024.12.19 10:32:18 +0530

¶5

NAFR

¶6

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶7

CRA No. 574 of 2020

¶8

1 - Jagannath Ratre S/o Ramautar Ratre, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bhursuda, Police Station Tilda Nevra, District Raipur Chhattisgarh, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶9

2 - Perdeshi Ram Koshle, S/o Parasram Koshle, Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Koni, Police Station Bhatapara, District Balodabazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) At Present Telibandha Raipur, Jalvihar Colony, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh., District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

¶10

Appellant

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chhura, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh, District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶13

... Respondent For Appellants : Smt. Usha Chandrakar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. Govt. Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey,

¶15

Hon'ble Justice Shri Bibhu Datta Guru

¶16

Judgment on Board

¶17

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J

¶18

09/12/2024

¶19

Heard.

¶20

This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is

¶21

against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

¶22

¶23

29/02/2020 passed in Sessions Trial No. 12/2018 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and RI for 7 years with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment to further undergo RI for 6 months, respectively.

¶24

Facts of the case in brief are that, on 31/08/2017, Informant- Derha Ram Yadav gave information to the Chura police station alleging inter-alia that on 29/08/2017 in the evening, one Gaindram Kumar of village Gaydabari came to his shop and said that a woman's dead body was lying in Jogigudi forest. Bhavani Diwan and Subelal Dhruv, who had gone to bring wood from Jogigudi forest, told him about the said fact. He told this to Mukesh Chandrakar on 31/08/2017. Subsequently, he along with Mukesh Chandrakar and woodcutter Subelal went to Jogigudi forest, where a dead body of an unknown woman was lying in the forest about 300 meters from the road. She was wearing a yellow blouse, orange Saree and sky blue petticoat. She was lying face down. The left hand was not visible. The hair of the head is lying away from the head. There was head injury and insects were in mouth, nose and eyes. The body was not recognizable. On the above information, Death Intimation Ex.P.-05 was registered on the spot. Notice Ex.P.-06 was given to the witnesses present for the Panchnama proceedings of the dead body and map Panchayatnama Ex.P.-07 was prepared.

¶25

¶26

During the investigation, the body was sent to CHC Chura for postmortem. The postmortem report is Ex.P.-21. Site map of the place (Ex.P.-09) was prepared in front of witnesses. Blood stained soil, plain soil, green, yellow, red coloured broken bangles, towel, small stone, slippers were seized from the place of incident in front of witnesses and seizure memo (Ex.P.-08) was prepared. The deceased's viscera and the deceased's saree, petticoat, blouse, chaddi were sealed and packet were prepared in front of witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P.-04 and Ex.P.-25 respectively. Identification Panchnama Ex.P.-01 was prepared in respect of the dead body of the deceased. After inquest, First Information Report (Ex.P.-31) was registered against accused Jagannath Ratre and Pardeshi Ram Kosle under Sections 302, 201, 34 IPC.

¶27

During investigation, memorandum statement of accused Jagannath Ratre and Pardeshi Ram Kosle were recorded in front of witnesses vide Ex.P.-14 and Ex.P.-15 respectively. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Jagannath Ratre, a piece of mountain stone used in the incident was seized in front of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P.-16. Further, on the basis of memorandum statementof accused Pardeshi Ram, one motor cycle bearing number CG 04 DR 5876 and Carbon company mobile used at the time of the incident were seized in front of witnesses vide Seizure memo Ex.P.-17.

¶28

On finding evidence of crime against the accused persons, they were arrested. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. In the case, the seized properties were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory

¶29

¶30

Raipur by sending a complaint through the Superintendent of Police, Gariaband for testing vide Ex.P.-36 and Ex.P.-37 respectively and the attached FSL report is Article-01. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code was filed before the concerned Court.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the prosecution has examined the witnesses namely Jageshwar Prasad Nirmalkar (PW-01), Lekh Ram Markam (PW-02), Derha Ram Dhruv (PW-03), Pramila Nirmalkar (PW04), Teejan Bai Nirmalkar (PW-05), Jageshwari Nirmalkar (PW-06), Dharmendra Dixit (PW-07), Dr. Manisha Minj (PW-08), Komal Dhruv (PW-09), Mukesh Chandrakar (PW-10), Lokesh Shrivas (PW-11), Subelal Dhruv (PW-12), Rajkumar Sahu (PW-13), Santu Kumar Nishad (PW-14), Jaiveer Bhagat (PW-15), Gaindram (PW-16), Hirau Nirmalkar (PW-17), Arvind Marawi (PW-18) and exhibited 40 documents and Article -1. Statements of the appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. No defence witness has been examined.

¶32

The learned Trial Court after appreciation of entire evidence has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶33

Mrs. Usha Chandrakar, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution witnesses PW4, PW5, PW6, PW7 and PW9 have not supported the case of the prosecution. Even, Dr. Manisha Minj (PW8)

¶34

¶35

had not mentioned about any head injury in the postmortem, therefore, there is no medical evidence in support of the prosecution case. She further submits that there is no eye-witness to the incident and the appellants have only been convicted on circumstantial evidence. Even no motive was proved by the prosecution to bring up the guilt of the accused/appellants. Therefore, the conviction of the appellants is bad in law and the appellants should be acquitted from the charges.

¶36

On the other hand, Mr. Ankur Kashyap, learned Dy. Govt. Advocate appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment stating that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence and there is sufficient evidence available on record to hold the appellants guilt and they have rightly been convicted.

¶37

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

¶38

The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased was homicidal in nature ?

¶39

In this regard, Dr. Manisha Minj (PW8) has been examined who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. In her deposition, she stated that on examining she found that the deceased had died about 5-10 days ago. The dead body had decayed and was infested with worms. The left hand of the dead body was not raw. There was a lacerated wound on the left side of the face which was 5x5x5 inches in length, width and depth. The left side of the face had become hollow due

¶40

¶41

to the injury. The injury was pre-death and appeared to have been inflicted by a hard and blunt weapon.

¶42

Internal examination: - Bones were not found on the left side of the face. The brain had decayed, which was because, the dead body was 5- 10 days old. The diaphragm, ribs, soft lung had decayed. All the internal organs of the dead body had decayed due to decomposition, due to which it was not possible to examine them. The liver, both lungs, both kidneys, spleen, heart and uterus of the dead body were sealed in a jar for chemical examination, both intestines of the dead body and the material found in them were sealed in a separate jar for chemical examination and salt solution was sealed in a jar. She opined that due to decomposition of the dead body, no definite cause can be tell about death. She admitted in cross-examination that due to decomposition, the exact cause of death could not be ascertained.

¶43

From the above statement of the Doctor, it is apparent that though she found injuries over the body of the deceased, but in cross-examination, she opined that due to decomposition of dead body, no definite cause of death was ascertained. In such circumstances, it is very hard to find out whether the death was homicidal in nature or not?

¶44

Admittedly, there is no eye-witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and memorandum statement of the appellants. The appellants are alleged to be husband of the deceased and brother-in-law of the husband of the Deceased, respectively.

¶45

¶46

PW1, Jageshwar Prasad Nirmalkar is a witness of Identification Panchnama (Ex.P/1). In his deposition, he has identified the appellants. In his examination-in-chief, this witness has deposed that the Deceased after marriage with Appellant- Jagannath was residing with him in their village. Since, the Deceased had performed love marriage, therefore, they had broken relation with the Deceased. He deposed that after 15 days of missing of the Deceased, he got a telephonic call from Police Station- Chura that the Deceased has been murdered. He went to the police station and told the police personnel to identify the appellants. Subsequently, the police shown a photograph, which was not clear and he told the police that he cannot tell, whether she was Manju (deceased) or not because the face was not clear. He deposed that his sister had tattooed her name on her hand, but the hand of women shown in the photograph was cut, therefore, he was not thinking the women to be her sister (Manju). He further deposed that the police personnel had shown a piece of Saree, then he only told the police that while the Deceased used to go in village, he had seen her wearing a saree of that colour. He further admitted that he did not tell the police in Ex.P.-02 that when he was shown picture, clothes, saree and blouse seized from the body of the Deceased, he identified that the body was that of his sister Manju. He voluntarily said that it could be of her sister Manju. In crossexamination, he admitted that he did not know where the Deceased was residing. He admitted in cross-examination that on the basis of articles shown i.e. picture of deceased, Saree, blouse, petticoat and sliver Bichiya, the women shown in the picture cannot be identified on those

¶47

¶48

basis.

¶49

Derha Ram Dhruv (PW3) in his examination-in-chief has deposed that he did not recognize the appellants. He deposed that about 1 year ago, when he was sitting in front of his shop, one Gendhlal came to him and told that Subelal and one wood cutter told him that someone had thrown a dead body of women after killing. He deposed that on the next day, in narrated this fact to one Mukesh Chandrakar. Thereafter, Mukesh and Subelal went to the forest for seeing the body and thereafter, the report was lodged at Police Station Churra. This witness has admitted in crossexamination that he had never seen the appellants nearby the forest, after the incident and before the incident where the dead body of Deceased was found. He also admitted that he had never given any information to the police and neither the police had read Dehati Intimatiion (Ex.P/5) to him.

¶50

Dr. Manisha Minj (PW8) has deposed that while conducting the postmortem of the deceased, she found that the deceased had died about 5-10 days ago. The dead body had decayed and was infested with worms. The left hand of the dead body was not raw. There was a lacerated wound on the left side of the face which was 5x5x5 inches in length, width and depth. The left side of the face had become hollow due to the injury. Internal examination: - Bones were not found on the left side of the face. The brain had decayed, which was because, the dead body was 5-10 days old. The diaphragm, ribs, soft lung had decayed. All the internal organs of the dead body had decayed due to decomposition, due to which it was not possible to examine them. The liver, both lungs,

¶51

¶52

both kidneys, spleen, heart and uterus of the dead body were sealed in a jar for chemical examination, both intestines of the dead body and the material found in them were sealed in a separate jar for chemical examination and salt solution was sealed in a jar. She opined that due to decomposition of the dead body, no definite cause can be tell about death. She admitted in cross-examination that due to decomposition, the exact cause of death could not be ascertained.

¶53

In the present case, the FSL report is marked as Article-01. As per the report, blood was found over Article-A i.e. soil collected from the spot, Article-C i.e. scarp found nearby dead body of the deceased and ArticleD i.e. stone which was allegedly seized at the instance of appellantJagannath, and no blood was found over Article-E1 i.e. Saree, Article-E2 i.e. Petticoat, Article-E3 i.e. blouse and Article-E4 i.e. underwear of the Deceased. Though, human blood was found over Article-C and ArticleD, but the origin of the blood could not be ascertained.

¶54

Memorandum statement of appellant- Jagannath is Ex.P/14. As per memorandum statement, the stone used in the incident was seized at the instance of the said appellant. The witnesses of the said memorandum are Dharmendra Dixit (PW7 ) and Santu Nishad (PW14).

¶55

Dharmendra Dixit (PW7) in his deposition has stated that the police personnel had taken him at Jamtai forest, where the murdered was committed. He saw the blood stained stone there and the police personnel seized the stone from there. He admitted that while he was gone to forest along with police personnel, the appellants were not

¶56

¶57

present in the car of the police. This witness has further admitted that after their return to the police station, he had signed some papers. This witness has denied that in the memorandum statement (Ex.P/14), the appellant Jagannath had told the police to come with him for recovery of the stone.

¶58

From perusal of the entire evidence brought on record, it is evident that the Identification Panchnama (Ex.P/1) of the deceased is not proved by cogent and clinching evidence because the witness of Identification Panchnama (Ex.P/1) has admitted in cross-examination that he did not tell the police in Ex.P./2 that when he was shown picture, clothes, saree and blouse seized from the body of the Deceased, he identified that the body was that of his sister Manju and he voluntarily said that it could be of her sister Manju. Apart from this, no DNA test has been conducted in the present case to ascertain the fact that the dead body which was found in the jungle was that of sister of this witness Jageshwar (PW1).

¶59

In the case in hand, the dead body so found in the Jungle, was examined by the doctor (PW8), who has not given any opinion regarding cause of death and she has very specifically mentioned that since the dead body was decayed, therefore, it was very hard to ascertain the cause of death. Therefore, the medical evidence is not supported to the case of the prosecution.

¶60

Though, it is evident from the FSL report that the blood was found over stone, but as per the statement of doctor, it was advised for chemical examination which was not done in the present case. In such a

¶61

¶62

circumstances, the said evidence does not indicates towards guilt of the accused/appellants. It is a settled proposition that when two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to accused must be adopted.

¶63

The prosecution in the present case has been unable to collect any material evidence, which proves that the appellants traveled to the Jungle or seen by some one near the place of occurrence. Thus, there is no material on record to indicate that the appellants was involved in the commission of said crime. Even the witnesses of memorandum has not supported the case of the prosecution.

¶64

For convicting the accused/appellant, the circumstances indicating towards guilt of accused “must be” proved and not “may be” proved and should be of conclusive nature and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one which indicates towards the guilt of the accused/appellant.

¶65

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab

¶66

{(2012) 11 SCC 768} has held thus in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 & 15 which is reproduced hereunder:-

¶67

“12.In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] a three-Judge Bench has laid down five golden principles which constitute the “panchsheel” in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [1973 2 SCC 793] , it was opined that 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. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to lay down that 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

¶68

¶69

on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and that 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.

¶70

In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706] , this Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,the following tests must be satisfied:

¶71

“10.........(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

¶72

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

¶73

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶74

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”

¶75

A similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P.[(2006) 10 SCC 172] .

¶76

In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp(4) SCC 259] , it has been laid down:

¶77

“4. ........that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, howsoever strong they may be, to take the place of proof.”

¶78

¶79

In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 11 SCC 436] , while dealing with the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasised that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and further the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.”

¶80

Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {(2023) 5 SCC 350} has observed thus in para 27:-

¶81

It is important to note that the cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to accused must be adopted.

¶82

When the case is entirely based upon the circumstantial evidence, the chain of such circumstantial evidence in all probabilities 'must' indicate towards guilt of accused and circumstances 'must be' and not 'may be' lead towards guilt of accused.

¶83

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond the reasonable doubt and the case of the prosecution itself has negated the theory by their own evidence on record. Hence the conviction under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC deserves to be set aside.

¶84

For the foregoing reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellants under 302 & 201 of IPC is hereby set aside. The appellants is acquitted of the said charges levelled against him.

¶85

¶86

Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC, the the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶87

The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶88

Sd/Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Judge

¶89

Rahul

Jagannath Ratre v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Jagannath Ratre 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

Indradev Chouhan Vs Ajay Singh

Sonia Jangde Vs Birbhan Singh Jangde

Bhure Miya @ Mohd. Yusuf (Died) through Lrs. Mohd. Kalim, Vs Khwaja Khij Ahmed

Ghanshyam Vs Venkateshwar Prasad Chandrakar

S. R. Health Care Services Private Limited, Vs Dr. Sheetal Yadav

Surendra Sharma Vs Smt. Priyanka Sharma