Partly allowed

Mohan Rathiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC12 Jun 2024CRA/939/2018

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Husband and wife appealed against convictions for murder and causing disappearance of evidence of a neighbour's death. Holding a sudden fight fell within Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the court altered the wife's murder conviction to Section 304 Part-II with sentence already undergone, and acquitted the husband under Section 201 on benefit of doubt.

What did the court decide?

A-2's conviction altered from S.302 to S.304 Part-II IPC, sentenced to period already undergone; A-1 acquitted of S.201 IPC on benefit of doubt.

Mohan Rathiya Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2024)

¶1

-1-

¶2

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶3

NAFR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶5

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 939 OF 2018

¶6

(Arising out of Judgment & Order dated 22.5.2018 passed by First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Case No.103 of 2017)

¶7

1. Mohan Rathiya, S/o Prem Singh Rathiya, aged about 55 years, Occupation- Service (Driver), R/o Village Jobro, Police Station- Tamnar, District Raigarh, presently residing at Krishi Mahavidyalaya Avam Anusandhan Kendra, Raigarh (C.G.)

¶8

2. Smt. Dulari Rathiya, W/o Mohan Rathiya (wrongly mentioned as D/o in the judgment), aged about 45 years, Occupation- Agriculture, R/o Village Jobro, Police Station- Tamnar, District Raigarh, presently residing at Krishi Mahavidyalaya Avam Anusandhan Kendra, Raigarh (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

Versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh, through: Station House Officer, Police Station Chakradhar Nagar, District Raigarh (C.G.)

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

:- For Appellants Mr. Ashish Gupta, Advocate. For Respondent/State :- Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate.

¶14

[Division Bench]

¶15

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

¶16

Judgment on Board [13.06.2024]

¶17

-2-

¶18

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶19

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

¶20

1. Challenge in this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘CrPC’) is to the judgment & order dated 22.5.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.103 of 2017 by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh (Trial Court).

¶21

2. The two appellants herein, i.e., Mohan Rathiya (A-1) and his wife Dulari Rathiya (A-2), were tried for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short ‘IPC’) for committing murder of Sulochana Vasudev and for disappearance of evidence in respect of her murder. Ultimately, the Trial Court, by impugned judgment & order, convicted A-1 Mohan Rathiya for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and sentenced him for Nine months’ Rigorous Imprisonment, i.e., his custody period, and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof, to suffer additional Rigorous Imprisonment for One month. Similarly, A-2 Dulari Rathiya stands convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for Life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- in default whereof, to suffer additional Rigorous Imprisonment for One year.

¶22

-3-

¶23

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶24

3. Brief factual aspect of the prosecution case is that on 2.7.2017 between 5:30pm to 9:00pm in the courtyard of their house situated at Krishi Mahavidyalaya Residential Premises, the two appellants herein, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted Sulochana Vasudev with wooden stick by which she suffered grievous injuries and died and thereafter the appellants, in order to screen themselves from legal punishment, concealed the evidence by keeping her dead-body near the boundary covering it with a loincloth ( dhoti ). The said incident was witnessed by PW-1 Jacob George, neighbor of the appellants as well as PW-3 Ulas Rathiya, brother of A-2 Dulari Rathiya.

¶25

4. PW-1 Jacob George reported the matter to the police on the basis of which, Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P-1) and Dehati Merg (Exhibit P-2) were registered by the Investigating Officer, PW-11 Amit Patle and the wheels of investigation started running. During investigation, statements of the witnesses conversant with the facts of the case were recorded. Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-18) and FIR (Exhibit P-19) were registered against the two accused appellants herein. In presence of the witnesses, sketch map of the incident was prepared

¶26

-4-

¶27

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶28

vide Exhibit P-3, Inquest Panchnama was conducted vide Exhibit P-5 and the dead-body of deceased Sulochana was subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by PW-5 Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami vide Exhibit P-6 in which cause of her death was opined to be hemorrhagic shock due to cranio-cerebral injuries and its consequences and the nature of her death to be homicidal. Vide Exhibits P-12 & P-13, blood mixed earth & control earth and plastic slippers & purse belonging to A-1 Mohan Rathiya and a white loincloth including other articles were seized from the spot. Spot Map of the place of occurrence was prepared by PW-6 Laxman Swarnakar, the Patwari.

¶29

5. Memorandum Statement of A-2 Dulari Rathiya was recorded vide Exhibit P-10, pursuant to which a wooden stick and a sari both stained with blood like substance were recovered vide Exhibits P-14 & P-16 respectively. Similarly, pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-1 Mohan Rathiya recorded vide Exhibit P-11, a T-shirt stained with blood like spots was recovered vide Exhibit P-15. The memorandum and seizure proceeding was conducted in presence of PW-7 Sajid Ahmad and PW-9 Santosh Uraon. Both the

¶30

-5-

¶31

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶32

appellants were arrested vide Exhibits P-26 & 27. Vide query report (Exhibit P-7), PW-5 Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami examined the seized wooden stick and opined that the injuries caused resulting in death of deceased Sulochana can cause by the said wooden stick. Vide FSL report (Exhibit P-25), after chemical examination of the seized articles, blood was found on the wooden stick (C) & sari (D) seized from A-2 Dulari Rathiya and human blood was found on the T-shirt (E) seized from A-1 Mohan Rathiya.

¶33

6. After completion of investigation, the two appellants herein were charge-sheeted before the concerned Magistrate Court from where the matter was committed to the Court of Sessions and thereafter it was put to trial before the Trial Court where charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 201 of IPC and read out/explained to the appellants who abjured their guilt, took a plea of false implication and entreated for trial.

¶34

7. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-11 and exhibited 36

¶35

-6-

¶36

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶37

documents vide Exhibits P-1 to P-36. Statement of the appellants was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. In defence, though no witness has been examined, but the statement of one witness, Vinod Vasudev, has been relied on as Exhibit D-1.

¶38

8. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court, by impugned judgment & order dated 22.5.2018, on appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, while acquitting A-1 Mohan Rathiya of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 and A-2 Dulari Rathiya of the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC, held A-1 Mohan Rathiya guilty of the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and A-2 Dulari Rathiya has been found guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and accordingly the Trial Court convicted and sentenced both of them as mentioned in the preceding paragraph, which led to filing of the present appeal by the appellants questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment & order.

¶39

-7-

¶40

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶41

9. Mr. Ashish Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that so far as A-1 Mohan Rathiya is concerned, offence under Section 201 of IPC is not at all made out against him and even otherwise he has already undergone the sentence of Nine months awarded to him by the Trial Court for the said offence. So far as A-2 Dulari Rathiya is concerned, Mr. Gupta submits that recovery of wooden stick and sari has not been established by the prosecution and even otherwise no human blood has been found on the said articles, the recovery of which therefore is of no use to the prosecution. Further, the memorandum and seizure witnesses, PW-7 Sajid Ahmad and PW-9 Santosh Uraon, both have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW-1 Jacob George and PW-3 Ulas Rathiya, the alleged eyewitnesses, are not the actual eye-witnesses and have also not supported the case of the prosecution. Even otherwise, taking into consideration the prosecution case as it is, at best, offence under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC would be made out against A-2 Dulari Rathiya and further keeping in view the fact that she has already undergone approximately Seven years of

¶42

-8-

¶43

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶44

imprisonment as she is in jail since 5.7.2017, it is a fit case where her conviction recorded under Section 302 of IPC can be converted/altered to one under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC and she may be sentenced to the period already undergone.

¶45

10. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned counsel appearing for the State, per contra, would support the impugned judgment & order and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the Trial Court has rightly convicted A-2 Dulari Rathiya for commission of the offence of murder of deceased Soluchana as well as A-1 Mohan Rathiya for concealing the evidence of murder caused by his wife, A-2 Dulari Rathiya. As per the evidence of the eye-witnesses, PW-1 Jacob George and PW-3 Ulas Rathiya, A-2 Dulari Rathiya is the author of crime and her husband A-1 Mohan Rathiya has supported her in commission of the said crime. Therefore, it is not a case of alteration of offence under Section 302 of IPC to one under Section 304 (Part-II) of IPC where conviction of A-2 Dulari Rathiya can be modified to a lesser offence. Similarly, A-1 Mohan Rathiya also does not deserve to be acquitted even on

¶46

-9-

¶47

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶48

the ground of benefit of doubt as he has been rightly convicted by the Trial Court for the said offence on the basis of evidence come on record. The appeal of both the appellants as such deserves to be dismissed.

¶49

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

¶50

12. The first and foremost question, as to whether the death of deceased Sulochana was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the Trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of PW-5 Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami, who has conducted the post-mortem of deceased Sulochana and also proved the post-mortem report (Exhibit P-6) opining the cause of her death to be hemorrhagic shock due to cranio-cerebral injuries and its consequences and the nature of her death to be homicidal, which, in our considered opinion, is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We, accordingly, affirm the said finding of the Trial Court, holding that the death of deceased Sulochana was homicidal in nature.

¶51

-10-

¶52

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶53

13. Now, considering the nature of evidence, we will consider the case of the two appellants separately, as A-1 Mohan Rathiya has been convicted under Section 201 of IPC and A-2 Dulari Rathiya has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC by the Trial Court.

¶54

14. We will first consider and decide the case of A-2 Dulari Rathiya as she has been convicted for the capital offence under Section 302 of IPC.

¶55

Conviction of A-2 Dulari Bai:-

¶56

15. Conviction of A-2 Dulari Bai for the offence under Section 302 of IPC for committing murder of deceased Sulochana is primarily based on the ocular evidence of her neighbor PW-1 Jacob George and her brother PW-3 Ulas Rathiya as well as the medical evidence of recovery of wooden stick and sari seized pursuant to her memorandum statement on which blood has also been found in the FSL report.

¶57

16. So far as the ocular evidence of PW-1 Jacob George is concerned, he has clearly stated in his statement that on the date of offence in the evening at about 5:00 pm when he was going to daily market, he heard some noise coming out from the house of the appellants and

¶58

-11-

¶59

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶60

when he went there, he saw A-2 Dulari Rathiya assaulting the deceased Sulochana likely by footwear. Thereafter, he left for the market and when he returned at about 9:00 pm, he found that Sulochana had died which was reported by him to the police station. Though in his cross-examination, he has stated that he could not see the weapon, but he has partly supported the case of the prosecution that it is A-2 Dulari Rathiya who was assaulting the deceased Sulochana on the date of incident.

¶61

17. PW-3 Ulas Rathiya, brother of A-2 Dulari Rathiya, has also clearly stated in his statement that he has seen the incident in which deceased (only called women, as the name of deceased Sulochana was not known to this witness PW-3) had first slapped his sister, A-2 Dulari Rathiya, and then a quarrel took place between the said woman (deceased) and his sister (A-2).

¶62

18. Thus, from the ocular evidence of PW-1 Jacob George and PW-3 Ulas Rathiya, it is quite clear that it is A-2 Dulari Rathiya who has caused injuries to deceased Sulochana resulting in her death. Though deceased Sulochana appears to be aggressor as per the

¶63

-12-

¶64

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶65

statement of PW-3 Ulas Rathiya, however, from the statement of PW-1 Jacob George as well as PW-3 Ulas Rathiya, it can safely be held that it is A-2 Dulari Rathiya who had assaulted the deceased Sulochana on account of which she suffered grievous injuries and died. Though the memorandum and seizure witnesses, PW-7 Sajid Ahmad and PW-9 Santosh Uraon, have not fully supported the case of the prosecution and turned hostile, but as per the statement of the Investigating Officer, PW-11 Amit Patle, wooden stick and sari both stained with blood like spots were recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-2 Dulari Rathiya from her house.

¶66

19. In addition to above, in the FSL report (Exhibit P-25), blood was found on the wooden stick and sari recovered vide Exhibits P-14 & P-16 pursuant to the memorandum statement of A-2 Dulari Rathiya recorded vide Exhibit P-10. Apart from this, PW-5 Dr. Rajesh B. Goswami, vide query report (Exhibit P-7), has also opined that the injuries resulted in death of deceased Sulochana can cause by the said wooden stick.

¶67

-13-

¶68

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶69

20. Thus, taking into consideration the aforesaid ocular as well as medical evidence, it can safely be concluded that it is in fact A-2 Dulari Rathiya who has caused injuries to deceased Sulochana by wooden stick on account of which, she suffered grievous injuries on her head and died.

¶70

21. Now, the question would be whether the case of A-2 Dulari Rathiya would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and her conviction can be altered either to Part-I or Part-II of Section 304 of IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellants?

¶71

22. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of v. Arjun State of Chhattisgarh 1 has elaborately dealt

¶72

with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21 which read as under:-

¶73

“20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348], it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 220, para 7)

¶74

“7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (I) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the

¶75

1 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶76

-14-

¶77

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶78

act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor its I relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”

¶79

21. Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 596, para 9)

¶80

“9. …. '18. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to

¶81

-15-

¶82

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶83

be noted that the “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provisions means “unfair advantage”.

¶84

17. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has

¶85

held that when and if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 Part-I IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II IPC.

¶86

-16-

¶87

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶88

23. Bearing in mind the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid from the statement of PW-3 Ulas Rathiya as well as from the memorandum statement of A-2 Dulari Rathiya that she had developed an impression that there was an illicit relationship between deceased Sulochana and her husband, A-1 Mohan Rathiya, and on the date of incident when she (A-2) had gone to her husband A-1 Mohan Rathiya’s quarter along with her brother, PW-3 Ulas Rathiya, at that time deceased Sulochana came there and slapped her saying that it was not her home and why she had come there and then a fight started between A-2 Dulari Rathiya and deceased Sulochana in which A-2 Dulari Rathiya caused injuries to Sulochana resulting in her death. As per the statement of PW-3 Ulas Rathiya, deceased Sulochana was the aggressor. Thus, it is quite established that there was no premeditation on the part of A-2 Dulari Rathiya to cause death of deceased Sulochana. However, though A-2 Dulari Rathiya had no intention to cause death of deceased Sulochana but she must have had knowledge that the injuries caused by her to deceased Sulochana are likely to

¶89

-17-

¶90

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶91

cause her death. The case of A-2 Dulari Rathiya as such would fall under Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and her conviction under Section 302 of IPC can safely be altered to one under Section 304 (Part II) of IPC. So far as her substantive sentence of Life Imprisonment is concerned, since she has already undergone approximately Seven years of imprisonment as she is in jail since 5.7.2017, ends of justice would meet if her sentence is reduced to the period already undergone. It is accordingly held so.

¶92

:Conviction of A-1 Mohan Rathiya

¶93

24. So far as A-1 Mohan Rathiya is concerned, he has been convicted by the Trial Court for the offence under Section 201 of IPC for disappearance of evidence in respect of murder of deceased Sulochana by keeping her dead-body near the boundary covering it with his loincloth.

¶94

25. In order to judge the correctness of the finding recorded by the Trial Court convicting A-1 Mohan Rathiya for offence under Section 201 of IPC, it would be appropriate to notice Section 201 of IPC which states as under:-

¶95

-18-

¶96

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶97

“201. Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender .— Whoever, knowing or having reason to believe that an offence has been committed, causes any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear, with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment, or with that intention gives any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false;

¶98

if a capital offence .—shall, if the offence which he knows or believes to have been committed is punishable with death, be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to seven years, and shall also be liable to fine;

¶99

if punishable with imprisonment for life .—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for life, or with imprisonment which may extend to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of either description for a term which may extend to three years, and shall also be liable to fine;

¶100

if punishable with less than ten years’ imprisonment .—and if the offence is punishable with imprisonment for any term not extending to ten years, shall be punished with imprisonment of the description provided for the offence, for a term which may extend to one-fourth part of the longest term of the imprisonment provided for the offence, or with fine, or with both. ”

¶101

26. The aforesaid provision relates to disappearance of any

¶102

evidence of the commission of an offence and includes also the giving of false information with the intention

¶103

-19-

¶104

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶105

of screening an offender. Sections 202 and 203 of IPC relate to the giving or omitting to give such information and Section 204 of IPC to the destruction of documentary evidence. The first paragraph lays down the essential ingredients of the offence under Section 201 of IPC. It must be proved firstly that an offence has been committed. Secondly, the accused must know or have reason to believe that the offence has been committed. Thirdly, the accused must either cause any evidence of the commission of that offence to disappear or give any information respecting the offence which he knows or believes to be false. Fourthly, the accused must have acted with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment.

¶106

27. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhram v. State

¶107

of Maharashtra 2 has considered prerequisites for conviction for offence under Section 201 of IPC and held that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused and there must be on record cogent evidence to prove that intention and a mere suspicion is not

¶108

2 (2007) 7 SCC 502

¶109

-20-

¶110

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶111

sufficient to bring home the said offence. It was observed as under:-

¶112

“18 . The first paragraph of the Section contains the postulates for constituting the offence while the remaining three paragraphs prescribe three different tiers of punishments depending upon the degree of offence in each situation. To bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, the ingredients to be established are: (i) committal of an offence; (ii) person charged with the offence under Section 201 must have the knowledge or reason to believe that an offence has been committed; (iii) person charged with the said offence should have caused disappearance of evidence and (iv) the act should have been done with the intention of screening the offender from legal punishment or with that intention he should have given information respecting the offence, which he knew or believed to be false. It is plain that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused. It hardly needs any emphasis that in order to bring home an offence under Section 201 IPC, a mere suspicion is not sufficient. There must be on record cogent evidence to prove that the accused knew or had information sufficient to lead him to believe that the offence had been committed and that the accused has caused the evidence to disappear in order to screen the offender, known or unknown.

¶113

19 . In Palvinder Kaur v. State of Punjab³ this Court had said that in order to establish the charge under Section 201 IPC, it is essential to prove that an offence has been committed; that the accused

¶114

3 AIR 1952 SC 354

¶115

-21-

¶116

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶117

knew or had reason to believe that such offence had been committed; with requisite knowledge and with the intent to screen the offender from legal punishment, caused the evidence thereof to disappear or gave false information respecting such offence knowing or having reason to believe the same to be false. It was observed that the court should safeguard itself against the danger of basing its conclusion on suspicions, however, strong they may be. (Also see Suleman Rehiman Mulani v. State of Maharashtra⁴ , Nathu v. State of U.P.⁵ , V.L. Tresa v. State of Kerala⁶ .) ”

¶118

28. In the matter of Nagendra Nath Bhakta v. Emperor 7 ,

¶119

it has been held by the Calcutta High Court that removing the corpse of a murdered man from the scene of murder to another place does not come under Section 201 of IPC as the removal does not cause the disappearance of some evidence of the commission of the murder.

¶120

29. Reverting to the facts of the present case, it is quite clear the only allegation against A-1 Mohan Rathiya as has been recorded by the Trial Court in paragraphs 18 & 19 of the impugned judgment is that he had removed the dead-body of deceased Sulochana from the place of incident and kept the same near the

¶121

4 AIR 1968 SC 829

¶122

5 (1979) 3 SCC 574

¶123

6 (2001) 3 SCC 549

¶124

7 AIR 1934 Cal 144

¶125

-22-

¶126

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶127

boundary covering it with loincloth. Thus, taking into consideration the finding of the Trial Court as it is and the principle of laid down in the matters of Sukhram (supra) and Nagendra Nath Bhakta (supra), A-1 Mohan Rathiya is entitled to be acquitted of the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt and it is accordingly held so.

¶128

20. Accordingly, in view of the aforesaid discussion of evidence available on record, we conclude that:-

¶129

(1) So far as A-2 Dulari Rathiya is concerned, we set aside her conviction for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the substantive sentence of Life Imprisonment awarded thereunder as well. Instead, we convict her for the offence punishable under Section 304 (Part-II) and sentence her to the period already undergone, maintaining the fine amount with its default sentence as awarded by the Trial Court. She be set at liberty forthwith, if not required in connection with any other offence.

¶130

(2) So far as A-1 Mohan Rathiya is concerned, we also set aside his conviction for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC and acquit him of the said

¶131

-23-

¶132

(Cr. A. No. 939 of 2018)

¶133

charge on the basis of benefit of doubt. He has already undergone his Nine months of imprisonment in custody. He need not surrender and stands set at liberty in connection with the said offence.

¶134

21. In the result, this criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated herein-above.

¶135

30. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the Trial Court and the concerned Superintendent of Jail be also supplied with a certified copy of this judgment, for information and compliance, if any.

¶136

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

¶137

sharad

Mohan Rathiya v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Mohan Rathiya 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

Dr. (Smt) Vibha Dadheech Vs Indira Kala Sangeet Vishvidyalaya Khairagarh

Mitthuram Kadati Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Videshi Bhoi Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Gaurishankar Chouhan @ Bhakud Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Amir Khan @ Gullu @ Gulla Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dipak Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh