Bhojuram @ Bhajju Vs State of Chhattisgarh

The present appeal arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2006 passed by the learned 2^nd Additional Sessions Judge Bastar place Jagdalpur (C.G.), in Sessions Case No.473/2005 whereby the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the

¶16

2

¶17

appellant as under :

¶18

Conviction	Sen	tence
U/s 460 of IPC RI for 5 years i default thereof,	and i 1 year	fine of Rs.5,000/-, in additional RI.

¶19

In compliance of order of this Court dated 14.02.2025, the Appellant is present before this Court today. His presence be marked.

¶20

According to the prosecution case, Santuram, brother of appellant Bhojuram alias Bhajju, who is said to be the main accused in the incident, could not be prosecuted as he died by hanging himself on 10/04/2004 before the charge sheet was filed.

¶21

As per the prosecution story, the incident took place during the intervening night of 26-27/10/97 when the deceased, Radma Bai, was sleeping inside her house. An unknown person entered the house by breaking the roof tiles and bricks and strangled Radma Bai with a cloth, causing her death by asphyxiation. Upon receiving the report from the complainant, Laxmidhar, at Kondagaon police station, marg was registered. A site map of the crime scene was prepared, and the post-mortem of the dead body was conducted by a doctor at PHC, Kondagaon. During the investigation, the accused remained unidentified. Consequently, after failing to trace any suspect, the case was closed on 04/04/2098. However, on 30/10/2005, the Sarpanch of village Mulmula namely Dileshwar, along with 12 other villagers, submitted a written complaint with their collective signatures at Kondagaon police station alleging that the deceased was murdered by Bhoju alias Bhajju Devangan, son of Chamra Ram Devangan, along with his younger brother Santuram Devangan and after committing the murder, they looted

¶22

3

¶23

jewelry of deceased Radma Bai and fled from the scene. Following this complaint, a fresh investigation was initiated after obtaining permission from the Sub-Divisional Police Officer (SDPO). During the investigation, the appellant’s confessional statement and the testimonies of villagers provided sufficient evidence to establish his involvement in the crime. Co-accused, Santuram Devangan, committed suicide on 10/10/2004 by hanging. Subsequently, accused Bhajju alias Bhojram was arrested on 31/10/2005. After completing the entire investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant.

¶24

So as to hold the Appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 5 witnesses and exhibited 8 documents. The statement of the Appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication.

¶25

After hearing the parties, vide impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2006, the learned Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellant for the offence as mentioned in para-1 of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal.

¶26

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been wrongly convicted by the Trial Court. She further submits that only on the basis of confession statement recorded in Panchayatnama dated 31.10.2005 i.e. after 8 years of the incident, the Appellant has been convicted. The confession recorded by the investigating Police Officer of the case is not admissible in evidence under Section-25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the conviction of the appellant is not based on valid evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment may be set

¶27

4

¶28

aside and the Appellant may be acquitted.

¶29

Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment, opposed the arguments advanced on behalf of the Appellant.

¶30

Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment.

¶31

The basis of conviction of the appellant Bhojuram alias Bhajju under Section 460 of the Indian Penal Code is the statement in the Panchayatnama vide Exhibit P-1. The incident is said to have taken place on 27/10/1997. This statement has been written in the Panchayatnama dated 31/10/2005 i.e. about 8 years after the incident, in which the confession of the appellant is mentioned. But as per that confession, nothing has been recovered from the appellant. In that confession, the appellant has stated that his brother Santuram killed his grandmother Radama Bai and that he got Rs. 8,000 by selling the jewellery found on her body. The witnesses of this statement in the Panchayatnama are Sarpanch Dileshwar (PW-1), Budhram Devangan (PW-2), Hiralal (PW-3). Out of which Budhram (PW-2) has not admitted the fact that the appellant had made any confession before him.

¶32

Sarpanch Dileshwar (PW-1) has stated that the appellant had only told that his brother Santuram had killed Radma Bai and had sold her jewellery and spent the money, meaning thereby, Dileshwar has not stated that the appellant Bhojuram alias Bhajju has made any confession against him.

¶33

Hiralal (PW-3) has certainly stated that the appellant had told that his brother Santuram had killed Radama Bai and snatched her jewellery and sold it and spent the money. When the witness was declared hostile and asked

¶34

5

¶35

suggestive questions, he stated that the appellant had told that Radama Bai was killed by him. But the notable fact is that the statement of said Panchayatnama (Exhibit P-1) cannot be considered as an extra-judicial confession because the said Panchayatnama was written by the police officer himself and the investigating officer of the case, SubInspector Arshiwad Rahatgaonkar (PW-5). The confession made before the police is not admissible in evidence under Section-25/26 of the Indian Evidence Act. The said statement of Panchayatnama cannot be kept in the category of extra-judicial confession and the said evidence which has been said to be the basis of conviction is not admissible in evidence. In such a situation, it is not proved from the entire prosecution evidence presented that the appellant Bhojram alias Bhajju had entered the house of Radama Bai at night with the intention of causing death or grievous hurt and had committed house trespass. Therefore, his conviction under section 460 of the Indian Penal Code is not found to be upheld.

¶36

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment is set aside and the appellant is acquitted.

¶37

14.It is reported that the Appellant is on bail. He need not to surrender in this case. His bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provisions contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.

¶38

Let a certif i ed copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary action, if any.

¶39

Sd/(Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE

¶40

Shubham

Bhojuram @ Bhajju v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Bhojuram @ Bhajju v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ajay Prasad Soni Vs State of Cg

Ghasiya Ram Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagauram Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Parmanand Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Naresh Kumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ganesh Das Manikpuri Vs State of Chhattisgarh