SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2011 Supreme(SC) 924

2011 (6) Supreme 349
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
P. Sathasivam & Dr. B.S. Chauhan, JJ.
Shivlal & Anr. — Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 610 of 2007
Decided on : 19-9-2011

IMPORTANT POINT
Omission to send copy of FIR to the concerned Magistrate required under Section 157(1) Cr. P.C. would cast shadow on the prosecution case. (Para 10)

Headnote:(a) Indian Penal Code 1860, Sections 302, 147, 148 and 149 ¯ Prosecution of the two accused appellants and thirteen other accused persons for attacking the deceased as a result of which deceased died on the spot ¯ Trial Court acquitted nine accused persons of all the charges giving them benefit of doubt and sentenced the remaining six accused persons including the two appellants, sentencing them to two years RI and fine of Rs. 200/- each for offence under Section 148 IPC, appellant no. 1 under Section 302 IPC and appellant no. 2 under Section 302 read with Section 149 to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 500/- each ¯ The six convicted accused preferred appeal before the High Court wherein the High Court acquitted four persons, however upheld the conviction of two accused appellants, hence this appeal ¯ Omission to send copy of FIR to Magistrate under Section 157 Cr. P.C. ¯ Material contradictions/improvements in the statement of prosecution witnesses ¯ Serious doubt about the recovery of weapons of offence ¯ No report of chemical examiner that the recovered weapons contained stains of human blood ¯ Appellants entitled to benefit of doubt ¯ Appeal allowed ¯ Appellants acquitted, their sentence set aside. (Paras 5, 7, 9, 10 and 12)

        (b) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, Section 157 (1) ¯ Omission to send copy of FIR to the concerned Magistrate required under Section 157(1) Cr. P.C. would cast shadow on the prosecution case. (Para 10)

       Facts of the case :

        The two accused appellants alongwith 13 other accused persons armed with deadly weapons, with a common object of murdering the deceased attacked him on 12.10.1997 at about afternoon near the village when the deceased was proceeding towards a tank for taking bath along with his wife (PW.9) and his grandson, as a result of which he sustained numerous injuries and died on the spot.

       Findings :

        Accused appellants held entitled to benefit of doubt and acquitted ¯ Appeal allowed.

       

JUDGMENT

Dr. B.S. Chauhan, J. —

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 25.8.2006 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.973 of 2000, wherein the High Court has confirmed the conviction and sentence, so far as the present appellants are concerned, awarded by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, Durg dated 31.3.2000 in Sessions Trial No.147 of 1999 by which the appellants stood convicted under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter called “IPC”) and sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and pay a fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for one month. Sukhsagar, appellant no.2 stood convicted under Section 302 IPC and Shivlal, appellant no.1 stood convicted under Section 302 read with Section 149 IPC and both were sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for two months. All the sentences had been directed to run concurrently.

2. Facts and circumstances giving rise to this appeal are:

A. According to the prosecution, the appellants along with 13 other accused persons armed with deadly weapons, with a common object of murdering Shankar Satnami attacked him on 12.10.1997 at about afternoon near the house of Tijwa Sahu when Shankar Satnami, deceased, was proceeding towards a tank for taking bath along with his wife Sukhbai (PW.9) and his grandson Anil, as a result of which he sustained numerous injuries and died on the spot.

B. The incident had occurred in the outskirts of the village. Sukhbai (PW.9) came back to the village and when she informed Beer Singh (PW.1) about the incident, he told her that he himself witnessed the incident and came back to the village after the incident was over. Ramkhilawan (PW.7) went to the Police Station at a very far distance and gave oral information about the incident to the police. Instead of lodging a formal FIR on the basis of oral information by Ramkhilawan (PW.7), the police only registered a complaint (Dehati Nalish). Mr. J.S. Dhurve, I.O. (PW.12) proceeded for the village Dara. After reaching the place of occurrence, he met Beer Singh (PW.1) who narrated the incident to him. It was on the basis of this information Case Crime No. 236/97 was mentioned in the aforesaid complaint (Dehati Nalish) mentioning offences under Sections 147, 148, 149 and 302 IPC.

C. After reaching the place of occurrence, the I.O., Mr. J.S. Dhurve (PW.12) performed the inquest over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-6 in the presence of the witnesses and sent the body for autopsy to Govt. Hospital, Bemetara, where Dr. K.L. Dhruv (PW.14), conducted the post mortem and submitted the report Ex.P-15. Mr. J.S. Dhurve, S.I. (PW.12), prepared the Site plan Ex.P-6 and another Site plan Ex.P.13-A was prepared by the Halka Patwari, Tuganram Sahu. The accused were apprehended and at their disclosure statements, blood stained weapons were recovered. Plain soil and blood stained soil was taken into possession from the place of incident. Blood stained underwear, Lungi and pair of slippers and a knife were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-29.

D. The weapons used for commission of the offence seized from the accused persons were sent for examination, first to the Doctor who opined that the injuries to the deceased could be caused by the recovered weapons. The said weapons were subsequently sent for chemical examination along with plain and blood stained soils. The Forensic Science Laboratory vide its report Ex.P-9 confirmed the presence of blood over all those articles.

E. After completing investigation, chargesheet was filed against fifteen accused persons in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bemetara, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions Judge, Durg. The Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 IPC against all the accused persons who abjured their guilt.

F. The prosecution in order























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top