The conviction under Section 302 IPC was overturned due to insufficient circumstantial evidence and unreliable witness testimony, emphasizing the defendant's entitlement to the benefit of doubt.

JUDGMENT :

PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA, J.

1. Leave granted.

2. The instant Appeal takes exception to the judgment dated 19.07.2017 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 677 of 2012, whereby the judgment and order dated 28.07.2012 passed by the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon in Sessions Case No. 27 of 2011 was affirmed. The Trial Court had convicted the sole appellant, Gautam Satnami @ Gautam Deshlahre, who was accused No. 1, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860¹ [For short “IPC”] and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 5,000 and in case of default in payment of fine to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.

FACTUAL MATRIX

3. The deceased, Dhumman @ Surjeet Bhattacharya, resided alone in his house in village Dhourabhata and was engaged in the business of selling lentils on his motorbike (Luna). His fufa - Ghasi Ram (PW-16), was residing next to his house. The deceased was married for 4-5 times, including to one Dharmin Bai (PW-2), who had returned to her maternal home a few years before the incident due to disputes with the deceased.

4. In the evening of 13.01.2011, the deceased was consuming liquor in his house with Girish Satnami (PW-12) and Tejprakash Satnami. At about 7:00 p.m. Dhanraj (PW-3) overheard noises from the deceased’s house, and on stopping by, saw the appellant and Dwarika Jangde (accused No. 2 since acquitted) present over there. The appellant had a liquor bottle in his hand and was abusing the deceased, saying that because of him, the appellant had gone to jail, and that one day he would kill him. It is said that two years before the incident, the appellant and the deceased had fought with another villager, Tikam Sahu, and the deceased had secured bail for him while the appellant had to go to jail because he was absconding. This spawned an ongoing animosity in their friendship.

5. It is further the case of the prosecution that on the next day i.e.. 14.01.2011, the accused went to the deceased’s house at night and when the deceased opened the door, the accused, armed with axes, inflicted multiple incised injuries on him, resulting in instantaneous death on account of shock due to excessive haemorrhage. After committing the murder, the accused persons fled from the spot. One Raja Ram Deshlahare (PW-4), riding pillion, along with Maniram Sahu allegedly saw the appellant with an axe near the deceased’s house in the headlight of the motorcycle and he found the lights of the house were also turned on.

6. The deceased’s body was discovered the next day. One Hiraman (PW-1) saw next morning that the door of the deceased’s house ajar, blood on both the door and the floor, and the deceased’s corpse partially covered with a bedsheet. He suspected the appellant for the murder as the appellant had a criminal antecedent and was having enmity with the deceased for some time. Hiraman (PW-1) went and informed Ghasi Ram, and they visited the spot. Other villagers were also informed, after which merg intimation was lodged by the brother-in-law of the deceased namely, Komal Das (PW-8), against unknown persons. Thereafter, the dehati nalishi was registered on the same day around 2:00 p.m. wherein Komal Das stated that he saw half-open door of the deceased’s house, blood stains and hair on the door, and clothes and other articles scattered near the divan bed, as well as th