MADHYA PRADESH HIGH COURT
Sujoy Paul and Prakash Chandra Gupta, JJ.
Manish – Appellant
versus
State of Madhya Pradesh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.2912 of 2011
Decided on 9.11.2022
(A) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 27 – Disclosure statement – As per Section 27, a person must be accused of any offence and in addition, he must be in custody of police officer – It is not at all essential that such accused must be under formal arrest. (Para 23)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 134 – Number of witnesses – Statement of single eye witness can form basis for conviction – Such single eyewitness must be of sterling quality – If eyebrows can be raised on such statement, it is not safe to record or confirm conviction based thereupon. (Para 18)
(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder – Life sentence – Place of arrest of appellant is highly doubtful – Recovery and origin of human blood could not be established by prosecution with Forensic clarity – Conviction of appellant cannot be given a stamp of approval based on defective recovery in instant case – Prosecution could not establish its case beyond reasonable doubt – Statement of eye-witness statement is not of sterling quality and is not sufficient to record conviction solely based on it – Impugned Judgment set aside. (Paras 18, 24, 26, 28 and 29)
Result: Criminal Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT
Sujoy Paul, J.—This Criminal appeal filed under Section 374 (2) of Code of Criminal Procedure takes exception to the judgment dated 07.12.2011 passed in Sessions case No.347 of 2010 decided by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Amarwada, District Chhindwara, whereby appellant was held guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC and directed to undergo sentence of life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.
2. In short, the case of prosecution is that the complainant Kavita Bai (PW-1) lodged a report on 14.10.2010 that she, her mother Sukko Bai and younger sister Prita were working on their agricultural field. The elder sister Lalita was at home. After performing the agricultural work and after taking the material arising therefrom, she reached to her house. When the bundle of chaff placed in the Courtyard, Kavita Bai (PW-1) found that her brother-in-law Manish Verma (appellant) came out of the house and fled away towards Rajgurupipariya. Appellant was wearing white shirt and pant, while coming out of the house his sunglasses fell down in the courtyard. Kavita Bai (PW-1) with the aid of a lamp entered the ‘manjhota’ where her elder sister was lying and there was an injury on the right side of her head and she was bleeding profusely. ‘Vasoola’ and ‘Hansiya’ were found near her body. Kavita Bai (PW-1) called her mother and they found that Lalita is no more.
3. Dehati Nalishi (Exhibit P-2) was promptly recorded at 18:40 O’clock whereas incident was shown to be of 17:30 O’clock whereas Dehati Marg intimation was recorded 10 minutes thereafter on 14.10.2010 at 18:50 o’clock. On the basis of this prosecution story narrated in the Dehati Nalishi, the FIR was registered on 14.10.2010 at 22:10 hours (Exhibit P/12). In turn, the investigation commenced and appellant was arrested on 22.10.2010 at 01:00 O’clock in the noon.
4. As per the story, on 22.10.2010 at 12:15, O’clock blood stained ‘gamchha’ was allegedly recovered from the appellant. In due course, the matter travelled to the trial Court. The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for conducting full fledged trial.
5. The trial Court framed a questions for its determination, recorded evidence of the parties and after hearing the parties came to hold that prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court below placed reliance on the statement of Kavita Bai (PW/1) and the recovery of ‘gamchha’ from the appellant. The sentence as mentioned above is directed to be undergone by the appellant.
Submissions of appellant’s counsel:—
6. Shri J.K. Dehariya learned counsel for the appellant submits that ‘Hansiya’ and ‘Vasoola’ allegedly used in commission of crime and found near the dead body were neither seized nor produced in the Court. Hence, Forensic Science laboratory report (abbreviated as: ‘FSL’) is silent about availability of blood stains etc, on the ‘Hansiya’ and ‘Vasoola’.
7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is mainly convicted on the basis of statement of Kavita (PW-1), recovery of sunglasses of appellant and recovery of blood stained ‘gamchha’. The statement of Gali (PW-3), brother of deceased is relied upon who deposed that he is unable to state with clarity whether sunglasses belong to his brother-in-law/appellant. It is further argued that other witnesses who allegedly seen the appellant coming to the house were not examined.
8. The statement of Kavita (PW-1) does not inspire confidence because as per her statement her sister Lalita was already sitting in the courtyard when she came back from agricultural field to her own house. As per her statement, appellant was arrested from Sagar. In Para-6 of her deposition, she stated that when she kept the bundle of chaff in the courtyard, she found that appellant came out of the house and started running towards his house at Rajgurupipariya. She further deposed that while returning from agricultural farm with mother and sister, she f
Takdir Samsuddin Sheikh vs. State of Gujarat
Vikram Singh vs. State of Punjab
State of A.P. vs. Gangula Satya Murthy
Mohd. Arif vs. State (NCT of Delhi)
Statement of single eye witness can form basis for conviction – Such single eyewitness must be of sterling quality.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that a conviction based on single eyewitness testimony and recovered evidence must be of sterling quality and free from doubts. Forensic evidenc....
Statements recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. are not substantive evidence and cannot be used as a basis for conviction. Mere matching of blood groups is not sufficient to establish culpability, espe....
The recovery of the weapon used is not a sine qua non to convict the accused when there is direct evidence in the form of eye witnesses.
A conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence requires that all links in the evidence chain conclusively point to the accused's guilt without reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt if it forms a complete chain pointing to the accused, even without direct evidence.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.