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

2004 Supreme(Chh) 130

2004 (2) C.G.L.J. 105
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
A.S.V. Moorthy, L.C. Bhadoo, J.
Puran
vs
State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh)
Criminal Appeal No. 1405 of 1996
Decided On: 8/7/2004

Circumstantial evidence must be cogent, consistent, and complete to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Headnote:

Criminal Procedure - Murder - Code of Criminal Procedure - Section 374(2)

Fact of the Case:

The accused was convicted of murdering his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was not sufficient to establish the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Issues: The main issue was the sufficiency of the circumstantial evidence to prove the accused's guilt.

Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be cogent, consistent, and complete to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and sentence, acquitting the accused of the charge of murder.

JUDGMENT

L.C. Bhadoo, J.

1. The accused/appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, being aggrieved by the judgment dated 16th August, 1996, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No. 160/1994, whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC for committing the murder of his own wife namely, Radhika Bai, sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and further to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Briefly stated, the prosecution case is that in the intervening night of 1st & 2nd February, 1994, at about 11.30 p.m. the accused/appellant along with his father Mehtaroo and Rama Nai went to the house of Kumar, brother in law of the accused/appellant, knocked his door, when he came out of the house, accused/appellant Puran informed him that his wife Radhika Bai (since deceased) was having illicit relations with one person, to day he saw her with that person in a compromising position, but, that person ran away from his house, then he picked up a wooden handle of pickaxe and assaulted Radhika Bai on her head 5-6 times with that wooden handle. On receiving this information, Kumar along with the appellant, father of the appellant Mehtaroo and Rama Nai went to the police out post Bhakhara and lodged the report vide Ex. P-l. Police came on the spot and sent Radhika Bai, for treatment to Dhamtari, where Dr. O.S. Bajpayee after giving her first aid treatment, looking to her serious condition, vide note Ex. P-14 referred her for further treatment to Medical College, Raipur. But, on the way Radhika Bai succumbed to the injuries sustained by her. Intimation to the effect was given to the Police Station, Dhamtari. The police entered merg intimation (Ex. P-ll) and in turn Police Station, Dhamtari, informed the concerned Police Station, Kurud where on the basis of Ex. P-ll the case was registered. The Investigating Officer after reaching on the spot prepared the Panchanama of the dead body of Radhika Bai vide Ex. P-9. Dr. Ramesh Kumar Tripathi conducted the post-mortem on the body of Radhika Bai and prepared the report (Ex. P-10). The Investigating Officer took into possession the shirt of accused Puran under recovery memo (Ex. P-2). Under recovery memo (Ex. P-3), he took into his possession the sari of deceased Radhika Bai from the house of the accused. Under Ex. P-4, the Investigating Officer took into possession the plain soil as well as the blood- stained soil from the place of occurrence. He also took into possession one Lungi one shirt in torn condition, one petty coat, and one blouse of the deceased vide Ex. P-5. Under Ex. P-6, the weapon of offence, i.e., wooden handle of the pickaxe was also taken into possession from the house of the accused. The recovered articles were sent for examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory from where the bloodstained articles were sent for examination to the Serologist and after examination they sent reports (Ex. P-19 & Ex. P-21). The Patwari prepared the site plan (Ex. P-15) and the Investigating Officer prepared the site plan (Ex. P-16).

3. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused/appellant in the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Dhamtari, who in turn committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Raipur, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, received the case on transfer.

4. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments on charge found that prima facie offence was made out against the accused/appellant for commission of offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Therefore, he framed the charge, read over and explained the same to the accused, which he denied and claimed for trial. ,

5. The prosecution in order to prove the offence against the accused/appellant examined as many as 12 witnesses. On the oth

























Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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