Back
2011 Supreme(Chh) 264
2012(1) C.G.L.J. 126 (DB)
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma & Hon'ble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ.
CHAMAR SINGH & OTHERS Appellants
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 188 of 2001,
Decided on 10-8-2011.
Mr. Abhijit Sarkar, Advocate, for the Appellants.
Mr. Neeraj Mehta, Panel Lawyer, for the Respondent /State.
The central legal point established in the judgment is that delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses is not fatal to the prosecution if properly explained, but lack of explanation for the delay can lead to the conclusion that the evidence is not reliable.
Headnote:
Eyewitness - Criminal Law - Indian Penal Code - Section 302, Section 34
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the conviction of the appellants for culpable homicide amounting to murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution's case was based on eyewitness accounts and evidence of fatal injuries found on the deceased's body.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction and sentence of the appellants were not based on credible and reliable evidence. It emphasized the lack of explanation for the considerable delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses, leading to the conclusion that the evidence was not sufficient to rely upon.
Issues: The main issue was the reliability of the eyewitness accounts and the evidence presented by the prosecution, particularly regarding the delay in recording the statements of the eyewitnesses.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that delay in recording the statements of eyewitnesses is not fatal to the prosecution if properly explained. However, in this case, the lack of explanation for the delay led to the conclusion that the evidence was not reliable.
Final Decision: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code were set aside. The appellants were not required to surrender before the court.
As per HOD 'ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J. :-
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 8.1.2001 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Korba, in Sessions Trial No.50/2000, whereby & where under learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Amar Singh in sharing common intention convicted them under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for six months.
2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without there being any' iota of evidence, the trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.
3. As per case of the prosecution, on 8.10.1999 at about 8 a.m. Amar Singh went along with appellant Teejram to village Choribhata and consumed liquor, thereafter they went towards hill where the appellants assaulted Amar Singh by stick and fists and caused his death. Thereafter, they have thrown dead body in ditch full of water. Dead body of the deceased was found floating in ditch (dabra). Mehatar (PW-2) went to Police Station and lodged merg vide Ex.P/1. Investigating officer proceeded for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P/15 prepared inquest over dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P/9. Dead body was sent for autopsy to Primary Health Centre, Kartala vide Ex.P/16, where Dr.B.S.Narbadiya (PW-7) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P/5 and found following injuries :
(i) Bruise over right knee of 2.5" x 8"
(ii) Bruise over thumb of right leg of 314" x W'.
(iii) Five abrasions over right thigh of 12" x W', W' x 1/12", 3" x
12", W' x 1/12" x 12" x 1/12".
(iv) Lacerated wound over yd, 4th and 6th vertebra column of the back.
4. Cause of death was syncope. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer vide Exs.P/3 and P/7. On 15.11.1999 F.I.R. was recorded against unknown persons vide Ex.P/14. Panchnama was prepared by investigating officer vide Ex.PI2. During the course of investigation appellant Chamar Singh made disclosure statement of stick vide Ex.P/I0 on 17.11.1999 and same has been recovered at his instance vide Ex.PIl2. Appellant Ramayan Singh also made: disclosure statement of stick vide Ex.Plll and same has been recovered at his instance vide Ex.PIl3. Viscera and clothes of the deceased were seized vide EX.P/17. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination.
5. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Korba, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur, from where learned Additional Sessions Judge, Korba received the case on transfer for trial.
6. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as twenty one witnesses. The accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them and claimed innocence and false implication in crime in question.
7. After providing an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record of the trial Court.
9. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that conviction is based on the evidence of alleged eyewitnesses Milapsingh (PW -1), Dhasiya (PW -8) and Pratap Singh (PW -12) whose statements under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded on 2.12.1999 after more than one month and twenty six days of the incident. They have not offered any explanation about delay in recording such statements or informing the police. Investigating officer has also not offered any explanation about such delay. Statements of alleged eyewitnesses rec
