Back
2011 Supreme(Chh) 348
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
T.P. SHARMA & R.N. CHANDRAKAR, JJ.
GAURI SHANKAR GIRI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. - Respondent
RAM KRISHNA CHOUDHARY - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. - Respondent
THULURAM SARTHI - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF CG. - Respondent
BHARAT JAISWAL (DANSENA) - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF C.G. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1087 of 2007 and 92, 333 of 2008 and 116 of 2009
Decided on : 30-11-2011.
Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate, for the Appellants in Cr.A. Nos. 1087/2007 and 333/2008.
Mr. Prafull Bharat, Advocate, for the Appellant in Cr.A. No. 92/2008.
Mr. Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate, for the Appellant in Cr.A. No. 116/2009.
Mr. I.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyer, for the State/respondent.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for a legal confession and the need for corroboration of evidence, especially in cases relying on the last seen theory.
Headnote:
Confession - Murder - IPC Sections 147, 148, 302, 149, 201 & 120B - The judgment discusses the admissibility of the confession of the accused, the last seen theory, and the credibility of witnesses. The court emphasizes the legal principles related to confessions and the requirement for corroboration of evidence. The decision highlights the lack of substantial evidence and the illegality in the conviction and sentences of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The appellants were convicted for forming an unlawful assembly, committing murder, and concealing evidence. The prosecution's case was based on last seen theory and the confession of one of the accused. The defense argued the lack of substantial evidence and the illegality of the conviction.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the confession of the accused was exculpatory and not admissible as a legal confession. The last seen theory was the main evidence, but the witnesses' credibility was questioned due to delay and inconsistency in their statements. The court concluded that there was no substantial evidence to connect the appellants with the crime.
Issues: The issues revolved around the admissibility of the confession, the credibility of the last seen theory, and the sufficiency of evidence to establish guilt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the legal principles related to confessions, the requirement for corroboration of evidence, and the credibility of witnesses. It concluded that in the absence of substantial evidence, the conviction and sentences of the appellants were not sustainable under the law.
Final Decision: The appeals filed by the appellants were allowed, and their convictions and sentences under the relevant sections of the IPC were set aside. The appellants were acquitted of the charges and ordered to be released from jail.
As per Hon'ble Shri T.P. Sharma, J. :-
1. Cr.A.Nos.l087/2007, 92/2008, 333/2008 and 116/2009 filed against common judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 29-9-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, in Sessions Trial No.93/2006 are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. By filing Cr.A.No.1087/2007 appellant Gauri Shankar Giri, Cr.A. No.92/2008 appellant Ram Krishna Choudhary, Cr.A.No.333/2008 appellant Thuluram Sarthi and Cr.A.No.116/2009 appellant Bharat Jaiswal (Dansena) have challenged legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 29-9-2007 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, in Sessions Trial No.93/2006, whereby and whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants/seven accused persons of the case guilty for formation of unlawful assembly armed with deadly weapons having common object to commit murder of Basant Kumar, to conceal the evidence of criminal case and to commit conspiracy, convicted the appellants under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, 201 & 120B of the IPC and sentenced each of them to undergo RI for two years; RI for two years; imprisonment for life & pay fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default additional RI for one year; RI for five years & pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default additional RI for one year; and RI for ten years & pay fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default additional RI for one year, respectively.
3. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality.
4. As per case of the prosecution, in the intervening night of 24th & 25th February, 2006, the appellants formed unlawful assembly, they were holding deadly weapons and were present at Katen Ghutkuri forest near Bahera tree along with basant Kumar (since deceased). They committed murder of Basant Kumar and burnt the dead body, thereafter, they fled from the spot. When Basant Kumar did not return back to his house on 25-2-2006, villagers and relatives of Basant Kumar made search of Basant Kumar. Dead body of Basant Kumar was found at forest in semi-burnt condition with injuries. Lambodar (PW-l) went to Police Station Baramkela and lodged FIR against unknown person vide. Ex.P-1. Morgue was recorded vide Ex.P-8. Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex. P-6, prepared inquest over the dead body of Basant Kumar vide Ex.P-7. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2. Bloodstained & plain soil,-one flat & round shaped stone of 7 Kgs. stained with blood, one flat & square shaped stone of 5 Kgs. stained with blood, one piece of stone of 3 Kgs. stained with biood, ash found over the body of ½ Kg. and one woolen piece were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-3. Soil below the dead body was taken out and seized vide Exs.P-4 & P-5. Another map was prepared vide Ex.P-14.
5. Dead body of Basant Kumar was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Baramkela. Dr. J. Choudhary (PW-10) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-32 and found following symptoms/injuries:-
(1) Bleeding from ear and nose.
(2) Swelling over left part of head in the size of 27 cm. x 20 cm.
(3) Swelling of 20 cm. x 15 cm. over right side of head.
(4) Parietal, temporal and frontal bones were found fractured.
(5) Brain was crushed.
(6) Right thigh and abdomen were burnt.
(7) Burn injuries were post-mortem in nature.
Mode of death was shock and death was homicidal in nature.
6. During course of investigation, one of the accused persons namely Bodhram was taken into custody, he shown his willingness to give confession, he was produced before the Magistrate on 17-3-2006, he was directed to be produced on 20-3-2006 and on 20-3-2006 after explaining the fact that he is not under obligation to give confession and the confession given by him may be used against him, despite he was ready to give his confession statement, it was recorded on 20-3-2006 v
