Back
2014 Supreme(Chh) 38
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sunil Kumar Sinha and Inder Singh Uboweja, JJ.
Ramanand Pandey - Appellants
Vs.
State of C.G. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 678 of 2001
Decided On: 04.02.2014
For Appellant/Petitioner/Plaintiff:Surendra Singh, Sr. Advocate and N.K. Mehta, Advocate
For Respondents/Defendant: Pushpa Dwivedi, Panel Lawyer
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302 and 34 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 293 – Evidence Act – Section 27 – Deceased – Alleged – Deceased-Naresh Pandey was a Mechanic in Railways – Appellant was also a worker in Railways Appellant wife of deceased – Deceased-Naresh Pandey and appellant alias Guddi were residing together in Railway Quarter situated in Railway Colony, Pendra Road, Bilaspur. Appellant - being friend of deceased, was also residing with them in their Railway Quarter since last 21 days, as he had vacated his rented premises on account of request of his landlord-Gunnu dead body of the deceased near old Cabin. Merg Intimation was lodged by him. Panchanama was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem – Postmortem examination was conducted by found 3 abrasions on different parts of dead body of deceased was also a contusion of occipital region – Besides above injuries, there was a transverse ligature neck – Held, Supreme Court in Sampath Krishnagiri that presence of strong motive by itself would not be enough to support a conviction especially in a case where sentence can be capital punishment – Reference was made to case of State represented by Inspector of Police – Reference was also made to decision of Sunil which it was held that event motive alone can hardly be a ground for conviction materials on record there may be some suspicion against accused but as is often said suspicion strong cannot take place of proof case based on circumstantial evidence basic principles are that circumstances set-forth by prosecution should be folly established so established should be of conclusive nature and tendency and none of circumstances should be capable of being explained and chain of circumstantial evidence also must be complete – Case circumstances set-forth by prosecution were not fully established they were not of conclusive nature and tendency almost all circumstances were capable of being explained and chain of circumstantial evidence was also not complete – Appeal is allowed.
Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 28th of July, 2001, passed in Sessions Trial No. 364/1999 by the 4th Additional Sessions Judge, Link Court, Pendra Road, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, appellant No. 1-Ramanand Pandey (A-1) has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and appellant No. 2-Smt. Asha Devi alias Guddi (A-2) has been convicted under Sections 302/34 IPC and both have been sentenced to undergo R.I. for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- with default sentences of R.I. for 6 months. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:--
1.1. Deceased-Naresh Pandey was a Mechanic in Railways. Appellant - Ramanand (A-1) was also a worker in Railways. Appellant - Smt. Asha Devi alias Guddi (A-2) is wife of the deceased. Deceased-Naresh Pandey and appellant-Smt. Asha Devi alias Guddi (A-2) were residing together in Railway Quarter No. 36/1, situated in Railway Colony, Pendra Road, Bilaspur. Appellant - Ramanand (A-1), being friend of the deceased, was also residing with them in their Railway Quarter since last 21 days, as he had vacated his rented premises on account of request of his landlord-Gunnu Nayak (PW-8).
1.2. On 1st August, 1999 at about 6.00 am, Brijchand (PW-9), who was a Chabidar (Key-man) of the Railways, saw the dead body of the deceased near the old Cabin. Merg Intimation (Ex. P/2) was lodged by him. Panchanama (Ex. P/20) was prepared and the dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. R.C. Mishra (PW-21). He found 3 abrasions on different parts of the dead body of the deceased. There was also a contusion of 6 x 4 cm on the occipital region. Besides the above injuries, there was a transverse ligature mark of 28 x 0.5 cm on the neck. It was brownish in colour. The ligature mark had gone towards the back of the neck, but it was not on that portion. On internal examination, it was found that clotted blood was present beneath the injury on the occipital region. According to the Autopsy Surgeon, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and it was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex. P/23.
1.3. On 03.08.1999, appellant - Ramanand (A-1) was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex. P/6) was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and 1 empty bottle of liquor and a piece of electric wire were seized from the bushes near the old Cabin vide seizure memo Ex. P/7.
1.4. On 10.08.1999, Ramesh Pandey (PW-7), brother of the deceased, found a letter (Ex. P/11) in the Almirah of appellant-Smt. Asha Devi alias Guddi (A-2). According to him, it was a letter written by Smt. Asha Devi alias Guddi to her parents, in which, it was mentioned that she was fed-up with the conduct of the deceased (her husband) and she would get him killed. This letter was produced before the Police by Ramesh Pandey (PW-7) on 09.09.1999 and was seized vide seizure memo Ex. P/8. The letter was sent for Expert examination and a report of Handwriting Expert (Ex. P/37) was received. The handwriting of the letter (Ex. P/11) was matching with the specimen handwriting of appellant-Smt. Asha Devi alias Guddi (A-2). Though the Expert report was filed by the prosecution, but the Handwriting Expert was not called to prove the said report.
1.5. In further investigation, case-diary statements of Ramnath (PW-2) and Abdul Rasid (PW-25) were recorded. They stated that the deceased was lastly seen in the company of appellant-Ramanand (A-1) at about 10.30 pm on 31st July, 1999. Evidence of other witnesses were also recorded, who stated that appellant-Smt. Asha Devi alias Guddi (A-2) had developed illicit relations with appellant - Ramanand (A-1). According to them, these 2 appellants were seen together at many places.
1.6. The prosecution came with the case that since appellant - Smt. Asha Devi alias Guddi (A-2) had developed illicit relations with appellant - Ramanand (A-1), the deceased was murdered by Ramanand (A-1) by strangulating him in the night on 31.0
