Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Pritinker Diwaker, Ram Prasanna Sharma, JJ.
Bariklal Kurre, S/o Kejauram – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Pipariya – Respondent
CRA No. 151 of 2010
Decided On : 19-09-2017
Constitution of India,1950 - Articles-A, B, D & E - Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302 & 201 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 - Evidence Act - Section 27 - Offence of murder – Examination of accused - Appeal against convicting - Deceased was the daughter of accused/appellant from his deserted first wife and she was residing with her father - Accused/appellant had performed second marriage with one from whom he had three sons. Initially deceased used to reside with her mother and later on accused/appellant took her along with him by saying he will take care of her - Case of prosecution as appellant does not want to give share in his property to deceased night intervening 29th & 30th accused/appellant had administered poison - Inquest on body of deceased was conducted Body was sent for post-mortem examination was conducted opinion of autopsy surgeon – Held, There is no evidence connecting the appellant with the crime or at least for drawing an inference he administered poison or whether he purchased the poison & sweet from any shop or that he mixed the poison with sweet and then administered to his daughter. In other words the main link in the chain of circumstances is completely broken and there is no connecting evidence whatsoever worth mentioning incriminating the appellant with the crime in question - Appeal is allowed
The provided legal document pertains to an appeal against a conviction for murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The court examined whether the prosecution had established the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence.
The court identified four key circumstances necessary to prove murder by administering poison:
In this case, the court found that the prosecution failed to establish the first two circumstances convincingly. Specifically, there was no concrete evidence of a motive, as the victim did not demand a share in the property, and the accused did not refuse to give her her due share. Additionally, the evidence regarding possession of the poison was weak; witnesses who testified about the purchase of poison and sweets did not support the prosecution and turned hostile, and the evidence of recovery was deemed inadmissible because the items were openly accessible and not concealed.
Furthermore, the court noted that although the deceased's death was confirmed to be due to poison, and the accused was present with her at the time, these facts alone do not establish guilt. The confessional statement made by the accused in the presence of police was considered inadmissible under the relevant evidence laws.
Based on these findings, the court concluded that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and that there was a lack of direct or sufficiently corroborated indirect evidence linking the accused to the act of poisoning. Therefore, the court acquitted the accused of the murder charge, extending the benefit of doubt to him (!) (!) (!) (!) (!) .
In summary, the court's decision was grounded in the principle that circumstantial evidence must form a complete and unambiguous chain to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, which in this case was not satisfied.
P. Diwaker, J
1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.2.2010 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in S.T. No.12/09 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short 'the IPC') and sentencing him to undergo R.I. for Life & fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default to undergo RI for 1 year.
2. In the present case, name of deceased is Chandrakali Bai, daughter of accused/appellant from his first wife.
3. The prosecution story, in brief, is that deceased Chandrakali Bai was the daughter of accused/appellant from his deserted first wife and she was residing with her father (appellant). Accused/appellant had performed second marriage with one Ganeshiya Bai from whom he had three sons. Initially deceased Chandrakali used to reside with her mother and later on accused/appellant took her along with him by saying that he will take care of her. It is further case of the prosecution that as the appellant does not want to give share in his property to the deceased, therefore, in the night intervening 29th & 30th December, 2010 accused/appellant had administered poison (zinc phosphate) with some sweet to the deceased by saying that the same would immediately heal her wound and after eating said sweet, the deceased died in the night itself. Merg Intimation (Ex.P-8) was lodged on 30.12.2008 at 10.30 a.m. by the appellant informing that the deceased died unnatural death. Inquest on the body of deceased was conducted on 30.12.202008 vide Ex.P-9. Body was sent for post-mortem examination which was conducted by Dr. Santosh Luniya (PW-11) vide Ex.P-2. In the opinion of autopsy surgeon, no definite opinion regarding cause of death could be given and therefore he preserved the viscera to find out the cause of death. Viscera of the deceased and the sweet was sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory from where report of Ex.P-14 was received in which poisonous substance (Zinc Phosphide) was found in Articles-A, B, D & E i.e. viscera and sweet eaten by the deceased. After merg enquiry, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-12) was registered on 7.1.2009. Memorandum of accused/appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-6 and on the basis of disclosure statement made by accused/appellant, a polythene containing sweet mixed with poisonous substance and wrapper of rat killing medicine, in five pieces, were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-7. On 7.1.2009 FIR (Ex.P-12A) was registered against the appellant under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC.
4. On completion of investigation, charge sheet for the offence punishable under Sections 302 & 201 IPC was filed against the accused/appellant, however, the trial Court only framed the charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant. The prosecution in order to bring home the charge levelled against the accused/appellant examined 11 witnesses in all. Statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which he abjured his guilt and pleaded innocence & false implication.
5. The trial Court after hearing the parties in the matter and considering the material available on record, by the impugned judgment convicted & sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described above.
6. Counsel for accused/appellant submits that;
the evidence as accepted by the trial Judge does not lead to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the offence, particularly, because the prosecution has miserably failed to establish that the appellant had the poison in his possession. The shop-keeper from whom the poison is said to have been purchased by the appellant did not support the prosecution case and turned hostile and in the absence of this material circumstance, the accused/appellant is entitled to acquittal.
there is absolutely no motive proved by the prosecution as against the appellant and therefore the entire case of prosecution falls to the ground.
out of two witnesses of memorandum, one has not been examined by th
SupremeToday
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
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
