2018 Supreme(Chh) 432
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Pritinker Diwaker, Gautam Chourdiya, JJ.
Leelashankar Sahu S/o Rajaram Sahu – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 154, 226 of 2015
Decided On : 10-08-2018
For the Appellant :Shri. Sunil Verma, Advocate
For the Respondent: Shri. Ravindra Agrawal, G.A.
Headnote:
Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 & 201/34 – Appeal Against Conviction – Murder Offence - Deceased was friend of accused/appellant Sometime accused taken bicycle of deceased without informing him and went to meet his girlfriend in another village - He was seen by villagers who detained his bicycle and compelled him to go back to his village - When deceased demanded back his bicycle, it was informed by Leelashankar that same had been kept by the other villagers as a result of which some dispute cropped up between the deceased and appellant. Deceased is said to have threatened appellant that if his bicycle is not returned to him, he would disclose his love story to everyone, receiving this threat, appellant decided to eliminate deceased and for this, he took help of other accused/appellants. All three accused called deceased, took him to village pond and there it is said that deceased was assaulted by them by means of different weapons as a result of which he died – Held, It has been attributed to appellants solely on the basis of their memorandum statements whereas the said part of the disclosure statement is inadmissible under the law. Furthermore, the witnesses to the disclosure statements have also not supported the same and as such, the prosecution cannot draw any benefit of these statements. Though all the circumstances put forth by the prosecution, if taken together, raise an accusing finger at the appellants but the settled legal position comes to their rescue that the suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof and the prosecution is required to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt - Nature and quality of evidence adduced by the prosecution in light of the aforesaid principles of law, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove guilt of the appellants to the hilt so as to exclude the possibility of any person other than appellants being the perpetrator of the crime beyond the shadow of all reasonable doubt. This being the position, the benefit of doubt must be credited to the appellants and they deserve to be acquitted of the charges leveled against them - Appeals are Allowed.
P. Diwaker, J.
As both these appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.12.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Dhamtari (CG) in ST No.20/2014 convicting each of the appellants under Sections 302/34 & 201/34 of IPC and sentencing them to undergo imprisonment for life, to pay a fine of Rs.100/- and RI for seven years and fine of Rs.100/- with default stipulations respectively, they are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. As per prosecution case, deceased Devendra Sahu was a friend of accused/appellant Leelashankar Sahu. Sometime before 3.8.2014 accused Leelashankar had taken the bicycle of deceased Devendra Sahu without informing him and went to meet his girlfriend Umeshwari Sahu in another village. He was seen by the villagers who detained his bicycle and compelled him to go back to his village. When the deceased demanded back his bicycle, it was informed by Leelashankar that the same had been kept by the other villagers as a result of which some dispute cropped up between the deceased and appellant Leelashankar. Deceased is said to have threatened appellant Leelashankar that if his bicycle is not returned to him, he would disclose his love story to everyone. Receiving this threat, appellant Leelashankar decided to eliminate the deceased and for this, he took help of other accused/appellants namely Gaukaran Sahu and Harish Sahu. All the three accused called the deceased, took him to village pond and there it is said that the deceased was assaulted by them by means of different weapons as a result of which he died. Thereafter, they also tied a gamchha around his neck and kept his body in the village pond by putting a big stone on the body. The raincoat of the deceased was also hidden by them in the village pond. On 6.8.2014 a floating dead body was noticed by the villagers, the same was subsequently identified to be that of the deceased and at the instance of Gyaneshwar Sahu (PW-1), brother of the deceased, merg intimation Ex.P/1 was recorded on 6.8.2014. On 7.8.2014 FIR (Ex.P/28) was registered against the unknown person under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC.
3. Inquest over the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P/5 on 6.8.2014. The dead body was sent for postmortem, which was conducted on the same day by PW-5 Dr. Umashankar Navratan vide Ex.P/22. The autopsy surgeon noticed that the body was swollen, foul smell emanating from body, scaling of skin of left side of chest and both legs, face swollen, eyeballs and tongue were protruded, three lacerated wounds-one on left side of temporal region and two on right side of temporal region and that there were abrasions over the wrist and hands. He also noticed multiple fracture of left as well as right temporal bones and trachea was also fractured. In his opinion, the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to throttling and multiple fractures of skull bone leading to internal bleeding and that the nature of death was homicidal.
4. On 8.8.2014 memorandum of accused/appellant Leelashankar was recorded vide Ex.P/14, which led to recovery of bloodstained full shirt, panchha, one cell phone (Ex.P/8) and raincoat (Ex.P/9) which was identified to be that of the deceased vide Ex.P/6. On the memorandum of appellant Gaukaran recorded on the same day (Ex.P/15), bloodstained axe and kurta were seized vide Ex.P/10 & P/19 respectively and memorandum of appellant Harish Sahu (Ex.P/16) led to seizure of bloodstained club and full shirt vide Ex.P/17 & P/18 respectively. Vide Ex.P/30, bicycle of the deceased was seized from one Khublal Sahu whereas vide Ex.P/25 one big stone allegedly used for keeping the dead body underwater was seized from the spot.
5. As per FSL report (Ex.P/36), human blood was found on full shirt and panchha seized from appellant Leelashankar and club & full shirt seized from appellant Harish Sahu. Further, the report confirms presence of human blood of B Group on the full shirt & panchha seized from appellant Leelashankar. How