Back
2019 Supreme(Chh) 180
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
MANINDRA MOHAN SHRIVASTAVA, GOUTAM BHADURI, JJ.
SHAILENDRA THAKUR - Appellant
Vs.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 427, 487, 495, 502, 639, 741, 868 of 2015
Decided on : 17-05-2019
Advocate Appeared:
Surendra Singh, Maneesh Sharma, N.S. Dhurandhar, Ashok Verma, Gajendra Sahu, B.P. Singh, S.C. Verma, M.K. Bhaduri, Fouzia Mirza, Sharmila Singhai, Amiyakant Tiwari, Sudeep Agrawal, Pragalbh Sharma, Ramakant Mishra, Adv.
Headnote:
Evidence Act - Section 155 - Arms Act - Sections 25 and 27 - Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 164 - Conviction and order - Guilty of commission of offence - Attempt to commit murder - Impugned judgment of conviction and voluminous records of case is that an incident of assault happened on in which was allegedly assaulted by present appellants and other accused persons informed over telephone in Police Station was murdered by accused and his associates - Upon receipt of such information a police officer arrived at stated place of occurrence and recorded a morgue intimation at instance of said - This was followed by spot FIR prepared at the spot on the basis of said information that was assaulted by dangerous weapons like firearm sharp edged weapon clubs - The spot morgue and FIR were taken to police station where numbered morgue and FIR was duly recorded - Dead body of was sent for postmortem - Postmortem was conducted by the doctor which revealed multiple injuries in numbers which included bullet shot as well - Held, A doubt has been created in so far as connection of ballistic report with the firearms seized from each of them is concerned which we have considered in elaborate details hereinabove - But then court find that prosecution has proved a case against them beyond reasonable doubt despite that doubt because there are other corroborative evidence available on record against them and both the eyewitnesses of the incident namely have involved them in the alleged commission of offence as assailants and from each of them firearm were seized and right from morgue intimation till recording of statement under Section 164 Cr.P.C. they have been stated to be involved in alleged commission of offence – In this regard court consider it appropriate to refer to what has been stated by Supreme Court in the case - Appeal are dismissed.
Manindra Mohan Shrivastava, J.
This order shall dispose off these seven appeals which arise out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.3.2015 passed by learned Special Judge, Durg in Special Case No.25 of 2005 and 47 of 2005 whereby and whereunder the appellants, 13 in numbers, have been held guilty of commission of offence alleged against them and sentenced as described below :-
| Conviction | Name of the Appellants | Sentence |
| u/S. 302 read with Section 149 | Shailendra Thakur, Pitambar Sahu, Chhotu @ Krishna, Ranjeet Singh, Mahesh @ Bijju, Tapan Sarkar @ Amitabh, Prabhash Singh, Satyen Madhvan, Anil Shukla @ Babalu, Bachcha @ Abdul Zayad @ Ashraf, Bobby @ Vidyut Chaudhary, Raju Khanjjar, Mangal Singh | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.30,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 2 years. |
| u/S. 148 IPC | Shailendra Thakur, Pitambar Sahu, Chhotu @ Krishna Ranjeet Singh, Mahesh @ Bijju, Tapan Sarkar @ Amitabh, Prabhash Singh, Satyen Madhvan, Anil Shukla @ Babalu, Bachcha @ Abdul Zayad @ Ashraf, Bobby @ Vidyut Chaudhary, Raju Khanjjar, Mangal Singh | RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 8 months |
| u/S. 25 (1B) (a) Arms Act | Shailendra Thakur, Tapan Sarkar @ Amitabh, Prabhash Singh, Satyen Madhvan, Mangal Singh | RI for 3 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 8 months |
| u/S. 27 (1) Arms Act | Shailendra Thakur, Tapan Sarkar @ Amitabh, Prabhash Singh, Satyen Madhvan, Mangal Singh | RI for 5 years and fine of Rs.10,000/- in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 8 months |
2. The prosecution case, as is unfolded from the impugned judgment of conviction and voluminous records of the case is that an incident of assault happened on 11.2.2005 in which Mahadev Mahar (deceased) was allegedly assaulted by the present appellants and other accused persons. Prashant Sharma (PW8) informed over telephone in Police Station Supela on 11.2.2005 that Mahadev Mahar was murdered by accused Tapan Sarkar and his associates. Upon receipt of such information, a police officer arrived at the stated place of occurrence and recorded a morgue intimation at the instance of said Prashant. This was followed by spot FIR prepared at the spot on the basis of said information that Mahadev Mahar was assaulted by dangerous weapons like firearm, sharp edged weapon, clubs. The spot morgue and FIR were taken to police station where numbered morgue and FIR was duly recorded. Dead body of Mahadev Mahar was sent for postmortem. Postmortem was conducted by the doctor which revealed multiple injuries, 21 in numbers, which included bullet shot as well. The doctor opined that cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a direct and immediate result of large number of antemortem injuries. The clothes, bullets and other articles which were collected from the spot were duly seized and sent for forensic examination. During investigation, the appellants and other accused were arrested from time to time and their respective memoranda were recorded and it is said that on the basis of these memoranda of appellants, mobile phones, SIM card, button knife, katta (local made revolver) empty cartridge, live cartridge, coconut cutting knife, motorcycle, car were recovered from different accused by the Investigating Officer and those articles which required forensic test like bullets, empty cartridge, pistol, revolver, scratches of skin, live cartridges were sent for forensic examination. As the allegation against all the appellants was of hatching conspiracy, in furtherance of which Mahadev was murdered, call details of mobile cell phones said to be seized from number of appellants were also collected from the telecom company. Serologist's report and FSL report w
