Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 415
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Prashant Kumar Mishra, Gautam Chourdiya, JJ.
Dharamlal - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 69 of 2010
Decided On : 26-05-2020
Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate, Fouzia Mirza, Advocate
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Section 302 - Conviction - Acquittal - [MURDER] - [IPC Section 302, Section 34] - The court discussed the evidence and legal principles related to last seen, motive, and circumstantial evidence. It highlighted the failure of the prosecution to prove the complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants.
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the appellants were involved in the murder of the deceased. However, the evidence presented by the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution's evidence, including last seen, motive, and circumstantial evidence, was insufficient to prove the guilt of the appellants. It highlighted the failure to establish the complicity of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence related to last seen, motive, and circumstantial evidence, and the failure of the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the principles of law related to circumstantial evidence and the conditions that must be fulfilled for convicting an accused based on such evidence. It highlighted the failure of the prosecution to meet these conditions.
Final Decision: The court acquitted the appellants of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC due to the prosecution's failure to prove their complicity in the crime beyond all reasonable doubt.
JUDGMENT
Gautam Chourdiya, J. - In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellants have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.12.2009, passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G. in S.T. No.67/2009, whereby and whereunder the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo R.I. for 6 months. |
2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 26.11.2008 at 14:50 pm in Police Station-Takhatpur, PW-13 Sub- Inspector Shri S. Ekka received an information on telephone from complainant Vinod Kumar Koushik- nephew of Ashok Kumar Koushik (deceased) that someone had committed the murder of deceased. Receiving this information, Shri S. Ekka along with other police staff reached the place of occurrence. Thereafter, complainant Vinod Kumar Koushik lodged the unnumbered Dehati Nalishi Ex.D-2 stating that some unknown person had committed the murder of deceased. After that, FIR Ex.P-20 was registered on 26.11.2008 under Section 302 against the unknown person. The dead body of deceased was found near the agricultural field of Basant Gupta. The dead body of the deceased was examined by panch witnesses and inquest report was prepared vide Ex.P-3. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination to Primary Health Center, Takhatpur, District Bilaspur C.G. where PW-1 Dr. S.A. Siddiqui, conducted postmortem and found following injuries:-
1. Lacerated wound at right parital region. (1. length 2 inch 2. depth 2 1/2 inch 3. width 1/2 inch) Brain material seen & fracture of parital bone.
2. Lacerated wound at occipital region. (1. length 2 inch 2. depth 1/2 inch 3. width 1/4 inch)
3. Cut (lacerated wound) at left side of nose. (length 1/2 inch x width 1/4 inch x breadth 1/4 inch)
All injury margin was irregular. Age of injury about 6-8 hours.
No fracture of other bone.
He opined that cause of death is due to severe bleeding from skull & brain due to hypovolumic shock. The postmortem report is Ex.P-1. During investigation, spot map Ex.P-5 was prepared and dog squad team was also called for investigation. Memorandum of the accused Dharamlal was recorded vide Ex.P-6, in pursuance of which one Nokia Company mobile and blood stained clothes of Dharamlal were seized vide Ex.P-12. Memorandum of Chhedilal was recorded vide Ex.P-7, pursuant to that one shirt was recovered by him Ex.P-9. Memorandum of Haridayal was recorded vide Ex.P-8, in pursuance thereof one full shirt was recovered vide Ex.P-10. Blood stained soil, plain soil, slippers of deceased and blood stained stone were seized from the place of occurrence as per Ex.P-11. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL. The accused/appellants were arrested vide arrest memo Exs. 13, 14 & 15.
3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and charge sheet was filed against appellants under Sections 302 of IPC. The trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC against the accused appellants which were denied by them and they prayed for trial.
4. So as to hold the appellants guilty prosecution has examined as many as 13 witnesses i.e. PW-1 Dr. S.A. Siddiqui, PW-2 Hareshwar, PW-3 Rajkumar Shrivas, PW-4 Pradeep Das, PW-5 Panchram, PW-6 M.A. Abraham, PW-7 Vinod Kumar, PW-8 Sanat Kumar Koushik, PW-9 Sheetal Singh, PW-10 Purushottam Yadav, PW-11 Santosh Soni, PW-12 Shyam Avtar and PW-13 S. Ekka. The accused/appellants were examined under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., in which, they denied the circumstances appearing against them and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the case. However, no defence witness has been examined by them. After completion of trial, the appellants were convicted and sentenced as mentioned in para 1 of this
