Back
2020 Supreme(Chh) 314
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
Parasram Sahu & Ors. - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.1887 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No.1897 of 2018 and Criminal Appeal No.63 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No.74 of 2019 and Criminal Appeal No.273 of 2019
Decided On : 31-01-2020
Shri Vineet Kumar Pandey, Shri Anil Pillai, Shri Vivek Sharma, Shri L.K. Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Shri Kripesh G. Kela, Advocate, Shri Pradeep Singh Thakur, Advocates, for the Appellant; Shri Anand Verma, Dy. Government Advocate, Shri C.R. Sahu and Shri Sudhir Verma, Advocates, for the Respondent
The judgment underscores the requirement for conclusive evidence and the principle of 'beyond reasonable doubt' in criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:
Criminal Conspiracy - Indian Penal Code - Section 307/120B, Section 120B, Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act, Section 27(1) of the Arms Act
Fact of the Case:
The prosecution alleged that the accused persons conspired to commit the murder of the victim due to election rivalry. The victim was shot by two unknown assailants on a motorcycle, and the prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It noted discrepancies in witness statements, lack of conclusive evidence, and insufficient proof of criminal conspiracy. The court acquitted all the accused persons due to the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The issues revolved around the sufficiency of evidence to prove the guilt of the accused, the establishment of criminal conspiracy, and the reliability of witness statements.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for conclusive and firm evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It highlighted the lack of definitive proof of criminal conspiracy and the presence of material contradictions in witness statements.
Final Decision: The appeals by the accused persons were allowed, and they were acquitted of the charges. The appeal for enhancement of sentence by the victim was dismissed.
JUDGMENT
1. The instant appeals arise out of a common judgment, therefore, they are decided together.
2. The appeals have been preferred against the judgment dated 30.11.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Special Judge, CBI), Raipur in Sessions Trial No.235 of 2017, whereby the accused persons/Appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:
| Accused Persons/ Appellants | Conviction | Sentence |
| All the Accused Persons/Appellants | Under Section 307/120B of the Indian Penal Code | Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation |
| Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code | Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation | |
| Accused/Appellant Bhupendra (In addition to his above conviction under the Indian Penal Code) | Under Section 25(1A) of the Arms Act | Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation |
| Under Section 27(1) of the Arms Act | Rigorous Imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation |
3. Prosecution case, in brief, is that on 4.9.2017 at about 7 pm Goverdhan alias Babla (PW3) and Jivrakhan (PW1) were returning from Kurud on a motorcycle, which was being driven by Jivrakhan. On the way, they stopped for consuming gutkha. Jivrakhan went to a shop for purchasing gutkha. Goverdhan alias Babla was talking with someone on his mobile phone. At that time, two persons covering their faces with cloth came from towards Samoda on a motorcycle. The pillion rider of that motorcycle asked Goverdhan alias Babla about way and thereafter he took out a revolver and shot two fires which hit his stomach and chest. Thereafter, both the riders of that motorcycle fled from there towards Chikhli. Injured Goverdhan was taken to Ramkrishna Care Hospital, Raipur on a Tata Sumo Vehicle by Rakesh Sahu, Ramnath and Nakul Chakradhari. On getting information, Investigating Officer Bodhan Sahu (PW17), Inspector, Police Station Aarang reached the hospital. Thereafter, Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P21) was lodged by Roopkumar (PW6). During the course of investigation, Investigating Officer Bodhan Sahu reached the spot and prepared spot-map (Ex.P17). Blood stains lying on a stone were collected from the spot vide Ex.P24. Two numbers of empty cartridges were also seized from the spot vide Ex.P19. After return to the police station, Investigating Officer Bodhan Sahu recorded First Information Report (Ex.P33) on the basis of Dehati Nalishi. During the course of treatment, injured Goverdhan was examined and treated by Dr. Vikram Sharma (PW15). Total 5 injuries were found on the body of injured Goverdhan. Out of them, two gun shot injuries were found. Injury No.4 was entry wound of 2x2 cms. on left side of the stomach. Injury No.5 was exit wound of 2x0.5 cms. on right side of the stomach at a distance of 4 cms. away from the navel. After CT scan, it was found that there were holes in small and big intestines and there was bleeding due to which the injured undergone surgery on 4.9.2017. His medical report is Ex.P28. He was discharged from the hospital on 19.9.2017. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure in which a fact emerged that Appellants Parasram and Doman were at inimical terms with injured Goverdhan. On 12.9.2017, Appellants Doman, Parasram and Lalit were taken into custody and their memorandum statements (Ex.P1, P6 and P3 were recorded, respectively). On 19.9.2017, memorandum statement of Appellant Bhupendra was recorded vide Ex.P8A. It is disclosed by these four Appellants that there was an enmity between Appellants Parasram, Doman and injured Goverdhan due to election rivalry since 2015. In February, 2017, Appellant Parasram came to Appellant Doman and pr
