IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, RAJANI DUBEY, JJ.
Ram Prasad Yadav, S/o. Nanduram Yadav & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through P.S. Katghora, (Civil and Revenue) Korba, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1118 of 2014, Criminal Appeal No. 283 of 2015
Decided On : 06-05-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 - Offence of Murder - Causing disappearance of evidence – Charged – Appeal against conviction - Case of prosecution, in brief, is that on intervening night (in between 10 PM to 7 AM) at village Gangapur, the two appellants herein, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted one (hereinafter called the deceased) and caused his death and thereafter, hung his dead body on a Char tree near Vijay Ghati Jhora and further caused disappearance of the evidence of crime and they thereby committed the offences - Whether death of deceased Mohpal Yadav was homicidal in nature ? – Held, Reverting to facts of present case in light of aforesaid decisions rendered by Supreme Court particularly in matter of (supra), it is quite vivid that prosecution has only proved that death of deceased was homicidal in nature - Court are of considered opinion that learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting appellants herein for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC only on the basis of theory of 'last seen together' finding it fully established in absence of motive for offence on the part of appellants and in absence of other incriminating material against appellants in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matters of Arjun Marik, Sanjay Thakran and Kanhaiya lal (supra) - These appeals are allowed to extent indicated herein-above.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Since both of these criminal appeals have arisen out of common impugned judgment dated 17/10/2014, therefore, they have been heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. The two appellants namely Ram Prasad Yadav and Santosh Yadav have preferred these two criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 17/10/2014 passed by learned Additional Session Judge, Katghora in Sessions Trial No 21/2014 by which they have been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC as well as Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for six months and imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for three months, respectively.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the intervening night of 12/11/2013 and 13/11/2013 (in between 10 PM to 7 AM) at village Gangapur, the two appellants herein namely Ram Prasad Yadav and Santosh Yadav, in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted one Mohpal Yadav (hereinafter called the deceased) and caused his death and thereafter, hung his dead body on a Char tree near Vijay Ghati Jhora and further caused disappearance of the evidence of crime and they thereby committed the offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 201 read with Section 34 of IPC.
4. It is admitted position on record that both the appellants herein as well as deceased Mohpal Yadav were residents of Village Gangapur, Police Station Katghora and Jivanpal Yadav (P.W.2), Bhuvanpal Yadav (P.W.6) and Khilavan Yadav (P.W.8) are brothers of the deceased and Narayan Yadav (P.W.5) is father of the deceased.
5. Further case of the prosecution is that on 13/11/2013 at about 09:00 AM, Sahasram Yadav (P.W.4), while returning back from forest after chopping wood, noticed the dead body of deceased Mohpal Yadav hanging from a tree near Vijay Ghati Jhora. He informed about the same to the Police pursuant to which merg intimation (Ex. P/3) was registered and First Information Report bearing Crime No. 301/2013 (Ex. P/4) was lodged and thereafter, Police took up the matter for investigation. On the same day i.e. 13/01/2013, Police reached the crime spot and prepared inquest report (Ex. P/2) and sent the dead body of the deceased for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. K.S. Kanwar (P.W.12) and the postmortem report has been filed as Ex. P/22 wherein the cause of death is shown to be Asphyxia due to smothering. Thereafter, certain articles including plain soil as well as blood stained soil, t-shirt and slippers, deceased's underwear were seized by the Police from the spot vide Ex. P/5. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant/accused Ram Prasad Yadav vide Ex. P/8, one suzuki motocycle bearing registration No. CG 13 G 5895 as well as one mobile phone of Celkone company containing one sim of airtel with No. 9585964946 and another sim of reliance with No. 8103524229 were seized and pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant/accused Santosh Yadav vide Ex. P/9, lower of the deceased as well as mobile phone of the deceased were seized along with his own mobile phone of Micromax company containing one sim of airtel with No. 8085471835 was seized and thereafter, the two appellants herein were arrested vide Ex. P/16 and P/17. Pursuant thereof, telephone details were gathered from the Cyber Cell of the Police which are filed as Ex. P/28 and P/29. After completing the due investigation and after collecting incriminating material against the appellants herein, the Police proceeded to submit the chargesheet before the Criminal Court which was committed before the Court of Session for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence.
6. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution
Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan
Navneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
Under Section 299 of IPC, homicide becomes culpable when a human being terminates life of another in a blameworthy manner.
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt, the limitations of the memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the inadmissib....
The court ruled that extrajudicial confessions must be voluntary and corroborated; mere last seen and insufficient evidence cannot sustain a murder conviction.
Point of Law : Conviction set aside - Prosecution has failed to prove the charge brought against the accused persons beyond reasonable.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.