IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.
Santosh Nishad, S/o Ude Ram Nishad - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Mahasamund – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1041 of 2012
Decided On : 16-06-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 374(2) – Offence of Murder – Charged – Appeal against conviction - Case of prosecution, in brief, is that at about 09:20 (PW-2), being the Sarpanch of Village, alongwith (PW-8) and one lodged report that:, who is mother of (deceased) had given an application in the Gram Panchayat stating that his son- had gone somewhere without informing her and is missing, pursuant to which a meeting of villagers and panchayat members was convened in the night whereby (PW-1) and other dignitaries of Village had inquired about Nutan from his brother- (appellant herein), his mother (PW-5) and other family members, on which (appellant/accused) disclosed that on he has gone for fishing alongwith at where he caused his death by strangulation, thereafter, in morning all the said persons visited where they found the dead-body (deceased) in a decomposed condition - Whether learned trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant only on the basis of theory of last seen together, finding it to be duly established ?– Held, As such, in absence of proof of other circumstances or chain of circumstances, only theory of 'last seen together' cannot be made sole basis for conviction of the appellant herein as it would be unsafe to rest conviction only on the theory of 'last seen together' – Court are of considered opinion that learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant herein for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC only on basis of the theory of 'last seen together' finding it fully established in absence of motive for offence on part of appellant - Court hereby set aside conviction so recorded and the sentence so awarded by trial Court to the appellant herein vide impugned judgment dated - Appellant herein is acquitted of the charge of Section 302 of IPC and he be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.
- Appeal is allowed
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
This criminal appeal filed by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2012, passed by the Court of learned Sessions Judge, District Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine amount of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of fine, additional simple imprisonment of six months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 25.07.2011 at about 06:00 PM in the evening at Dumarnala, Village Tamora the appellant-accused has committed murder of is younger brother, namely, Nutan Nishad, S/o Ude Ram Nishad, aged about 13 years (now deceased) by strangulation and, thereby, committed the offence.
3. The further case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.07.2011 at about 09:20 Jagdev Singh Dhruv (PW-2), being the Sarpanch of Village Tamora, alongwith Uttam Singh (PW-8) and one Bugharu Nishad lodged report that: Sonwati Bai, who is mother of Nutan Nishad (deceased) had given an application in the Gram Panchayat stating that his son- Nutan had gone somewhere without informing her and is missing, pursuant to which a meeting of villagers and panchayat members was convened in the night of 28.07.20211, whereby Santram Patel (PW-1) and other dignitaries of Village Tamora had inquired about Nutan from his brother- Santosh (appellant herein), his mother Sonwati Bai (PW-5) and other family members, on which Santosh (appellant/accused) disclosed that on 25.07.2011 he has gone for fishing alongwith Nutan at Dumarnala where he caused his death by strangulation, thereafter, on 29.07.2011 in the morning all the said persons visited Dumarnala Chuikhadan where they found the dead-body of Nutan (deceased) in a decomposed condition.
4. It is also the case of the prosecution that appellant/accused- Santosh on 28.07.2011 at about 07:00 PM has made extra-judicial confession before Santram Patel (PW-1), Jagdev Singh Dhruv (PW-2) and Uttam Singh (PW-8) that he has caused murder of his younger brother-Nutan and threw his dead-body in Dumarnala. On the basis of the report so lodged by Jagdev Singh Dhruv (PW-2), Marg. No.104 of 2011 (Ex.P-13) was recorded under Section 174 of CrPC, FIR (Ex.P-03) was also registered, inquest proceedings (Ex.P-04) were held, spot map (Ex.P-05) was prepared, seizure memo was affected vide Ex.P-02, identification of dead-body of deceased- Nutan was done vide Ex.P-01 and, thereafter, the dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination to the District Hospital, Mahasamund. In the postmortem examination report (Ex.P-06) it was opined that: the cause of death remains open and the dead-body is of human male sex with advanced stage of decomposition, hence viscera preserved for chemical analysis. Thereafter, the dead-body was sent to FSL, Raipur by the Superintendent of Police, Mahasamund vide Ex.P-09, but no such report from FSL, Raipur has been brought on record. Thereafter, statement of witnesses were recorded and after completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Mahasamund and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The learned trial Court framed charges under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant herein, in which he abjured his guilt and entered into defence.
5. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 12 witnesses and brought on record documents from Ex.P-01 to Ex.P-15, whereas the appellant/accused examined none in his defence and has not exhibited any document in support of his defence.
6. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant for offences under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned herein-above on the following findings:
Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam
C.K. Raveendran vs. State of Kerala
Kanhaiya Lal vs. State of Rajasthan
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
The court ruled that extrajudicial confessions must be voluntary and corroborated; mere last seen and insufficient evidence cannot sustain a murder conviction.
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 prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must establish a complete chain of guilt beyond reasonable doubt; failure to do so warrants acquittal.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proven beyond reasonable doubt to establish guilt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to acquittal.
(1) Circumstantial evidence – Conclusions of guilt arrived at must be sure conclusions and must not be based on vague conjectures.(2) Extra judicial confession is a weak kind of evidence – Extra judi....
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.