Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.
Nain Singh S/o Tejram Netam - Appellant
Vs.
State of Chhattisgarh Through S. H. O. - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.37 of 2013
Decided On : 15-09-2022
Subsequent Conduct - Criminal Appeal - Sections 302, 201 of the IPC - 8, 313 of the Indian Evidence Act - The court discussed the relevance of the appellant's subsequent conduct in absconding from the spot and the requirement to put circumstances leading to proof of guilt to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. The court referred to various Supreme Court decisions to emphasize the importance of connecting the accused's conduct with the crime committed and the need for such conduct to form part of the evidence.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC based on the prosecution's case that he assaulted and caused the death of the victim, Santram, and also caused disappearance of evidence. The trial court convicted the appellant based on the statement of a witness and the appellant's subsequent conduct of absconding from the spot.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the conviction based solely on the appellant's subsequent conduct was not sufficient as the circumstances leading to proof of guilt were not put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC. The court emphasized the need for the conduct to be part of the evidence and connected to the crime committed.
Issues: The issues revolved around the relevance and admissibility of the appellant's subsequent conduct in absconding from the spot as the sole basis for conviction, and the requirement to put circumstances leading to proof of guilt to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
Ratio Decidendi: The court's decision was based on the interpretation of Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and the requirement to connect the accused's conduct with the crime committed. The court also emphasized the need for the circumstances leading to proof of guilt to be put to the accused in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC.
Final Decision: The court set aside the conviction and acquitted the appellant of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, emphasizing that the appellant's subsequent conduct alone was not sufficient for conviction. The appellant was allowed to remain on bail, and the criminal appeal was allowed to the extent indicated.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2012 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, in Sessions Trial No.69/2012, by which the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further sentenced to fine of Rs.1000/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for six months under Section 302 of the IPC and RI for 3 years and further sentenced to fine of Rs.200/, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for six months under Section 201 of the IPC.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on the eve of Ganesh Chaturthi on 06.12.2011 between 12.30 a.m. to 1 p.m. at village Darra, the appellant assaulted Santram by kitchen knife, by which Santram suffered serious injury and succumbed to death, thereby the appellant committed the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and also caused disappearance of evidence and thereby committed the offence under Section 201 of the IPC. It is further case of the prosecution that on 6.9.2011 Sadhram (PW5) reported the matter to Police OutpostGirodhpuri, Police StationBilaigarh that his brother Santram was found dead, who was lastly seen at about 12 o'clock on the same night in drunken condition with Pancham, Pancham tried to take Santram to his house, but he could not walk and thereby he tried to sit and sleep near Mahamaya Chowk beside Lord Ganesh Murti, where his daughter Sushila (PW4) came and tried to administer some water to Santram, but Santram was not willing to go home and told his daughter Suhsila (PW4) that he would sleep there only. At that time, Santram's mobile was missing, Sushila (PW4) went in search of his mobile, but when she returned, she saw that Santram sustained injury and blood was oozing all over his neck. Sushila immediately rushed to her mother and told that her father Santram sustained injuries over his neck, then her mother Ketbai (PW11) reached to the spot and found her husband Santram dead. Merg was registered vide Ex.P7 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P20. Inquest was conducted over dead body of deceased vide Ex.P18. Spot map was prepared by patwari vide Ex.P1. Investigating officer also prepared spot map vide Ex.P21. Dead body of deceased Santram was sent for postmortem to Community Health Center, Bilaigarh where Dr.Chain Singh (PW3) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P3 and opined that cause of death was haemorrhage due to lacerated wound on the neck and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P8, knife was seized from him vide Ex.P9. Bloodstained soil and plain soil were also recovered from the spot vide Ex.P11. Bloodstained shirt and full paint of the appellant were also seized vide Ex.P13. Seized articles were sent for FSL examination, but FSL report has not been brought on record by the prosecution. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and after due investigation, the appellant was chargesheeted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaigarh, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar for trial. The accused / appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence.
3. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents Exs.P1 to P27. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded in which he denied guilt. The accused examined none in his defence, but produced one document i.e. statement of Susheela (Ex.D1) in his support.
4. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.11.2012 convicted the app
AI
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement to connect the accused's conduct with the crime committed and the need for such conduct to form part of the evidence. Additionally,....
Section 8 of Evidence Act states as Motive, preparation and previous or subsequent conduct —any fact is relevant which shows or constitutes a motive or preparation for any fact in issue or relevant f....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the intent to screen the offender committing an offence must be the primary and sole aim of the accused to establish the offence under Section....
The recovery of evidence must be unimpeachable and not shrouded with elements of doubt to sustain the guilt of the accused.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, burden of proof, and absence of motive in cases of murder.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain linking the accused to the crime; absence of motive and direct evidence renders conviction unsafe.
Acquittal of appellants is affirmed due to insufficient circumstantial evidence establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt, highlighting prosecutorial burden of proof in criminal cases.
Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as burden of proving fact especially within knowledge - When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
