Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SACHIN SINGH RAJPUT, JJ.
Netu Das S/o Balidas Manikpuri – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 734 of 2012
Decided On : 06-09-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Section 302 of IPC - [MURDER] - [Section 302 of IPC] - The court affirmed the finding that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature and discussed the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution. The court found that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and set aside the conviction.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife based on the prosecution's case that he had killed her due to suspicion of an illicit relationship. The appellant denied guilt but was convicted by the trial court.
Finding of the Court:
The court affirmed the finding that the death of the victim was homicidal in nature but found that the prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Issues: The key issue was whether the appellant was the perpetrator of the crime and whether the evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court analyzed the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution and found that it was not sufficient to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The court also discussed the legal principles related to the admissibility of evidence and the standard of proof required in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of IPC and the sentence recorded by the trial court were set aside, and the appellant was acquitted of the charge. The court allowed the appeal and directed that the appellant, who was already on bail, need not surrender.
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant against impugned judgment dated 14.08.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 76/2011 whereby learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) has convicted him for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 6 months.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.09.2011 at Village Ranveerpur, the appellant herein committed murder of his wife Gayabai by inflicting injury on her neck with a pharsa and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence.
3. Further case of the prosecution is that on 13.09.2011 at about 04:30 A.M. the appellant himself appeared at Police Station Sahaspur Lohara and informed that he doubted that his wife Gayabai was having illicit relations with one Gulab Sen of their village and on that account, on 12.09.2011 at about 10:30 P.M. he woke up his wife from sleep and took her outside on the pretext of visting Sheetla temple. When they reached the tamarind tree near the field of Jawahar Tiwari, the appellant took out pharsa, which he had already hidden behind the tamarind tree, and inflicted a blow on her neck from behind due to which his wife Gayabai fell on the ground. Thereafter, he inflicted 3-4 blows on her neck and caused her death and after leaving Gayabai under the tamarind tree, he went to the Police Station.
4. On the basis of the said information, Roznamcha Sanha No. 48 was recorded by the Police vide Ex.P/16C and along with the appellant/accused, the Police officers reached the spot and informed about the same to the senior officers and recorded the same in Roznamcha Sanha No. 49 vide Ex.P/17C. After reaching the spot, in the presence of the Panchas, bayan panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/1 and they found the dead body of Gayabai lying below the tamarind tree. There were injuries on her neck and blood was oozing out. Thereafter, dehati merg was registered vide Ex.P/18 and dehati nalishi was registered vide Ex.P/19. After issuing the summons to the witnesses, inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/3 and the dead body of Gayabai was sent for postmortem which was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Kharshan (PW-5) and the postmortem report has been filed as Ex.P/13 in which cause of death is said to be shock due to excessive loss of blood and nature of death is said to be homicidal. From the spot, plain soil as well as blood stained soil was seized vide Ex.P/5. After taking the appellant/accused into custody, his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/6 and on that basis, recovery of blood stained pharsa was made vide Ex.P/7. The tshrit and gamcha worn by the appellant/accused was also seized vide Ex.P/8 and these seized articles were sent for chemical examination. The FSL report has been filed as Ex.24 in which blood was found on blood stained soil (Article A), pharsa (Article C) and t-shirt (Article D) worn by the appellant/accused. The said articles were also sent to the Serologist but no report has been brought on record. After recording the statements of the witnesses and after due investigation, the appellant/accused was chargesheeted for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Session for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence.
5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined 10 witnesses and brought into record 24 documents. Statement of the appellant/accused was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, examined none in his defence.
6. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to convict the appellant/accused for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as aforesaid.
7. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that appellant/ accused has been convicted for
The main legal point established in the judgment is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the evidence prese....
An oral dying declaration must be trustworthy and free from blemish to form the basis of conviction. Recovery of evidence must comply with the requirements of Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The pros....
One of fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that burden of proof squarely rests on prosecution and that general burden never shifts.
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
(1) Conviction – Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be....
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
