SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2022 Supreme(Chh) 388

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, JJ.
Alisha Ali @ Pooja Shrivastava, W/o Anwar Ali @ Pyare – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.977 of 2012
Decided on : 11-10-2022

Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate.
For the Respondent: Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer.

Headnote:

Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 – Section 161 and 374(2) - Offence of Murder – Charged – Appeal against conviction - Appellant caused the death , aged 2½ years, by drowning in Rani Sagar Pond, Rajnandgaon and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Deceased Farhan @ Sittu was nephew of appellant’s husband - Appellant had entered into inter-caste marriage with Anwar Ali and immediately after marriage, they were residing separately in a rented house - It is further case of prosecution that o at 5 p.m., (PW-10) – husband of appellant brought his nephew to his rented house where he was living with the appellant and handed-over to appellant- On date of incident, birthday of the son of appellant’s landlord Vidya Gaikwad was there and on that account, (PW-10) had given money to appellant to bring gift for landlord’s son as well as for Farhan @ Sittu and on same day i.e. on, (PW-1) – Father of deceased child and brother of (PW-10) informed that is missing from his house and he is not traceable in the house (PW-1) immediately came to the house of appellant and enquired about Farhan @ Sittu then appellant had no information about Farhan @ Sittu and they all enquired - Whether death of the deceased was homicidal in nature – Held, , it is quite vivid that the prosecution has only established that appellant was last seen with deceased and no other connecting links have been satisfactorily made out and no other incriminating circumstance which leads to hypothesis of guilt against appellant has been proved - Even prosecution in the present case has failed to prove the death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature - As such, in absence of poof of other circumstances or chain of circumstances, only the theory of ‘last seen together’ cannot be made sole basis for conviction of appellant as it would be unsafe to rest conviction only theory of ‘last seen together’ – Court are of considered opinion that learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting appellant under Section 302 of IPC only on basis of the theory of ‘last seen together’ finding it fully established in absence of motive for offence on part of the appellant and in absence of other incriminating material against the appellant in light of principles of law laid down by their Lordships of Supreme Court in Arjun Marik (supra), Sanjay Thakran’s case (supra) and Kanhaiya Lal (supra) - appeal is allowed.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. By this appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the appellant herein calls in question legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 5-9-2012, by which she has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.3,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 5-11-2011, the appellant caused the death of Farhan @ Sittu, aged 2½ years, by drowning in Rani Sagar Pond, Rajnandgaon and thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Deceased Farhan @ Sittu was the nephew of the appellant’s husband. The appellant had entered into inter-caste marriage with Anwar Ali and immediately after marriage, they were residing separately in a rented house. It is the further case of the prosecution that on 5-11-2011 at 5 p.m., Anwar Ali (PW-10) – husband of the appellant brought his nephew Farhan @ Sittu to his rented house where he was living with the appellant and handed-over Farhan @ Sittu to the appellant. It is also the case of the prosecution that immediately thereafter Anwar Ali (PW-10) left the house for some important work. As the relationship between the children of Firoz Ahmad (PW-1) – father of the deceased child and Anwar Ali (PW-10) was quite cordial, deceased Farhan @ Sittu used to come to the house of Anwar Ali (PW-10) out of love and affection, but it was not liked by the appellant herein. On the date of incident, birthday of the son of appellant’s landlord Vidya Gaikwad was there and on that account, Anwar Ali (PW-10) had given money to the appellant to bring gift for landlord’s son as well as for Farhan @ Sittu and on the same day i.e. on 5-11-2011, Firoz Ahmad (PW-1) – father of the deceased child and brother of Anwar Ali (PW-10) informed that Farhan @ Sittu is missing from his house and he is not traceable in the house. Firoz Ahmad (PW-1) immediately came to the house of the appellant and enquired about Farhan @ Sittu then the appellant had no information about Farhan @ Sittu and they all enquired. Missing report was lodged at Police Station Basantpur. Next day, dead body of the deceased child was found floating in Rani Sagar pond pursuant to which morgue intimation (Ex.P-7) was got registered by Abbas Ahmad (PW-5) – uncle of the deceased child, to the effect that Farhan @ Sittu was missing from 5-11-2011 since 6 p.m. and his body is found floating in the Rani Sagar tank. Panchnama Ex.P-1 was conducted by Satya Prakash Tiwari (PW-16) and dead body was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. Postmortem was conducted by Dr. V.P. Maheshwar (PW-14) and his postmortem report is Ex.P-9 in which cause of death was said to be asphyxia due to drowning. Thereafter, during morgue enquiry, statements of Sahida Begum (PW-11), Vidya Gaikwad (PW-12) & Premlal Sharma (PW-13) were recorded on 24-11-2011 & 25-11-2011 in which all the three witnesses have stated that they have seen the accused and the deceased going together by Scooty towards market. Thereafter, on 23-11-2011, Firoz Ahmad (PW-1) lodged written report vide Ex.P-3 suspecting foul play on the part of the appellant pursuant to which first information report (FIR) Ex.P-3A was registered for offence punishable under Section 304 of the IPC and thereafter, statements of Sahida Begum (PW-11), Vidya Gaikwad (PW-12) & Premlal Sharma (PW-13) were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC on 24-11-2011 & 25-11-2011 in which they have stated that the appellant had taken the deceased on her Scooty towards Rani Sagar dam and left him alone pursuant to which firstly offence under Section 304 of the IPC was registered and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC..

3. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed agains

          Click Here to Read the rest of this document
          1
          2
          3
          4
          5
          6
          7
          8
          9
          10
          11
          SupremeToday Portrait Ad
          supreme today icon
          logo-black

          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

          qr

          Scan Me!

          India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

          For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

          whatsapp-icon Back to top