IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ.
Sunil @ Bhondu - Petitioner
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through the Police Station Sarkanda - Respondent
CRA No. 398 of 2012
Decided On : 10-10-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Section 306 and 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 313 and 437A - Offence of Murder – Charged - Appeal against judgment - Appellant compelled deceased to marry him and also compelled her to consume insecticide and thus, he abetted her to commit suicide - Appellant also tried to strangulate deceased and thereby, he committed an offence under Section 306 and in alternative, an offence under Section 302 of IPC - Further case of prosecution is that appellant and deceased, both were having a love affair, but marriage of deceased was settled by father of deceased (PW-1) with some other person and date of marriage was also fixed - In order to make arrangement for marriage, father and brother of deceased had gone to village - On fateful day, deceased was sleeping with her sister (PW-7) - At late night i.e. at about 1:00 AM, when woke up, she could not find her sister (deceased) sleeping next to her, on which, she immediately informed fact of missing of her sister to her mother (PW-2) - Thereafter, on a search being made, dead body was found in courtyard of one - Appellant was also found lying unconscious near dead body of deceased - Whether trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased was homicidal in nature ? Whether appellant committed death of deceased and whether motive of offence has been proved? - Held, it is quite vivid that general or primary burden was on prosecution to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing evidence - Prosecution has failed to discharge its primary burden of proving its case that accused was in possession of poison and that he had an opportunity to administer poison to deceased, as a result of which, deceased died - In that view of matter, burden placed by trial Court upon accused/appellant to explain circumstance is totally incorrect- Court are unable to hold that trial Court is justified in convicting and sentencing appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC - Conviction and sentence imposed on appellant under Section 302 of IPC are set-aside and he is acquitted of said charge - Appellant is on bail - He need not surrender - However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of provision contained in Section 437A of Cr.PC - Appellant shall appear before Higher Court as and when directed - Criminal appeal is accordingly allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG), by which, he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay a fine of Rs.100/-, in default, to further undergo additional imprisonment for one month.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 5/4/2009, at about 1:00 am, the appellant compelled deceased Kavita Patel to marry him and also compelled her to consume insecticide and thus, he abetted her to commit suicide. The appellant also tried to strangulate the deceased and thereby, he committed an offence under Section 306 and in alternative, an offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Further case of the prosecution is that the appellant and the deceased, both were having a love affair, but the marriage of the deceased was settled by the father of the deceased Navratri Lal Patel (PW-1) with some other person and the date of marriage was also fixed for 22.4.2009. In order to make arrangement for the marriage, the father and brother of the deceased had gone to village Amora on 5.4.2009. On the fateful day, deceased Kavita Patel was sleeping with her sister Savita Bai (PW-7). At late night i.e. at about 1:00 AM, when Savita Patel woke up, she could not find her sister Kavita Patel (deceased) sleeping next to her, on which, she immediately informed the fact of missing of her sister to her mother Krishna Bai (PW-2). Thereafter, on a search being made by Savita Patel and Kavita Bai, the dead body of Kavita Patel was found in the courtyard of one Basant Patel. The appellant was also found lying unconscious near the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, on the next day, the deceased was brought to the CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, from where, the information regarding the death of the deceased was sent to the concerned Police Station, on which, Thaleshwar Prasad Soni, Assistant Sub- Inspector (PW-11) registered the merg intimation vide Ex.P/10, prepared the inquest vide Ex.P/6 and thereafter, the dead body was sent for the postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Dharmendra Kumar (PW-13). Initially, the Autopsy Surgeon opined that the cause of death is cardiorespiratory failure but thereafter, he reserved his opinion for ascertaining the cause of death after receipt of the viscera report. Hence, the viscera was preserved for chemical analysis. The viscera report dated 22.2.2012, though not exhibited, has been brought on record. Article A and B contained viscera of lungs, heart, liver, spleen, kidney + stomach, small intestine, large intestine, Article A, B, D, E contained organophosphorus insecticide “Triazophos” and Article F contained organophosphorus insecticide “Triazophos” and lethal insecticide Deltamathrin. During merg enquiry, from the place of the incident, the remains of the vomited substance having the smell of insecticide, one box of sweets and other articles were seized vide Ex.P/4. Plain soil and blood stained soil was also seized from the place of occurrence.
3. In pursuance to the statements of the relatives of the deceased and on the basis of suspicion that since the appellant wanted to marry the deceased and on her refusal, the appellant strangulated, administered poison and caused her murder, FIR4 Ex.P/20 was registered.
4. After usual investigation, the accused/appellant was chargesheeted for offence under Section 306 of the IPC and in alternative under Section 302 of the IPC and the same was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, received the case on transfer for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
5. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered into witn
Anant Chintaman Lagu Vs. The State of Bombay
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra
Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of Punjab
Ananth Chintaman Laguy v. The State of Bombay
Mt. Gajrani v. Emperor. AIR 1933 All 394
Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri
Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer
Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar
SupremeToday
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder cases, especially when the accused fails to explain their presence at the crime scene.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the principles governing the burden of proof in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
The judgment establishes the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The application of Section 106 of t....
The prosecution must prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, and the court must put all incriminating circumstances to the accused under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
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.