Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, JJ.
Vikki @ Bharat, S/o Kriparam Sahu - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police Station Rajhara - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 279, 278, 272 of 2012
Decided On : 13-12-2022
Indian Penal Code,1860 – Sections 147 read with 149, 364, 120B and 302 – Criminal Procedure Code,1973 - Section 437A - Evidence Act - Section 65B(4) – Offence of Murder – Criminal Conspiracy - Unlawful assembly – Charged - Three appellants herein in furtherance of their common object and in furtherance of their conspiracy, constituted unlawful assembly and abducted and in order to commit his murder, taken him in Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04/ZF-7777 and thereafter, strangulated him and after causing his murder, in order to screen themselves of aforesaid offences, burnt the dead body - Further case of the prosecution is that, Dr. Avinash Ramteke left his home from Kusumkasa, , Durg to visit, but he could reach till evening which led to lodging of missing report (unexhibited) by his father (PW-9), of his son Dr. Avinash Ramteke to Police Station Rajhara, District Durg on pursuant to which first information report bearing Crime No. was registered on against unknown person vide Ex.P-25 - Whether trial Court has rightly held that skeleton recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of Vikki @ Bharat (A-1) was that of deceased Dr. Avinash Ramteke and whether said skeleton has duly been identified through socks to be of deceased by his father (PW-9) and his uncle Surendra Kumar Ramteke (PW-8)? – Held, since bones recovered were not proved to be that of deceased , finding recorded by trial Court convicting appellants for offence under Section 120B of IPC is not in accordance with law and is not sustainable and as such, said offence is also not made out against appellants died before framing of charge against appellants and as such, conviction of appellants for offences under Sections 147 & 149 of IPC is also not made out as same is not established against them - Furthermore, (PW-14) – investigating officer, even did not make any attempt as apparent from Ex.P-31 – Letter sent to FSL, for DNA profiling of bones of Dr. Avinash Ramteke preserved by (PW-11) - In that view of matter, even if motive is proved, since other circumstances could not be established as held by their Lordships of Supreme Court in matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, Court are of opinion that trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting appellants and appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt - Three criminal appeals preferred by three appellants herein are allowed.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Sole appellant namely, Vikki @ Bharat (A-1) in Cr.A. No.279/2012; sole appellant namely, Ajay Singh (A-2) in Cr.A. No.278/2012; and sole appellant namely, Shahid Ali (A-3) in Cr.A.No.272/2012, have preferred these appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC feeling aggrieved and dissatisfied with the impugned judgment dated 20-1-2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, in Sessions Trial No.52/2011, by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted and sentenced the appellants in the following manner: -
| Conviction | Sentence |
| Sec. 147 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for two years |
| Sec. 364 read with Sec. 149 read with Sec. 120B of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months |
| Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149 read with Sec. 120B of the IPC | Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months |
| Sec. 201 of the IPC | Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 50/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months |
2. Since all the three criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 20-1-2012 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, in one Sessions Trial No.52/2011 and since common question of fact and law is involved in all the three appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that in between 10-5-2010 and 2-6-2010, near Sirpur Lohara Nala, Police Station Dondilohara, the three appellants herein in furtherance of their common object and in furtherance of their conspiracy, constituted unlawful assembly and abducted Dr. Avinash Ramteke and in order to commit his murder, taken him in the Bolero vehicle bearing registration No.CG-04/ZF-7777 and thereafter, strangulated him and after causing his murder, in order to screen themselves of the aforesaid offences, burnt the dead body. Further case of the prosecution is that on 10-5-2010 at 07.00 p.m., Dr. Avinash Ramteke left his home from Kusumkasa, Rajhara, Durg to visit Rajnandgaon, but he could reach Rajnandgaon till evening which led to lodging of missing report (unexhibited) by his father D.K. Ramteke (PW-9), of his son Dr. Avinash Ramteke to Police Station Rajhara, District Durg on 10- 5-2010 pursuant to which first information report bearing Crime No.92/2010 was registered on 21-5-2010 against unknown person vide Ex.P-25.
4. It is also the case of the prosecution that marriage of deceased Dr. Avinash Ramteke was about to solemnize with Devi Vaidya – sister of Keyur Vaidya (PW-5) on 16-5-2010, but before marriage could be solemnized, Dr. Avinash Ramteke went missing on 10- 5-2010 and thereafter, Devi Vaidya along with one Sudhish Singh was missing on 24-5-2010. As per the statement of Keyur Vaidya (PW-5), his sister along with Sudhish Singh was found dead in a hotel at Shimla (Himachal Pradesh) on 21-6-2010. His statement also reveals that Devi Vaidya & Sudhish Singh were already married much prior than Devi Vidya was about to marry Dr. Avinash Ramteke, vide Ex.P-15 which has been proved by J.P. Gauthiya (PW-4). As per the statement of D.D. Chandrakar (PW-14), who is the investigating officer in the present case, he has obtained morgue diary report from Medical College, Shimla, but, thereafter, nothing was done in the matter of death of Devi Vaidya & Sudhish Singh.
5. During the course of investigation, on 2-6-2010, the police received information of a dead body in the jungle proximate to Singhpura, Mohara Nala and registered dehati morgue intimation at zero vide Ex.P-26A at around 04.00 p.m. and consequently, morgue was also registered as Morgue No.26/2010 vide Ex.P-27 on the same day i.e. on 2-6-201
Circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain of guilt while ensuring all evidentiary rules are followed; failure in this renders conviction unsustainable.
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove beyond a reasonable doubt that the circumstances are consistent with the guilt of the accused and that they exclude every other ....
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
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
