Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rakesh Mohan Pandey, JJ.
Horidas Sahu, S/o. Bhakturam Sahu - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 89 of 2013 with Criminal Appeal No. 229 of 2013
Decided On : 17-11-2022
Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2), 175, 437-A, 299, 162, 174 – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 376, 302, 201 & 34 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 30 - Committed Sexual Intercourse - Murder by Strangulation – Appeal against Conviction - Accused (A-5), on pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse (rape) with deceased, due to which she become pregnant deceased suffered labour pain, accused being family members of deceased, in furtherance of their common object/intention, committed her murder by strangulation – Marg intimation (Ex.P/5) cannot be said to be an incriminating piece of evidence putforth by prosecution on record in order to bring home offence against accused-appellants. [Para 35]
Finding of the Court :
Screwdriver and sack (bori) which were seized pursuant to memorandum statements of accused- (A-1) and (A-2), were not subjected to FSL examination, for reason best known to prosecution - But, vide FSL report (EX.P48) it has been opined that centering wire which was seized pursuant to memorandum statement of accused- (A-3) vide Ex.P/16 was found to be similar/same iron wire with one which was seized from dead-body of deceased vide Ex.P/10 - Though both centering wires were found to be similar, but it is a matter of common knowledge that centering wire is commonly used for centering and is easily available in market, therefore, merely on that count conviction of appellant cannot be recorded, unless other incriminating circumstances are duly proved by prosecution - Prosecution has failed to bring home offence beyond reasonable doubt - Their conviction and sentence awarded by learned trial Court vide impugned judgment is hereby set aside and they are acquitted from charges.
Result: Appeals allowed.
JUDGMENT :
[Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.]
1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of fact and law involved; both these appeals are clubbed together being arising out of a common judgment dated 16.01.2013, passed in Sessions Trial No.22 of 2011 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Mohit Ram and 04 others), by the Court of learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) and on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, same are analogously heard and are being decided by this common judgment.
2. Criminal Appeal No. 89 /201 3 has been filed by the accused-appellant, namely, Horidas Sahu (A-5) under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2013, whereby he has been convicted and sentenced to undergo as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| U/s. 376 of IPC | R.I. for 10 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- and, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 03 months. |
3. Criminal Appeal No.229 of 2013 has been filed by the accused-appellants, namely, Mohit Ram (A-1), Khuman Das (A-2), Bhukhan Das (A- 3) and Kunjbai (A-4) under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. questioning the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.01.2013, whereby they all have been convicted and sentenced to undergo as under:
| Conviction | Sentence |
| U/s. 302/34 of IPC | R.I. for life, with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 03 months each. |
| U/s. 201 of IPC | R.I. for 07 years with fine of Rs.10,000/- each and, in default of fine, additional R.I. for 03 months each. |
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that prior to or near about 10.03.2010, at Village Kutulbod, Bhatagaon, within the ambit of Police Station Lalbag, accused-appellant Horidas Sahu (A-5), on the pretext of marriage, has committed sexual intercourse (rape) with the prosecutrix/deceased, due to which she become pregnant and, thereby, committed offence under Section 376 of IPC and, when prosecutrix/deceased suffered labour pain, accused-appellants, namely, Mohit Ram (A-1), Khuman Das (A-2), Bhukhan Das (A-3) and Kunjbai (A-4), being the family members of the prosecutrix/deceased, in furtherance of their common object/intention, committed her murder by strangulation and, thereafter, in order to conceal the aforesaid fact of committing murder of prosecutrix/deceased, accused-appellants, namely, Mohit Ram (A-1), Khuman Das (A-2), Bhukhan Das (A-3) and Kunjbai (A-4), tighten the deadbody of prosecutrix/deceased by means of wire and screwdriver with a sack (bori), in which stones were filled, and threw in a well and, thereby, committed offences under Sections 302, 201 & 34 of IPC.
5. The further case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that: since 10.03.2010, the prosecutrix/deceased went missing from the house of accused-appellants, namely, Mohit Ram (A-1), Khuman Das (A-2), Bhukhan Das (A-3) and Kunjbai (A-4), but they did not lodge any report till 12.03.2010; on 12.03.2010, accused-appellant Khuman Das (A-2) gave a written complaint at Police Station Lalbag, District Rajnandgaon (CG) that his sister (prosecutix/deceased) went missing, upon which police registered missing report (Ex.P/06); thereafter, again on 15.03.2010, accused-appellant Khuman Das (A-2) submitted a written application before the police intimating that since 10.03.2010 his sister (prosecutrix/deceased) went missing and while he alongwith his other family members were searching the whereabouts of prosecutrix/deceased, on 15.03.2010, his mother, accused-appellant, Kunjbai (A-4) informed him that the dead-body of prosecutrix/deceased is floating in the well of Kaushal Ram Sahu, upon which, the police registered marg intimation (Ex.P/05), proved by Sudarshan Singh (PW-03) and, thereafter, marg enquiry was carried out; during the course of marg enquiry, it was revealed that though the
SupremeToday
Confessions of co-accused are inadmissible against another unless tried jointly; conviction based solely on such confessions violates evidentiary standards.
It is settled law that evidence of hostile witness also can be relied upon to extent to which it supports prosecution version evidence of such witness cannot be treated as washed off record.
Section 30 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as Consideration of proved confession affecting person making it and others jointly under trial for same offence.
The main legal point established is the requirement for corroborative evidence to establish guilt, the limitations of the memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and the inadmissib....
The court ruled that a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible as evidence, and the conviction for murder was reduced to culpable homicide due to lack of premeditation.
The court modified convictions from murder to culpable homicide not amounting to murder, emphasizing the need for established common intention among accused, reflecting principles of reasonable doubt....
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
