IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
GOUTAM BHADURI, SANJAY KUMAR JAISWAL, JJ.
Komal Chandravanshi, S/o. Ishwari Prasad Chandravanshi and Anr. - Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Pandariya, Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 478 of 2021, CRA No. 480 of 2021, CRA No. 633 of 2021
Decided On : 20-07-2023
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 161, 313 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65 B-4 (C) – Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (Amendment) Act, 2015 – Section 3(2)(v) – Offence of murder – Examination of witnesses by police – Power to examine accused – Commit murder – Held, Court are of view that conviction, does not require any interference – with respect to guilt principle laid down by Supreme Court in Prakash Vs. State of Karnataka (2014) 12 SCC 133 it was not ascertained whether blood stained clothes recovered was having the same blood group of deceased though mere presence of blood was found – Circumstantial evidence against does not connect chain to prove guilt against him beyond reasonable doubt – Allowed.
JUDGMENT :
(Goutam Bhaduri, J.)
1. All the appeals are being heard together, as the common thread passes through the issue.
2. The present appeals are arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23-3-2021 passed by the Special Judge {Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act}, Kabeerdham, in Atrocity Spl. Criminal Case No.99/2018 whereby the learned Court below convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. However, acquitted the appellants from the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) (Amendment) Act, 2015.
3. (i) The prosecution case, as emerging from the material on record, is that when on 3-10-2018 the deceased Lekhram was at his home, at about 10.30 pm he received 2-3 calls on his mobile. The deceased thereafter went out with a Jerry Can to bring diesel. His wife Phoolbasan (PW-3) went to sleep. Subsequently, when he did not return till next day morning, Phoolbasan and her brother in law Shatruhan started searching and tried to call him, but his mobile was responding as switched off. Thereafter, Shatruhan (PW-4) went for searching the deceased and on the way one person namely; Radheshyam informed him that in between Gangapur and Padi the dead body was lying. Having gone there and identified the dead body that it was of deceased Lekhram, a report was made by Phoolbasan (PW-3), wife of the deceased, on 4-10-2018. The report having been made, merg was recorded vide Ex.P/5 and subsequently the FIR was registered vide Ex.P/6. The dead body was subjected to postmortem. The postmortem was conducted by Dr.Belchandan (PW-11) and report thereof was given vide Ex.P/26. During investigation by Bharat Bareth (PW- 10), from the place of incident, the motorcycle, slippers, scarf, bloodstained and plain soil was seized vide Ex.P/3.
(ii) Subsequently, on 5-10-2018 the accused persons were apprehended and their memorandum statements were recorded vide Ex.P/17 to Ex.P/20. Pursuant to the memorandum, the following articles were recovered at the instance of different accused - (i) knife, plastic Jerry Can, mobile, cash of Rs.900/- and T-Shirt were recovered at the behest of Manish Sakat (A/1) vide Ex.P/21; (ii) Bamboo stick, mobile, motorcycle, T-Shirt and half pant were recovered at the behest of Shankar Chandravasnshi (A/2) vide Ex.P/22; (iii) Bamboo stick, T-shirt, full pant and mobile were recovered at the behest of Komal Chandravanshi (A/3) vide Ex.P/23 and (iv) At the instance of Durga Chandravanshi (A/4), Baniyan, half pant, scarf, club and motorcycle were recovered vide Ex.P/24. The mobile of the deceased was searched and Talashi panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/25. Thereafter, the statements of Phoolbasan (PW-3) and Shatruhan (PW-4) were recorded. The alleged weapon used for commission of crime was sent for query report and having received the report, it was sent for FSL report by Narendra Kumar Bental (PW-14). The FSL report was received vide Ex.P/36. Thereafter, phone call details was obtained, which was filed with a certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. After preparation of the site plan and recording the statements of witnesses, the charge sheet was filed.
4. During the course of trial, all the accused persons abjured their guilt and pleaded innocence. On behalf of the prosecution as many as 14 witnesses were examined. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforementioned. Hence, these appeals.
5. Shri Rajeev Shrivastava, learned senior counsel assisted by Shri Malay Shrivastava, Shri Sau
Baiju Kumar Soni and Another v State of Jharkhand
Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartalla v State of Maharashtra
Pratap Singh and Another v State of M.P.
Sattatiya alias Satish Rajanna Kartala Vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 3 SCC 210
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. 1989 Supp2 SCC 706
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992) 2 SCC 86
Jagroop Singh Versus State of Punjab (2012) 11 SCC 768
Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab 1995 Supp4 SCC 259
Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 11 SCC 436
State of Andhra Pradesh Vs. Kanda Gopaludu AIR 2005 S.C. 3616
The central legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for conclusive evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence requires a complete chain proving guilt beyond reasonable doubt; motive alone is insufficient for conviction.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the prosecution to prove criminal conspiracy beyond all reasonable doubts and the reliance on circumstantial evidence to establ....
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.