The main legal point established in the judgment is that the guilt of the accused must be established beyond reasonable doubt based on circumstantial evidence, and the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused in case of insufficient evidence.

JUDGMENT :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant-accused herein is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.04.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge, Raigarh, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.27/2015, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay fine of Rs.5000/-; in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 years.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 30th and 31st of October, 2014 at village Kasdol, Police Station, Tamnar, District Raigarh (CG) in Passengers’ Waiting Hall (Yatri Pratikshalaya), named as, ‘Kashiram Chabutara’, the appellant herein has assaulted Bittu Ram Sidar by wooden stick, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died and thereby, committed the said offence.

3. The further case of the prosecution is that in the intervening night of 30th and 31st of October, 2014, at village Kasdol in Passengers’ Waiting Hall (Yatri Pratikshalaya), namely, Kashiram Chabutara, the appellant herein assaulted Bittu Ram Sidar (since deceased) by wooden stick, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died and thereafter, in order to screen himself, poured kerosene oil and with the help of matchstick, burnt the dead body of the deceased. Thereafter, the matter was reported to Police by complainant-Lacchinder Rathiya (PW-1) and First Information Report was lodged vide Ex. P-1, on the basis of which, Merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-2. Inquest on the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex. P-3 and the dead body was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Rajendra Patel (PW-8) and he gave postmortem report (Ex. P-10), in which, he opined that the cause of death was syncope due to head injury and asphyxia due to burn and the death was homicidal in nature. On the basis of memorandum of the accused (Ex.P-6), wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P-7. Shirt of the appellant and other articles were seized vide Ex. P-5. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur vide Ex. P13, but the FSL report has not been brought on record.

4. After due investigation, the appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence and he has been falsely implicated in the offence in question.

5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents and defence in support of its case has not examined any witness nor has exhibited any document.

6. The trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant/accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

7. Mr. Vikash Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of his memorandum pursuant to which recovery of wooden stick and clothes of the appellant had been made and there is no other legal evidence on record. He further submits that the appellant has falsely been implicated in the crime in question and he has been convicted by recording a finding which is perverse to the record, as such, conviction of the appellant is liable to be set-aside.

8. On the other hand, Ms. Nand Kumari Kashyap, learned State counsel, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant, therefore,