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.

JUDGMENT :

GOUTAM BHADURI, J.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.01.2020 passed by the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 02/2019, whereby the accused/appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

2. Prosecution case is that on 10.09.2018 at about 11:30 pm the appellant along with two juveniles had abused the deceased Shaukat Ali and Sadhna Bagh near Halka Pond, Mathpuraina, Raipur. Thereafter, they forcefully entered the house and assaulted the deceased Shaukat Ali by means of iron rod due to which he succumbed to death. The background of such attack as developed by the prosecution was that an FIR was lodged by Saeida Khan (PW-1) stating that she had received a phone call from Shaukat Ali, who is her nephew, at about 11:30 pm informing her that the appellant and two other persons came there and abused him in a filthy language and assaulted him with iron rod. Subsequently, when she reached the spot, she found that Shaukat Ali (deceased) was lying on the floor in a pool of blood. Thereafter, the deceased was taken to the hospital and on 13.09.2018 he died. The motive behind the offence is that the deceased had an illicit relation with the wife of the appellant because of which there was dispute between the parties and the appellant threatened the deceased with dire consequences. Because of such motive, the appellant along with two juveniles attacked the deceased.

3. After the incident, the appellant was apprehended and on his memorandum blood stained clothes and blood stained iron road were recovered. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302, 458, 294, 506, 323 & 307 read with Section 34 of the IPC. During the course of trial, the appellant abjured the guilt and claimed to be tried.

4. The prosecution examined as many was 18 witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. However, the defence did not examine any evidence. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the accused as aforesaid. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that as the sole eyewitness Sadhna Bagh (PW-6) has turned hostile and Saeida Khan (PW-1), on whose report the investigation commenced, did not support the case of the prosecution, in such circumstances, the case of the prosecution completely rests on the circumstantial evidence. She would submit that in order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Lochan Sona (PW-5), Abdul Nadim (PW-7) and Abdul Kalam (PW-14). Perusal of the evidence of these witnesses would show that they have given inconsistent and improved statement before the Court so as to inculpate the present accused. She submits that though the prosecution alleged that as per FSL report, human blood was found on T-shirt, lower and iron rod which were recovered at the instance of accused, however, the same did not match with the blood found on the articles so collected. Therefore, the nature of blood also cannot be the sole reason for convicting the accused. In support of her contention, she placed reliance on the judgment of Hon’ble Supreme in the matter of Balwan Singh vs. State of Chhattisgarh, (2019) 7 SCC 781 to submit that unless the dotted lines are connected to sustain a conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the interference is required for by the Court. Therefore, this appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is liable