Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI, JJ.
Kumari Parwati Manikpuri D/o Late Durga Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 1394, 1590 of 2015, Criminal Appeal No. 121 of 2016, Criminal Appeal No. 519 of 2022
Decided On : 01-11-2023
Criminal Appeals - Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC - [302, 201] - The court affirmed the finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and upheld the conviction of the accused based on circumstantial evidence. The court applied the last seen theory and held that the accused failed to offer a plausible explanation for the cause of death. The court also considered the recovery of incriminating articles and the FSL report to establish the guilt of the accused. The appeals of some appellants were dismissed, while others were acquitted based on the benefit of doubt.
Fact of the Case:
The case involved the murder of Chetan Bai, where the accused conspired to murder her, consumed liquor with her, and then decapitated her. The prosecution presented circumstantial evidence to establish the guilt of the accused.
Finding of the Court:
The court found the death of the deceased to be homicidal, upheld the conviction of some appellants based on circumstantial evidence, and acquitted others based on the benefit of doubt.
Issues: The main issue was whether the death of the deceased was homicidal and whether the circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the guilt of the accused.
Ratio Decidendi: The court applied the last seen theory, considered the recovery of incriminating articles, and relied on the FSL report to establish the guilt of the accused. The benefit of doubt was given to some appellants based on the lack of incriminating evidence against them.
Final Decision: Some appellants were convicted and their appeals were dismissed, while others were acquitted based on the benefit of doubt.
JUDGMENT :
RAMESH SINHA, J.
1. Since the aforesaid four criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 07/2015, they were clubbed & heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellants-Ravindra Das Manikpuri (A1), Monu alias Bhuvaneshwar Nishad (A2), Lakhan Nishad (A3), Dipak Kumar Dhruv (A4), Kumari Parvati Manikpuri (A5) and Kumari Das Manikpuri (A6) have preferred these four criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment dated 30.09.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari in Sessions Trial No. 07/2015, by which they have been convicted for offences under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year and RI for five years and fine of Rs.300/- in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months.
3. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that in the intervening night of 26/27.11.2014 at village Rudri Basti, P.S.Rudri, District Dhamtari, the present appellants consumed liquor with deceased Chetan Bai and thereafter throttled the neck of the deceased and thereafter intersected the head from the body with the help of knife and axe. It has further been alleged that axe and knife which were used in the crime were hidden by them in different places to screen the offence. As per the information of the village kotwar on 27.11.2014, Police of Police Station Rudri received the information about the dead body of an unknown lady being found, then the Station House Officer of Police Station Rudri with his subordinate staff went to the spot and registered a morgue intimation vide Ex.P-15. After inspection of the spot, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-18. Thereafter, notice of inquest (Ex.P-16) was served to the witnesses Ramdas Manikpuri, Smt.Hembai Sinha, Shyam Sunder Sinha, Chhabi Lal Meshram and Moolchand Sahu on the spot and thereafter inquest report was prepared vide Ex.P-17. On the basis of facts mentioned in the inquest report the SHO registered an offence under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against the unknown persons as Crime No. 0/2015, thereafter as per the information of informant, Kotwar Ramdas Manikpuri, dehati nalishi was registered. Thereafter, dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem at Government Hospital, Dhamtari where Dr. Snigdha Jain (PW-13) conducted postmortem of the deceased vide Ex.P-10 and found following injuries:
2. Two abrasion present over left side of face, 5 x 2 cm on left zygoma and 3 x 3 cm on left mandibular region, reddish.
3. Chop wound (Decapitation) present over neck, at the level of cervical 3rd vertebra, 14 x 13 cm x bone deep, margins clear cut, regular with e/o complete transection of neck at cervical 3rd vertebra with e/o underlying muscle, vessels cut and cut fracture of cervical 3rd vertebra.
4. Chop wound present over back of neck, 1.3 cm above injury No. 3, 5 x 0.7 cm x bone deep, margins clean cut, regular & blood infiltrated. Cut fracture of 2nd cervical vertebra.”
The doctor has opined that cause of death was due to shock and haemorrhage following decapitation injury and death was homicidal in nature.
4. After returning to the police station, Morgue No. 18/2014 was registered vide Ex.P-44 and on the same day, first information report (Ex.P-50) for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC has been registered as Crime No. 71/2014 and thereafter investigation was started. During the investigation, fact of the dispute between accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri with the deceased came to the notice of the investigating officer as the deceased was stepmother of accused Ravindra Das Manikpuri, Kumari Das Manikpuri and Kumari Parvati Manikpuri. After receiving this informati
Circumstantial evidence alone, without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; inconsistencies in witness testimonies weaken the prosecution's case.
When both the courts below recorded concurrent finding of facts, Supreme Court therefore should focus its analysis on the legal aspects emanating from the concurrent findings so recorded. It should n....
Murder and disappearance of evidence – Whenever any doubt emanates in mind of Court, benefit shall accrue to accused and not prosecution – Conviction only on the basis of last seen together cannot be....
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when established beyond reasonable doubt, can support convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of evidence....
Conviction under IPC Section 302 cannot rely solely on circumstantial evidence of 'last seen together' without corroboration; mere suspicion is insufficient for guilt.
Circumstantial evidence alone, especially the last seen theory without corroboration, is insufficient for conviction; guilt must be established beyond reasonable doubt.
Circumstantial evidence can establish guilt in murder cases, especially when the accused fails to explain their presence at the crime scene.
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
