IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., RAJANI DUBEY, J.
Krishna Jhali @ Krishna Kumar Jhali, S/o Shri Chaitan Jhali - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through S.H.O.P.S. Kotwali, Jagdalpur, District-Bastar (C.G.) - Respondent
CRA No. 2172 of 2023
Decided On : 29-04-2024
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC - CrPC 374(2) - Ex.P-19, Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4, Ex.P-21, Ex.P-27, Ex.P-29, Ex.P-30, Ex.P-31, Ex.P-32, Ex.P-33, Ex.P-34, Ex.P-35, Ex.P-36, Ex.P-37, Ex.P-40
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Kavita Netam based on circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory. The prosecution's case was based on the recovery of the deceased's mobile phone and the appellant's clothes, as well as the last seen theory.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the evidence of the last seen theory was not sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The court also held that the confessional statement made by the appellant before the police officer was inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act.
Issues: The key issues revolved around the admissibility of the confessional statement and the sufficiency of the last seen theory as the sole basis for conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that the circumstantial evidence must be fully established and consistent only with the hypothesis of the accused's guilt. It also highlighted the need for a complete chain of evidence and the exclusion of every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
Final Decision: The appellant's conviction was set aside, and he was acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Ramesh Sinha, C.J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.10.2023 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.41/2020, whereby the learned Sessions Judge has convicted the appellant for offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life & fine of Rs.1,00/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 month and R.I. for three years & fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 month respectively with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 12.04.2020, the complainant Atab Netam gave Merg Intimation (Ex.P-8) to the Police Station – Kotwali, Jagdalpur to the effect that his daughter Kavita Netam (deceased) who worked at Kumharpara Petrol Pump went missing when she left for home on 08.04.2020 at around 4.30 pm and while searching her, on 09.04.2020 the scooty of missing person Kavita was found in suspicious condition in the bushes of village Dodrepal forest. On the basis of which the Police Station Kotwali, Jagdalpur registered Missing Person Case No. 18/2020 and in the morning of 12.04.2020, a half burnt dead body in the forest, in front of Shiva temple, on the basis of half burnt clothes, shoes and physical structure present in the dead body, the dead body was identified as missing person Kavita Netam and on finding that an attempt was made to burn the dead body with the help of dry leaves, the dead body which appeared to be three-four days old, was full of insects and was giving off a foul smell. Based on the above information, Merg Intimation No. 30/2020 was registered in Police Station, Kotwali Jagdalpur on 12.04.2020.
3. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence on the same day i.e. 12.04.2020 and prepared visual map (Ex.P-10) of the incident site as per the instructions given by the applicant Atab Netam. After summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-2, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-1 and the dead body of the deceased Kavita Netam was sent through Constable No. 807 Ved Prakash Deshmukh after giving duty certificate (Ex.P-27) to Medical College, Dimrapal along with the post-morterm application (Ex.P-18), where Dr. Gyanendra Kumar (PW-13) conducted postmortem on the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P-19 and found following antemortem injuries :
2. Left side chest muscle ecchymosed from 3rd ribs to 7th ribs intercoastal muscle.
3. Neck muscle ecchyposed, contused, hyoid bone having inward compression fractured.”
He opined that the cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of throattling and the mode of death was homicidal in nature and duration of death was 2 days to 4 days since postmortem examination and Viscera, vaginal slide (2), vaginal swab, controlled swab, tracheal gauge piece, controlled gauge, trachea in a 10% formalin preserved, sealed and handed over to concerned Police Constable.
4. On 12.04.2024 itself, from the incident site, a pair of shoes, a black framed spectacles, a small piece of yellow glass bangle, a black button and a blue scarf worn by the dead body, and a half burned piece of white lined salwar kurta, head phone, a half-burned bunch of hair from the deceased’s head and 100-100 grams each of bloodstained soil and plain soil were recovered in front of the witnesses vide Ex.P-12. After the postmorterm, the Doctor presented 04 sealed boxes related to the preserved viscera and parts of the deceased’s viscera in five sealed packets, vaginal slide, swab, trachea, gauze piece, control gauze piece etc. of the deceased, brought to the Police Station by Constable Ved Prakash Deshmukh (PW-7) was seized vide
Asar Mohammad and others v. State of U.P.
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor
Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra
Aghnoo Nagesia v. State of Bihar
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran
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....
In a murder conviction based on circumstantial evidence, multiple corroborative factors, including the last seen theory and absence of alternative explanations, can establish guilt beyond reasonable ....
Conviction under IPC Section 302 cannot rely solely on circumstantial evidence of 'last seen together' without corroboration; mere suspicion is insufficient for guilt.
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.