Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.
Nazir Khan S/o Mushtak Khan - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 207 of 2018, CRA No. 164 of 2018, CRA No. 210 of 2018, CRA No. 273 of 2018, CRA No. 1047 of 2018
Decided on : 10-09-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 120B, 201, 394, 412, 414 – Criminal appeals against conviction – Appellants convicted for murder and robbery based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction set aside due to lack of corroborative evidence and gaps in the chain of circumstances. (Paras 44, 43, 42, 41)
Facts of the case: The appellants were accused of murdering two individuals and stealing their trailer vehicle. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including confessions and witness testimonies, which were found insufficient. (Paras 3, 6, 8)
Findings of Court: The court found that the prosecution did not prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the conclusion that the trial court erred in convicting them. (Paras 43, 44)
Issues: The main issues included whether the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and whether the confessions were admissible. (Paras 38, 39)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, all circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must not leave any reasonable doubt regarding the innocence of the accused. (Paras 14, 15, 18)
Result: Appeals allowed; convictions and sentences set aside. (Para 44)
JUDGMENT :
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Since the aforesaid five criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 4.1.2018 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Sessions Trial No.24/2017, they were clubbed & heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellants-Nazir Khan (A1), Om Prakash Jaat @ Prakash Jaat (A2), Patul @ Abdul Majid (A3), Deepak Lohar (A4), Surendra Lohar (A5) and Vijay Kumar Jatt (A6) have preferred these five criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 4.1.2018 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Sessions Trial No.24/2017, by which the trial Court has convicted appellants Nazir Khan and Patul @ Abdul Majid for offence under Sections 302 (two times) read with section 120B, 201 and 394 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months on each counts, RI for seven years and fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and RI for seven years and fine of Rs.50/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. The trial Court has further convicted appellants Om Prakash Jatt and Vijay Kumar Jatt for offence under Section 412 read with Section 120B and 414 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months and RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. The trial Court has also convicted appellants Deepak Lohar and Surendra Lohar for offence under Section 414 read with Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months.
3. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that in the intervening night of 26-27.09.2015, trailer vehicle CG-12-S-4823, driven by Bodhan Prasad and accompanied by helper Nilesh Kumar, was returning from Ramanuj Nagar railway siding after unloading coal and was headed towards the coal mine in Parsaket. The driver and helper had stopped the vehicle on the way and were sleeping in Kantaroli jungle near Harrapara. Accused Anil Yadav @ Harinana, Najir Khan and Patul @ Majid, with a common intention of looting the trailer, attacked the driver and helper while they were sleeping on the road, took them to Kantaroli jungle, and after brutally assaulted them strangulated them to death. They then abandoned the bodies in the jungle and sold the looted trailer in Jhajjar, District Rohtak (Haryana).
4. On 30.09.2015, the Police Outpost Tara registered a dehati merg intimation vide Ex.P-25 and on the basis of dehati merg intimation merg intimation was registered vide Exs.P-46, P-47, P-52 and P-53. Written report was lodged by Safiq Mohammad vide Ex.P-1 and on the basis of written report, FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against unknown person for offence under Section 302, 394 and 201/34 of the IPC. Further FIR (Ex.P-54) was also registered. Inquest over the bodies of the deceased were prepared vide Exs.P-28 and P-29. Spot map was prepared by the patwari vide Ex.P-57. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Community Health Center, Premnagar where Dr.B.M.Kamre (PW-26) conducted postmortem over the body vide Ex.P-58 and found following symptoms:-
1. At the time of postmortem examination, the deceased was wearing a pink T-shirt, green lower and orange underwear. A pink gamcha was present around the neck, and a black thread was present on the left wrist.
2. The entire body of the deceased had a smell of decay, and small maggots were coming out of both ears, mouth and nose. The stomach was swollen.
3. The deceased's eyes were closed, and the mouth was partially open. No external injuries were visible on the body. Rigor mortis was pr
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt to secure a conviction.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
For a conviction based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the guilt of the accused, and confessions made in police c....
The main legal point established in the judgment is that confessional statements made to a police officer are inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, and no part of it is admissible under ....
The prosecution failed to prove the charges against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, leading to their acquittal under IPC and SC/ST Act.
Another important aspect to be considered in a case resting on circumstantial evidence is the lapse of time between the point when the accused and deceased were seen together and when the deceased is....
The conviction based on circumstantial evidence is not sustainable without a complete chain of evidence, and undue delay in handling forensic samples raises integrity concerns.
(1) Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion.(2) Disclosure statement – It is only so much of i....
(1) Disclosure statement – Once information is given by accused, same information cannot be used even if voluntarily made by a co-accused who is in custody – Section 27 of Evidence Act does apply to ....
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
