IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.
Ajeet Singh Kanwar, S/o. Shri Samaru Singh Kanwar & Ors. - Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Bankimongra, District Korba (C.G.) - Respondent
Criminal Appeal Nos. 366, 372 of 2018
Decided On : 17-10-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 147, 148, 302/149 – Criminal appeals filed against conviction for murder and rioting – Trial Court convicted appellants based on witness testimonies, but the appellate court found lack of corroborative evidence and significant omissions in FIR – Conviction set aside on grounds of benefit of doubt. (Paras 36, 37)
(B) Witness Testimony – The credibility of witness statements must be scrutinized, especially when they are related to the victim – Omission of critical details in FIR undermines the prosecution's case. (Paras 22, 28)
(C) Forensic Evidence – While forensic reports can support a case, they cannot solely establish guilt without corroborative evidence linking the accused to the crime. (Paras 34, 35)
Facts of the case: The appellants were convicted for the murder of Banmali, a member of a Scheduled Tribe, following a violent altercation. The prosecution relied on witness testimonies, but significant inconsistencies and lack of direct evidence were noted. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court: The appellate court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the appellants. (Paras 36)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of witness testimonies and the adequacy of evidence to support the conviction. (Paras 12, 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the necessity of corroborative evidence for witness statements, particularly when the witnesses are related to the victim, and highlighted the importance of addressing omissions in the FIR. (Paras 20, 21)
Result: Appeals allowed; convictions set aside. (Paras 36, 37)
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the present two criminal appeals, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) has been filed by three appellants herein i.e. A-1 Manoj Soni and A-2 Monu @ Gajpati Soni, who have filed Criminal Appeal No.372 of 2018, and A-3 Ajeet Singh Kanwar, who has filed Criminal Appeal No.366 of 2018, calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the Judgment dated 22.2.2018 passed by learned Special Judge under Scheduled Castes/Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Korba (Trial Court) in Special Criminal Case No.03 of 2017.
2. By the impugned Judgment dated 22.2.2018, each of the three appellants herein (A-1, A-2 & A-3) has been convicted for offences under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months and to pay Fine of Rs.100/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 15 days for offence under Section 147 of IPC, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year and to pay Fine of Rs.200/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month for offence under Section 148 of IPC and further to undergo Life Imprisonment and to pay Fine of Rs.5000/- and in default of payment of fine to suffer additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 06 months for offence under Section 302/149 of IPC, with a direction to run all the substantive sentences concurrently, while acquitting the co-accused person i.e. A-4 Naveen Kashyap of all the aforesaid offences.
3. Case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that on 25.11.2016 around 8:00 p.m., at Shantinagar, Balgi under Police Station Bankimongra, the three appellants herein i.e. A-1 Manoj, A-2 Monu and A-3 Ajeet along with other co-accused persons i.e. A-4 Naveen Kashyap (who stands acquitted by the Trial Court) and one juvenile in conflict with law, constituted an unlawful assembly and in furtherance of their common object caused riot and death of Banmali @ Banwari (deceased) assaulting him with knife, bricks and stones, knowing that the deceased Banmali was a member of a Scheduled Tribe.
4. It is the case of the prosecution that PW-9 Kedar Sahu had first informed about the said incident to PW-11 Itwar Singh, father of deceased Banmali, who immediately after 1½ hours of the incident that took place around 8:00 p.m., lodged the FIR (Ex. P-38) at 9:30 p.m. at Police Station Bankimongra, District Korba. Subsequently, Merg Intimation (Ex. P-36) was recorded. Crime Details Form (Ex. P-39) was prepared by PW-15 S.K. Pathak, the Investigating Officer and Nazri Naksha (Ex. P-12) was prepared by PW-5 Chhatrapal Singh Maravi, the Patwari. Inquest (Ex. P-14) was conducted and the dead-body of the deceased Banmali was subjected to post-mortem which was conducted by PW-12 Dr. R.S. Kanwar who submitted his post-mortem report (Ex. P-40) opining the cause of his death to be hemorrhagic shock and the nature of death to be homicidal. Seizure of blood mixed earth, plain earth, a bloodstained stone, four bloodstained bricks and a Karizma motorcycle was made from the spot vide Ex. P-16. Similarly, two shirts and a jacket were also seized from the spot vide Ex. P-17. Statement of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of CrPC. Memorandum statement of A-1 Manoj was recorded vide Ex. P-18 pursuant to which, a full-shirt stained with blood like spots was seized vide Ex. P-22. Similarly, pursuant to the memorandum statement (Ex. P-19) of A-2 Monu, a full-shirt and trouser both stained with blood like spots were seized vide Ex. P-23. So also, pursuant to the memorandum statement (Ex.20) of A-3 Ajeet, a shirt and jeans pant both stained with blood like spots were seized vide Ex.24. As per Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report (Ex. P-66), human blood was found on the stone (Ex. C) & bricks (Ex. D) seized fro
Badruddin Rukonddim Karpude v. State of Maharashtra
Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam
Ram Kumar Pandey v. The State of Madhya Pradesh
Balaka Singh v. State of Punjab
Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana and Another
The court ruled that witness testimonies must be corroborated by additional evidence to sustain a conviction, especially when significant omissions exist in the FIR.
Circumstantial evidence – Principle applicable to circumstantial evidence requires that facts must be consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused.
The main legal point established in the judgment is the requirement for the testimony of a sole eyewitness to be wholly reliable and corroborated by other evidence, failing which the accused may be e....
Point of law: Every person who witnesses a murder reacts in his own way. Some are stunned, become speechless and stand rooted to the spot. Some become hysteric and start wailing. Some start shouting ....
Conviction based solely on testimonies of related witnesses is unsafe without independent corroboration, as evidenced by inconsistencies and lack of physical evidence.
The prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt, and inconsistencies in witness testimonies can lead to the acquittal of the accused.
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.