Back
2024 Supreme(Chh) 673
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Sanjay S. Agrawal, JJ.
Bhushan Singh, Son of Raghav Singh Rajput – Appellant (In Jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1725 of 2018
Decided On : 09-07-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate
IMPORTANT POINT
A conviction based solely on the testimony of one witness requires corroboration, especially when key evidence is missing, leading to doubts about the prosecution's case.
Headnote:
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Conviction for murder - Accused convicted based on sole testimony of a witness, which lacked corroboration - Non-examination of key witnesses and police officer raised doubts on prosecution's case - Conviction set aside on benefit of doubt. (Paras 1, 18)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 134 - Testimony of a single witness - Court may act on testimony of a single witness unless corroboration is required by statute or the nature of the testimony demands it. (Paras 10-12)
Facts of the case:
The accused was convicted for murder of Nilesh Singh, based on the testimony of Ajay Kumar Singh, while other co-accused were acquitted. The prosecution's evidence was deemed insufficient due to non-examination of key witnesses.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt, leading to the acquittal of the accused.
Issues: The main issues were the reliability of the sole witness's testimony and the adequacy of evidence to support the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized the need for corroboration in cases relying on a single witness, particularly when other co-accused were acquitted based on similar evidence.
Result: Conviction and sentence set aside; accused acquitted.
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of CrPC at the instance of the accused-appellant herein is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.10.2018, passed by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.), in Sessions Case No.505 of 1994 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Bhushan Singh and others), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 months.
2. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 15.06.1993, at about 03:30 PM, in front of the office of Shyam Jal Sansadhan Mandal, Gandhi Nagar, Ambikapur, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG), the accused appellant herein along with 08 other co-accused (who stand acquitted by the learned trial Court) firstly constituted unlawful assembly and shared common intention of killing one Nilesh Singh and, in furtherance thereof, assaulted Nilesh Singh (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) by means of iron rod, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died on the same day and, thereby said to have committed offences under Sections 148, 302/149 (in alternative 302) & 352/149 (in alternative 352) of IPC.
3. It is further case of the prosecution that when Ajay Kumar Singh (PW-12) reported the matter to the police, merg intimation (Ex.P/37) and FIR (Ex.P/26) were registered and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/01 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/02. Panchnama and spot map were also prepared vide Ex.P/22 & Ex.P/28 respectively. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. M.K. Jaiswal (PW-08) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/11), cause of death of the deceased is coma due to shock as a result of head injury. The appellant-accused was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/29. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, weapon of the offence i.e. rod has been seized vide Ex.P/30. However, the aforesaid seized rod has not been sent for chemical analysis nor any FSL report has been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. Test Identification Parade was also conducted vide Ex.P/08, wherein acquitted co-accused, namely, Amrit Relwani was identified. After statements of witnesses were recorded and completion of the investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant alongwith other acquitted co-accused in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which, the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 37, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence, though not examined any witness but exhibited 02 documents.
5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict only the present appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
6. Mr. V.K. Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the said offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the testimony of Ajay Kumar Singh (PW-12) has partly been relied upon by the learned trial Cou
