Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(CHH) 4487
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sachin Singh Rajput, J
Madho Ram – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRA/661/2004
Shri Divyanand Patel, Advocate; Shri Aman Tamboli, P.L.
The prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt due to unreliable eyewitness testimony and significant delays in recording statements.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 304 Part-I and 149 - Conviction of appellants for murder based on eyewitness testimony - The trial court convicted the appellants for the murder of Firuram, who was assaulted on suspicion of theft, resulting in his death. The court found the evidence of eyewitnesses unreliable due to significant delays in recording their statements and inconsistencies in their testimonies. (Paras 1, 6, 13, 16)
(B) Eyewitness Testimony - Credibility - The court emphasized that while relatives can testify, their evidence must be credible and consistent. The delay in recording statements raised doubts about their reliability, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 14, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were accused of murdering Firuram after he was caught stealing an ox. They were convicted based on the testimonies of relatives who witnessed the assault. The trial court sentenced them to 10 years of rigorous imprisonment and a fine.
Findings of Court:
The evidence presented was deemed insufficient to sustain a conviction due to delays and inconsistencies in witness statements.
Issues: The main issues included the credibility of eyewitnesses and the adequacy of evidence to support the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution's failure to provide credible evidence and the significant delay in witness statements warranted the acquittal of the appellants.
Result: Appeal allowed; appellants acquitted.
C.A.V. Judgment
The Challenge in this appeal under section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short CrPC) is the impugned judgment dated 03/08/2004 passed by the II Additional Session Judge (F.T.C.), District – Jashpur (C.G.) (for short trial Court) in Session trial No. 44/2003 by which the appellants have been convicted under section 304 Part - I of IPC R/w Section 149 of IPC and sentenced them to undergo R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1000/- to each appellants in default of payment of fine one month S.I. was imposed. Charge sheet was filed against 28 accused. 22 accused faced the trial. The learned trial Court acquitted 14 accused namely Nokoram, Vibhuram, Mahadev, Suresh, Naguram and Dashrath Ram have been declared absconding during trial.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Firuram was caught by the appellants on 24.05.2002 on the charge of stealing an animal Ox. On enquired, he admitted staling the Ox. Upon which, the appellants tied his hand from behind and assaulted him resulting to his death. Ghurguddu (PW3) informed the death of Firuram to the police station and lodged the FIR Ex-P/3 and Ex-P/4 which was recorded by by Sub-Inspector A.R. Uike (PW9). He went to place of occurrence and panchnama of dead body was prepared vide Ex-P/7 in presence of witnesses. Vide application Ex-P/9, the dead body was sent for postmortem. Dr. George M. Xaxa (PW10) conducted the autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 25.05.2002, He found lacerated injuries on chin, external part of right eye, abrasion on left knee and injuy on the right cheek, right wrist and other multiple injuries on his person. His 2nd,3rd and 4th ribs were fractured. There was a blood clot on his 3rd and 4th ribs. The death was homicidal in nature on account of excessive bleeding caused due to the injuries sustained. Postmortem report Ex-P/13 was given. Spot map was prepared vide Ex-P/100 and Ex-P/11. One plastic rope was seized vide Ex-P/8 at the instance of Mayanath Ram (PW1) by ASI Ku, Mahalaxmi Kuldeep (PW8) in presence of witnesses. Statement of witnesses were recorded. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before Chief Judicial Magistrate, Jashpur. Vide order dated 06.08.2003, the case was committed to Session Judge, Raigarh who vide order dated dated 08.08.2003 made over the case to the trial Court.
3. The appellants were charged for offence punishable under sections 147, 302/149 IPC who denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
4. In order prove its case, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The statement of the appellants under 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded in which they claimed false implication.
5. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as described in paragraph one of this judgment, which led to filing of this appeal.
6. Learned counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction of the appellants cannot sustain the scrutiny of this Court. He submitted that prosecution failed to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court committed an error of law and fact in convicting the appellants relying upon the incredible evidence of Mayanath Ram (PW1) and Basmati Bai (PW2). He further submitted that the incident is said to have occurred on 24..05.2002 and the statement of alleged eyewitnesses Mayanath Ram (PW1) and Basmati Bai (PW2) was recorded after lapse of seven months. He went on to submit that the prosecution was unable to give any satisfactory explanation for delay in recording the statements of these witnesses. Eyewitnesses Mayanath Ram (PW1) and Basmati Bai (PW2) are the daughter and son in law of the deceased are interest witnesses, their statements do not inspire confidence and are wholly unreliable. Conviction of the appellants on such dubious evidence cannot sustain. He submitted that the no weapon was seized at the instance of the appellants and according to the medical re
