AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 413 of 2020

1 - Narayan Raut S/o Radheshyam Raut Aged About 27 Years R/o Mota Nayapara, Police Station Dharambandha, District Nuapada Odisha.

2 - Ashok Yadav S/o Punitram Yadav Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Bhatgaon, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

---- Appellants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Komakhan, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh.

---- Respondent For Appellant Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Advocate. For State Mr. Abhishek Singh, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Goutam Bhaduri &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ Judgment on Board Per Goutam Bhaduri, J.

08.02.2024 Heard.

1. The present appeal is against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.01.2020 passed in Sessions Trial No.05/2018 by the Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, District Mahasamund (C.G.) whereby the appellants have been convicted & sentenced as under:-

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that both the accused persons Narayan Raut & Ashok Yadav and the deceased persons Lalaram and Leelabai are related to each other. The deceased persons Lalaram and Leelabai used to stay in a hutment situated over the agricultural land at village Suarmal. On 16.08.2017 when P.W.1 Haslekh went to his field, he saw that entire hutment has been burnt wherein Lalaram and Leelabai used to stay. Accordingly, after it was found that both Lalaram and Leelabai have died of burn injuries, it was intimated to the Police and the merg was registered vide Ex.P.1 & Ex.P.2. The dead bodies were subjected to post-mortem and initially though it was apprehended that the incident of fire took place due to short circuit of the electricity but it was found to be incorrect and the death was due to burn injuries. Against the unknown person, case was registered under Section 302 & 201 of IPC and during investigation, appellants Narayan Raut and Ashok Yadav were apprehended and on their memorandum statements (Ex.P.20 & Ex.P.21), the wooden club was recovered vide Ex.P.25. During investigation, Police collected the evidence with respect to the mobile location of Narayan Raut, which was situated near the tower where the vicinity of the hutment was there and incident took place there. After recording the entire statements and collection of other documentary evidence, the charge-sheet was filed.

3. During the course of trial, the appellants abjured their guilt and claimed to be tried. The prosecution on its behalf examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 71 documents. The learned Sessions Judge, on the basis of evidence placed before it, convicted and sentenced the appellants based on the circumstantial evidence. Hence, this appeal.

4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the conviction of the appellants recorded by the trial Court is completely misconceived. There are six circumstances considered about the conduct of the appellants before the incident, location of mobile phones near the hutment and after the incident though the appellants were related to the deceased persons, but they did not attend the last rituals and ceremonies. He further submits that the fact, which was disclosed by the appellants that appellant Ashok Yadav was treating his wife was not accepted as an evidence and the motive of the incident is stated to be quarrel. He would submit that all the circumstances nowhere pointed out the involvement of the accused/appellants