Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 18865
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ
Ajeet Singh Kanwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 366 OF 2018|CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 372 OF 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Aditya Khare, Surfaraj Khan
For the Respondents: Sharad Mishra
Material omissions in the first information report and lack of corroborating evidence for res gestae witnesses render a prosecution case unreliable. Without independent corroboration, and given unexplained delays in forensic processing, conviction cannot be sustained due to the benefit of doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 147, 148, 302/149 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 6 and 11 - Criminal Appeal - Conviction based on eyewitness testimony - Consistency and reliability of deposition - Falsity of prosecution case due to vital omissions in initial report - Admissibility and evidentiary value of res gestae evidence.
(B) Evidence - Corroboration - Necessity - In cases where witnesses are branded as res gestae, their testimony alone cannot form the basis of conviction without corroboration by direct or circumstantial evidence. (Paras 19, 21)
(C) Evidence - First Information Report - Omissions - Omissions of important facts in the first report lodged by a close relative, which would naturally have been included if known, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act to judge the veracity of the prosecution case. (Paras 24, 25, 27)
Facts of the case:
Multiple appellants challenged their conviction and life imprisonment sentences for rioting and murder. The prosecution alleged that the appellants formed an unlawful assembly and killed the deceased, relying on the testimony of three witnesses who claimed to be eyewitnesses. The defense argued that these witnesses reached the scene post-incident and were at most res gestae witnesses, and that the first information report failed to name the appellants as assailants, indicating a contradiction in the prosecution's narrative. Additionally, concerns were raised regarding the forensic examination of seized articles and an unexplained two-month delay in submission to the laboratory.
Findings of Court:
The court observed that the reliance on testimony regarding eyewitness accounts was flawed given the significant omissions in the initial report lodged by a family member. Furthermore, the court determined that the testimony of witnesses who reached the scene after the event constituted only res gestae evidence, which required additional corroboration. The lack of explanation for the prolonged delay in sending forensic samples for testing raised serious doubts about potential evidence tampering.
Issues: The main issues were whether the evidence provided by eyewitnesses was credible despite material omissions in the initial police report and whether testimony of res gestae witnesses without independent corroboration is sufficient to sustain a criminal conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: Omissions of material facts in the first information report, which significantly affect the probabilities of the prosecution's case, undermine the veracity of the witness testimony under Section 11 of the Evidence Act. Res gestae evidence, while admissible under Section 6, requires independent corroboration to sustain a conviction. A significant unexplained delay in the forensic examination of crime scene evidence renders such evidence unreliable as it risks the integrity of the seized materials.
Result: Appeals allowed; conviction and sentences set aside; appellants acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of trial conviction and prosecution case history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. contentions regarding witness reliability and evidentiary contradictions. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 3. assessment of witness testimony and res gestae status. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 4. res gestae evidence requires independent corroboration for conviction. (Para 19 , 20 , 21) |
| 5. omissions of material facts in fir affect prosecution veracity. (Para 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27) |
| 6. inaccurate site plans undermine prosecution witness reliability. (Para 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32) |
| 7. unreliable confessions and delayed forensic chain create reasonable doubt. (Para 33 , 34 , 35) |
| 8. benefit of doubt leads to acquittal and release. (Para 36 , 37 , 38) |
Division Bench
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad
Judgment on Board
[17.10.2024]
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 h
