Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 19695
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ
Siyaram @ Prem @ Lamsena – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA/1438/2015
Ms. Sharmila Singhai, Senior Advocate, with Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate; Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General, with Mr. Amit Buxy, Panel Lawyer.
Circumstantial evidence must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, adhering to five principles for conviction, including the necessity of a complete chain of evidence.
Headnote:(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120-B, 302/34, 392, 397, 398, 460, 342 - Arms Act, 1959 - Section 25(1B) - Criminal appeal against conviction for conspiracy, robbery, and murder - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including recovery of incriminating materials and identification in Test Identification Parade (TIP) - Court upheld conviction, finding evidence sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 1, 14, 34)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Five golden principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence established - All circumstances must lead to the conclusion of guilt, excluding any reasonable doubt of innocence. (Paras 15, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellants were convicted for conspiring to commit robbery and murder, resulting in the deaths of three individuals during a house trespass. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including witness testimonies and recovery of stolen items. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court found the evidence of homicidal death, recovery of incriminating materials, and motive established, leading to the conclusion that the appellants were guilty of the charges. (Paras 34)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, the validity of the recovery of items, and the conduct of the TIP. (Paras 11, 34)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, adhering to the principles governing such cases. (Paras 15, 34)
Result: Criminal appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
[C A V Judgment]
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. The present Criminal Appeal, filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short ‘CrPC’) assails the legality, validity and correctness of the Judgment dated 4.7.2014 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, District Rajnandgaon in Sessions Case No.84/2011, by which each of the two appellants herein i.e. Siyaram (A-1) and Rahul (A-2) has been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 120- B, 302/34 (three counts), 392, 397, 398, 460, 342 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short ‘IPC’) as well as for offence under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act, 1959 (for short ‘Arms Act’) and sentenced thereunder in the manner as mentioned at the following chart:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. Under Section 120-B of IPC. | 1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months. |
| 2. Under Section 302/34 (three counts) of IPC. | 1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months. |
| 3. Under Section 392 of IPC. | In place of Section 392, sentenced under Section Section 397 of IPC being greater than Section 392 of IPC, in respect of sentence. |
| 4. Under Section 397 of IPC. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. |
| 5. Under Section 398 of IPC. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. |
| 6. Under Section 460 of IPC. | 1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months. |
| 7. Under Section 342 of IPC. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 year. |
| 8. Under Section 25(1B) of Arms Act. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment For 03 years. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. In case of default of fine amount, to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for 02 months. |
| All substantive sentences have been directed to run concurrently. |
Factual matrix of the prosecution case, in brief:-
2. In the fateful night of 17.10.2010 in Village Kade which falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station Manpur, District Rajnandgaon, the two appellants herein along with one other co-accused A-3 Golu who has been declared absconding, hatched a criminal conspiracy of committing robbery and murder and in furtherance of their common intention, all of them illegally armed with deadly weapon i.e. a knife committed lurking house-trespass by night in the house of Prabunandan (D-1) after locking the doors of the house of people living in the neighborhood from the outside and thereafter they committed robbery of gold & silver ornaments and bronze plates from the house of Prabhunandan (D-1) and with the use of said knife they also caused death of Prabhunandan (D-1), his wife Pushpa Bai (D-2) and her sister Manou Bai (D-3), thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. Merg Intimations (Exbts. P-1, P-2 & P-3) were lodged by PW-1 Puran Tirkey, son-in-law of D-1 Prabhunandan, stating inter alia that he resides near the house of D-1 Prabhunandan and on the date of offence i.e. on 17.10.2010 around 12 O’clock in the night when he along with his wife (PW-3 Kalendra Bai, niece of the deceased persons) tried to open the door of their house for the purpose of answering the nature’s call, he found that the door of his house was locked from the outside. On his raising an alarm from the window, PW-2 Vijay, PW-7 Sainad and PW-8 Bhanwar Sai came out of their house and opened the door of his house. Thereafter, on a suspicion that even after so much of ruckus happening outside in the neighborhood, D-1 Prabhunandan did not hear the noise and come out of his house, they along with other villagers went to his house where they found that the door of his house was already opened and when they tried to call them, no one came out of the house. So, they went inside the house of D-1 Prabhunandan and wherein they found the ensanguined dead-bodies of D-1 Prabhunandan, D-2 Pushpa Bai and D-3 Manou Bai whom they suspected to be murdered by a sharp edged weapon.
4. At the instance of PW-1 Pura
