Back
2025 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 6878
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Satyanarayan – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal | 374(2) of Cr.P.C.
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mrs. Kiran Jain
For the Respondents: Mr. Vivek Mishra
The conviction cannot be sustained due to the lack of substantive evidence and the failure of the prosecution to prove the appellant's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Cr.P.C. - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - The appellant was convicted for murder; however, key eyewitnesses turned hostile, undermining the prosecution's case. The court affirmed that statements under Section 164 CrPC are not substantive evidence. The conviction was set aside on the basis of benefit of doubt. (Paras 10-20)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of proof - The burden of proof lies with the prosecution, which failed to establish the appellant's presence at the crime scene. (Paras 8-9)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering Sunita by assaulting her with a lathi. The prosecution's case relied heavily on witness testimonies that were not corroborated. The trial court convicted the appellant based on insufficient evidence.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution did not discharge its burden of proof, particularly regarding the appellant's presence at the scene of the crime.
Issues: The main issues were whether the death was homicidal and whether the prosecution proved the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the conviction could not stand due to the lack of substantive evidence and the hostile nature of key witnesses, emphasizing the importance of credible evidence in criminal proceedings.
Result: The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.04.2013 is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. the appellant was convicted for murder based on insufficient evidence. (Para 1 , 2 , 3) |
| 2. arguments presented by both sides regarding the conviction. (Para 5 , 6) |
| 3. discussion on the nature of evidence and the burden of proof. (Para 8 , 9 , 10) |
| 4. clarification on the status of statements under section 164 of crpc. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
| 5. final decision to acquit the appellant on the basis of doubt. (Para 20 , 21) |
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02.04.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pendraroad, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No. 53/2011, by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 month’s additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 15.07.2011 at night 10:00 P.M. at village Manwaritola, Police Station- Marwahi, District Bilaspur, the appellant herein assaulted Sunita (now deceased) by lathi, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby, the offence has been committed. Further case of the prosecution is that, on the date of offence i.e. on 15.07.2011, the deceased along-with her sister Pramila (PW-1) was cooking food, at that time, while the deceased was making conversation with her sister Anita on mobile phone, the appellant came armed with lathi and assaulted Sunita, by which she suffered grievous injuries and became unconcious and thereafter, she was taken to the Government Hospital Marwahi from where she was died truing treatment. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex. P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-11, Naksha Panchayatnama was prepared vide Ex.P-9 and dead body of deceased Sunita was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. O.L.Berman (PW-10), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-23, according to which, cause of death was stated to be cardio respiratory failure and death was homicidal in nature. The weapon of offence i.e. lathies were recovered vide Ex.P-14 and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-26), blood was found on the lathies i.e. Article C1 & C2. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.
3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.
4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment against which the present appeal has been preferred.
5. Mrs. Kiran Jain, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the eye-witness Pramila (PW-1) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution and it is the case of the prosecution that Pramila (PW-1) and brother of deceased Deepnarayan (PW-3) both were there in the house and therefore, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act would not be applicable and on the basis of statement recorded under Section 164 of Cr.P.C., the appellant could not have been convicted. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside and the appeal deserves to be allowed.
6. Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been
