SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2019 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 462

CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
Devsingh Hidhako and Others v. State of Chhattisgarh
Criminal Appeal No. 1166 of 2014



The conviction cannot stand based solely on inadmissible evidence of a witness with disabilities, lacking necessary recording compliance.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302/34 and 201/34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Appeal against conviction - The appellants were convicted based on the evidence of a sole witness, who was both deaf and dumb, without complying with the provisions of recording such evidence as per Section 119 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, rendering it inadmissible. The learned trial Court's reliance on this evidence, coupled with the fact that other evidence was either hostile or non-supportive, led to significant doubt on the prosecution's case. (Paras 30-49)

Findings of Court:
The evidence of the only eye-witness was unreliable and insufficient to uphold the conviction. The Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside.

Table of Content
1. details of the appeal and background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3)
2. summary of the trial proceedings. (Para 4 , 5)
3. submissions from both sides regarding the conviction. (Para 6 , 7 , 8)
4. preliminary observations by the court. (Para 9 , 10)
5. examination of prosecution witnesses. (Para 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20)
6. details on the interpretation and admissibility of witness statements. (Para 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 , 26 , 27)
7. court's assessment of the key witness's credibility. (Para 28 , 29)
8. legal principles involving the recording of evidence of disabled witnesses. (Para 30 , 31 , 32)
9. challenges regarding witness reliability. (Para 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
10. court's recommendations and required compliance for future cases. (Para 37 , 38 , 39)
11. conclusion on witness reliability and doubts concerning evidence. (Para 40 , 41 , 42 , 43 , 44)
12. final adjudication on the case. (Para 45 , 46)
13. outcome and direction of the appeal. (Para 47 , 48 , 49 , 50)

1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellants under S.374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as ' Cr.P.C.' ) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03/03/2014 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.65/2012, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: -
Conviction Sentence
Under S.302/34 of Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/- each, in (hereinafter referred to as ' IPC - ) default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months each.
Under S.201/34 of Rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month each.
Both the sentences awarded to all the appellants have been ordered to run concurrently.




2. Brief facts of the case for disposal of this appeal, are that, on 06/04/2012, villagers were invited in the marriage ceremony of son of Amar Singh, where celebration took place till late night. As per allegation, deceased Harijan Dhurva at about 12.00 in the night, left the house of Amar Singh for returning his home, but he did not reach his home. On next day, (PW - 5) Rano Bai, wife of Harijan Dhurva intimated other villagers and on that basis, search was made by the family members as well as villagers to nearby places, but Harijan Dhurva could not be traced. Subsequently, one dead body was found on 09/04/2012 at about 7.00 a.m. in the ' well - of Chharetu Hidko, which is situated at his agricultural field. On the back side of the dead body, mark of blood was present.

3. A merg was reported by one Shukhram (villager) along with other villagers to concerned Police Station vide Ex. P - 2 and on the basis of merg intimation, the police conducted merg enquiry. The merg report was made on 09/04/2012 at about 14.00 hours and after completion of merg enquiry, First Information Report (Ex. P - 25) was registered on 10/04/2012 (next day) at about 14.15 hours against unknown persons. After lodging of merg intimation, the Police reached on spot and prepared Naksha Panchayatnama on 09/04/2012 vide Ex. P - 4. The Police took out the dead body from well which was identified to be of Harijan Dhurva. The dead body was sent for postmortem to Community Health Center Durgukondal vide Ex. P - 24. The memorandum statement of one of appellants, namely, Devsingh Hidko was recorded by the Investigation Agency on 10/04/2012 at about 16.15 hours vide Ex. P - 6 and seizure of one old used thin Towel (Gamchha) was recovered from the possession of Devsingh Hidko on 10/04/2012 at about 16.30 hours vide Ex. P - 7. Dr. B.S. Thakur (PW - 17) conducted post - mortem of the dead body of the deceased and submitted its report dated 10/04/2012 vide Ex. P - 21, in which, he opined that the cause of death was strangulation and the death was homicidal in nature.

4. During course of



























































Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top