In a criminal case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of evidence that excludes all hypotheses of innocence; where key witnesses turn hostile and there is an absence of motive, recovery, and forensic evidence, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt.

NAFR

CAV Judgment

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.92/2014 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, District Korba, C.G. by which the appellant stands convicted & sentenced as under:-

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.06.2014 at about 6:30 PM, accused Bhagwat Prasad and his elder brother Shivnath (hereinafter called as ‘deceased’) had a dispute over ploughing their agricultural field situated at Limbhatha Khar, Village Masan. During the altercation, the accused/appellant allegedly broke a branch of a Parsa tree and assaulted deceased- Shivnath on his head, face and left temple, due to which, deceased fell down and started bleeding. The incident was allegedly witnessed by Sitaram Kanwar (PW-2), the tractor driver and some nearby villagers. After that, deceased- Shivnath was taken to the District Hospital, Korba, where he was declared dead. On the report lodged by the accused/appellant himself, FIR (Ex.P-19) was registered at Police Station Urga against the appellant. Thereafter, merg intimation vide Ex.P-18 was recorded and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-4. Dead body of deceased- Shivnath was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-9 Dr. P.P. Singh, who have proved the postmortem report Ex.P-1. According to PW-9 Dr. P. P. Singh, the cause of death of the deceased, Shivnath, was haemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding following trauma to the abdominal organs. During investigation, appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-23. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-9, but no seizure was made from him. From the spot, plain and blood stained soil & branches of parsa tree were seized vide Exs.P-10 & P-11. Vide Ex.P-25 clothes of deceased were seized. However, the seized articles were not sent to FSL for chemical examination.

3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional Criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence.

4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 11 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 24 documents Exs.P-1 to P-21 as well as Article A-1 to A-6. However, the appellant in support of his defence has examined none and not exhibited any document.

5. The trial Court, after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which they have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC.

6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that