Back
2023 Supreme(Online)(SC) 12181
VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ
SHATRUGHAN – Appellant
Versus
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.437 OF 2016
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Anu Gupta
For the Respondents: Sumeer Sodhi
Conviction under IPC 302 overturned due to insufficient evidence, unreliable witness statements, and lack of motive.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Murder - Appellant convicted under section 302 IPC for life imprisonment and fine - Conviction based on circumstantial and hearsay evidence, with no direct evidence of the commission of the crime - Issues of reliable witness testimony and motive considered. (Paras 31, 35, 37)
(B) The prosecution failed to provide direct eye-witness accounts and motive for the crime, leading to doubt on the prosecution's case. (Paras 32, 34)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering Jagat Ram under dubious circumstances, with conflicting witness accounts and a lack of motive.
Findings of Court:
The conviction was overturned due to insufficient evidence and lack of reliable testimony implicating the appellant.
Issues: Validity of witness statements, lack of motive, and the potential for false implication were main issues addressed.
Ratio Decidendi: The court found that the evidence did not establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the crime, leading to the decision to acquit.
Result: Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence set aside.
Key Points: - The conviction under IPC 302 was overturned due to insufficient evidence and lack of reliable testimony. (!) (!) (!) - The lack of direct eye-witness accounts and absence of proved motive weakened the prosecution’s case. (!) (!) (!) - The court highlighted inconsistencies in witness statements and the injury evidence not matching the weapon, undermining reliability. (!) (!) (!) - The defence successfully argued potential false implication influenced by local power dynamics (Sarpanch) and lack of motive. (!) (!) - The High Court ultimately acquitted the appellant and set aside the conviction and sentence. (!)
What is the standard for establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a murder case where eyewitnesses are absent and motive is unclear?
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution story based on eyewitness accounts. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4) |
| 2. court's review of evidence and witness credibility. (Para 5 , 6) |
JUDGEMENT
VIKRAM NATH, J. By means of this appeal, the accused appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order of the High Court dated 06.04.2015 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2010 titled Statrughan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, whereby the conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code 1 and 1 IPC Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.07.21 10:37:58 IST Reason:
- Signature Not Verified the sentence to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Dist.Raipur in Sessions Trial No.41 of 2009 has been affirmed. The appellant is in jail and has already undergone almost 15 years incarceration.
2. According to the prosecution story, Vijay Kumar (PW1) uncle of the deceased (Jagat Ram) lodged a First Information Report at 04:30 AM on 20.07.2008 that on the previous night at about 08.00 PM while he was sitting in his house, his nephew Jagat was returning on a cycle and he heard his nephew shouting, while passing in front of the house of one Chandu “Kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan has assaulted me with a Tabbal”. The exact statement as recorded in vernacular is: “काका विजय व िंह दौड़ो , मेरे को शत्रुघ्न तब्बल े मार वदया है”।
3. On hearing the said cry for help, the informant along with his wife, ran to the lane in front of the house of Chandu Lal and saw that his nephew Jagat was lying on the road and that Shatrughan was moving on his cycle along with Tabbal towards his house. His nephew told him that Shatrughan, in order to murder him, had assaulted with Tabbal on his neck and thereafter escaped. His nephew was bleeding. In a loud voice, he called for help to save his nephew who had been assaulted by Shatrughan. On his call, his daughter and other residents of the neighbourhood collected. Father of the deceased, Ajit Ram took the injured on Motor Cycle of Sitaram for medical help. After some time, he returned and informed that Jagat had died. The said complaint was registered as FIR No.215 of 2008 at Police Station Kasdol, District Raipur. Investigation was entrusted to Investigating Officer2 (PW-16) who visited the spot, got the inquest prepared, recorded the statements of the informants as well as the witnesses, arrested the appellant and recovered various articles including the weapon of assault, other clothes containing blood stains and also recovered the cycle. The post-mortem was conducted on 20.07.2008 itself at 02.00 PM. Following ante mortem injuries were noticed:
- • Deep sharp incised wound on the left side of the neck measuring 5cm in length, 3 cm wide and 3cm deep.
- • Associated blood vessels were also cut and there was heavy bleeding.
4. After completing the investigation, the chargesheet was submitted under section 302 IPC.
The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The 2 IO Trial Judge framed the charge on 20.07.2008 which the appellant denied and claimed to be tried. The prosecution examined 16 witnesses and produced 21 documents. The defence did not examine any witness nor did it lead any documentary evidence.
5. The Trial Court, after considering the material on record, came to the conclusion that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who had committed the crime and accordingly convicted him for culpable homicide amounting to murder under section 302 IPC and awarded him sentence to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The said conviction has been affirmed by the High Court.
Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the original record also.
7. According to Ms. Anu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, both the Courts below committed serious error of law by recording conviction. They relied upon inadmissible
