Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(CG) 5263
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH
Sanjay K. Agrawal, JJ, Arvind Singh Chandel, JJ
Firat Ram Kanwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.942 of 2018
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar
For the Respondents: Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia
A conviction cannot be upheld based solely on unreliable eyewitness testimony, affirming the principle that the burden of proof lies with the prosecution.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Appellant convicted for life imprisonment for murder of wife by assailing her with an axe on suspicion of character. Eyewitness testimony by son was deemed unreliable as he became hostile. Conviction reversed based on benefit of doubt after critical evaluation of evidence. (Paras 14 and 15)
(B) Burden of Proof - The prosecution failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt as key eyewitnesses contradicted their testimonies, leading to the acquittal of the appellant. (Paras 14 and 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his wife with an axe. Eyewitness son’s testimony was pivotal but turned hostile, raising doubts about the conviction based on circumstantial evidence.
Findings of Court:
Conviction under Section 302 IPC was set aside due to insufficient evidence and benefit of doubt being given to the appellant.
Issues: The primary issue was whether the evidence led by the prosecution established the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that reliance on a hostile eyewitness without corroborating evidence is inadequate for conviction under the provisions of the IPC. The principle of benefit of doubt was applied liberally in favor of the appellant.
Result: Appellant acquitted and appeal allowed.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. prosecution's case revolves around the murder of the appellant's wife. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. defense challenges the credibility of the key eyewitness testifying against the appellant. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. trial court relied on contradictory testimonies and insufficient circumstantial evidence. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 4. court emphasizes benefit of doubt; conviction is unsafe based on unreliable witness. (Para 14) |
| 5. decision to acquit appellant based on insufficiency of evidence and procedural errors. (Para 15 , 16 , 17) |
1. This criminal appeal preferred by the sole appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21-3-2018 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazaar in Sessions Trial No.81/2017, by which the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of 1,000/-, ₹ in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.
2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 15-9-2017 at about 2 p.m. at Village Lakhdabri, Police Station Saliha, District Baloda Bazaar- Bhatapara, the appellant assaulted his wife Setbai Kanwar suspecting her character, by axe by which she suffered grievous injuries and died, and thereby committed the offence. Sadhram Kanwar (PW-1) – elder brother of the appellant, reported the matter to the police pursuant to which dehati nalishi Ex.P-1 was recorded based on which dehati morgue intimation Ex.P-2 was registered and FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-20. Inquest over the dead body of deceased Setbai was conducted vide Ex.P-5. On the basis of recommendation of panchas, the dead body of the deceased was subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr.
Lokesh Sahu (PW-8) vide postmortem report Exs.P-6 & P-18 in which cause of death was stated to be cardio-respiratory failure because of haemorrhage & asphyxia, and nature of death is homicidal. Pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant (Ex.P-8), axe was seized from him vide Ex.P-9. Query report has been obtained from the medical officer showing the weapon of offence axe seeking opinion as to whether the injuries suffered by the deceased could be caused by the said axe, which was accorded by Dr. Lokesh Sahu (PW-8) vide his query report Ex.P-19 opining that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible to be caused by the said weapon of offence axe seized from the possession of the appellant. Seized articles including the weapon of offence axe were sent for chemical examination to the FSL, Raipur from where FSL report Ex.P-23 was received according to which human blood was found on the axe and blood was found on other articles.
3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and after usual investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Session, Baloda Bazaar from where the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazaar received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
4. The prosecution, in order to prove the offence against the appellant, examined as many as 9 witnesses and brought on record 23 documents Exs.P-1 to P-23. The defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document in support of its case. Statement of the accused / appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured the guilt and pleaded innocence and false implication.
5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which he has preferred this appeal.
6. Mr. Praveen K. Dhurandhar, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the alleged eyewitness Yuvraj Singh (PW
