SALBAM KANNA vs THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH - 2024-01-11

O R D E R

1. The appellant who is the sole accused in Crime Case No.31/200 1 and charged with an offence punishable under Section 302 o f the Indian Penal Code, 1860, seeks to overturn the convictio n rendered by both the Courts below before us .

2. The case of the prosecution in a nutshell is that the decease d was found dead on 23.11.2001. A Panchayat was held in th e village and an attempt was made to find out the perso n responsible for the death of the deceased. A threat wa s exerted to all the hundred participants to come out with th e truth or else they would be under pressure of the Police an d the blood of the deceased would be mixed with rice to b e consumed by one and all which might result in death of th e accused .

3. A confession statement is said to have been made by appellan t before the Panchayat. Pursuant to the said statement, a complaint was registered at the instance of PW-1, who alon g with the others took the accused to the Police Station. Th e accused was carrying the material objects which were used fo r committing the offence. The body was found in the fores t nearby the village .

4. During the questioning under Section 313 of the Code o f Criminal Procedure, 1973, the appellant denied the charge . Though, the material objects seized were sent to the forensi c expert, there is no discussion forthcoming on the blood foun d thereunder corresponding with the blood of the deceased . However, the postmortem doctor opined that the death wa s homicidal which could have been caused by the materia l objects .

5. The Trial Court primarily placing evidence of PW-1 and PW-2 , who were participants in the Panchayat meeting, rendered a conviction against the appellant which found favour with th e High Court .

6. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that extr a judicial confession is a very weak piece of evidence and it i s a case of circumstantial evidence. The body was found in a nearby forest. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness. Despit e the presence of hundred witnesses to evidence the allege d statement made by the appellant, in the nature of extr a judicial confession, only two witnesses have been examined . PW-1, in his cross-examination stated that the appellant di d not make the said statement, while PW-2, in his cross - examination, stated that he went there after the statement o f the appellant, a statement he retracted thereafter in his re - examination. Based upon two testimonies of the witnesses, bot h the Courts have convicted the appellant .

7. We find that the prosecution has not done a thorough job i n coming to the conclusion that it is the appellant who ha s committed the offence as we are dealing with a case o f circumstantial evidence. There must be a link which has t o point out to the appellant alone. PW-1, as stated, was no t very clear about the statement made by the appellant. That i s the reason why in his cross-examination, he came out with a statement that appellant did not make a statement. Eve n otherwise, the evidence is to the effect, that there was a threat exerted, in order to find out the truth. PW-2 also i n his cross-examination, made a statement, that he came to th e place where the appellant made the extra judicial confessio n after the said statement was made to others. Thereafter only , in his re-examination, he retracted the said statement .

8. As stated, there is no discussion as to whether the bloo d stain found in the material objects tallies with the bloo d group of the deceased. Thus, considering the above, we are o f the view that the conviction rendered by both the Courts i s liable to be interfered with .

9. In such view of the matter, the appeal stands allowed. Th e impugned order confirming that of the Court of Sessions stand s set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. Th e bail bonds, if any, stands discharged .

10. Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of .

……………………………………………………J .

[M.M. SUNDRESH ]

……………………………………………………J .

[S.V.N. BHATTI ]

NEW DELHI ;

11th JANUARY, 202 4 ITEM NO.113 COURT NO.14 SECTION II- C S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A RECORD OF PROCEEDING S Criminal Appeal No(s). 887/201 2 SALBAM KANNA Appellant(s )

VERSU S THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s )

Date : 11-01-2024 This appeal was called on for hearing today .

CORAM : HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE M.M. SUNDRES H HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE S.V.N. BHATT I For Appellant(s) Mr. Ram Lal Roy, AO R For Respondent(s) Mr. Vishal Prasad, AO R Ms. Ritika Sethi, Adv .

UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the followin g

O R D E R

The appeal stands allowed in terms of the signed order . Pending application(s), if any, also stand disposed of .

(SWETA BALODI) (DIPTI KHURANA )

COURT MASTER (SH) COURT MASTER (NSH )

(Signed order is placed on the file )