Nafr High Court
Case Details
Page 1 of 21 (Cr.A.Nos.1181/2014 & 1033/2014) SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.04.07 14:58:58 +0530 2025:CGHC:15651-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1181 of 2014 {Arising out of judgment dated 24-9-2014 in Special Sessions Trial No.24/2012 of the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Koriya, Baikunthpur} 1. Prakash Singh, S/o Chhotelal, Aged about 34 years, 2. Arvind Singh, S/o Chhotelal, Aged about 32 years, 3. Jambala Singh, S/o late Dharmajeet Singh, Aged about 62 years 4. Shiv Kumar, S/o Ramsay, Aged about 57 years, 5. Ganeshiya Bai, W/o Shivkumar Gond, Aged about 30 years, All are resident of Chanwaridand, Police Station Khadgawan, Civil and Revenue District Koriya, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants Versus The State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Khadgawan, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Jugal Kishore Gilda, Senior Advocate with Mr. Syed Majid Ali and Mr. Avinash Singh, Advocates. For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate. Page 2 of 21 (Cr.A.Nos.1181/2014 & 1033/2014) AND CRA No. 1033 of 2014 Sokhlal (dead) through LRs 1. Kailasho, Wd/o late Sokhlal, Aged about 50 years, 2. Devnarayan, S/o late Sokhlal, Aged about 32 years, 3. Ayodhya Prasad, S/o late Sokhlal, Aged about 21 years, 4. Anita, D/o late Sokhlal, Aged about 18 years, All are R/o Village Pondidih, P.S. Khadgawan, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 5. Kavita @ Sunita, D/o late Sokhlal, Aged about 28 years, R/o Siroyakhoh, Nagpur, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh 6. Savita, D/o late Sokhlal, Aged about 23 years, R/o Pondikala, P.S. Pasan, District Korba, Chhattisgarh --- Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Khadgawan, Civil and Revenue District Koriya, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellants
Legal Reasoning
: Ms. Yashasvi Singhi, Advocate on behalf of Mrs. Hamida Siddique, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Government Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ. Judgment On Board (03/04/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. Page 3 of 21 (Cr.A.Nos.1181/2014 & 1033/2014) 1. Since both the above criminal appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment dated 24-9-2014 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Koriya, Baikunthpur in Special Sessions Trial No.24/2012, and since common question of fact and law is involved in both the appeals, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being
Decision
disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Prakash Singh (A-1), Arvind Singh (A-2), Jambala Singh (A- 3), Shivkumar (A-5) & Ganeshiya Bai (A-6) have preferred Criminal Appeal No.1181/2014, whereas Sokhlal (A-4) (now deceased), whose legal heirs have been brought on record, has preferred Criminal Appeal No.1033/2014 under Section 374(2) of the CrPC calling in question legality, validity and correctness of judgment dated 24-9-2014 passed by the Special Judge under the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, Koriya, Baikunthpur in Special Sessions Trial No.24/2012, by which all the appellants have been convicted for offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34, 201 read with Section 34 & 120B read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to Page 4 of 21 (Cr.A.Nos.1181/2014 & 1033/2014) undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of ₹ 1,000/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months; rigorous imprisonment for seven years and pay fine of ₹ 1,000/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months; and imprisonment for life and pay fine of ₹ 1,000/- each, in default, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months, respectively, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. However, the appellants have been acquitted of the charge under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989. 3. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that prior to 3 p.m. of 2- 10-2011, at Podidih Bhata Forest, Near Gurdhela Nala, Police Station Khadgawan, District Koriya, all the appellants conspired together and caused the death of Sunita Singh (deceased) by strangulating her knowing well that she is a member of Scheduled Tribe and thereafter, in order to screen themselves from the offence, they hanged her dead body, and thereby committed the offence. Marg was registered vide Ex.P-1 on 2-10-2011 at 5 p.m. by Satyanarayan (PW-1), Village Sarpanch, informing the police that one Rajesh Page 5 of 21 (Cr.A.Nos.1181/2014 & 1033/2014) Pandey, at about 3 p.m., informed him that one girl, whose age is about 17-18 years, was found dead in hanging position. Identification of the dead body was done by Tribhuwan (PW- 3) – father of the deceased, vide Ex.P-2. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4. First postmortem was conducted on 3-10-2011 by Dr. Ashwini Patel, who has not been examined, vide Ex.P-11 and cause of death was stated to be shock due to antemortem hanging. Query report regarding cause of death was obtained vide Ex.P-22 on 8-10-2011 according to which cause of death is due to antemortem hanging, which may be suicidal. Similarly, query report regarding ligature mark on neck was also obtained vide Ex.P-23 on 24-11-2011 in which explanation has been given by the doctor that whole body was swelled and black in colour due to putrefaction process and ligature mark is not well to differentiate from black colour skin and ligature mark. Query report regarding injury on ribs and also about death, whether it is murder or suicide, has also been obtained vide Ex.P-27 on 11-11-2011, according to which ribs fracture cannot be well defined during postmortem and no any calot’s are present in left side of chest region, and nature of death may be suicidal. Second postmortem was conducted vide Ex.P-12 on 18-10-2011 in Page 6 of 21 (Cr.A.Nos.1181/2014 & 1033/2014) which it has been mentioned that cause and mode of death cannot be given as the putrefaction advanced, however, dangerous antemortem left sided ribs injury found. Query report by a team of three doctors was obtained vide Ex.P-13 on 20-12-2011 according to which injuries were antemortem in nature and cause of death may be homicidal. Further query report whether injuries found on the dead body may be caused at the time of its exhumation, has been obtained vide Ex.P-15 on 11-11-2011 in which it has been opined that injury would not come while digging the body and also not due to decomposition of the body and regarding cause of death, it has been opined that the body is in decomposed position, hence it cannot be possible to declare death as homicidal or suicidal. Query report regarding injuries was also obtained vide Ex.P-16, which states that fracture of ribs are antemortem injuries and dangerous to life. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-25 on 24-12-2011 and call details were obtained vide Ex.P-40. Statements of Anup Pratap (PW-9) & Kashiram (PW-10) under Section 161 of the CrPC were recorded on 12-6-2012 and statement of Bali Kumar (PW-14) under Section 161 of the CrPC was recorded on 3-7-2012. They are the witnesses of last seen together. Page 7 of 21 (Cr.A.Nos.1181/2014 & 1033/2014) 4. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Thereafter, after usual investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the learned Special Judge received the case on transfer for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 24 witnesses and brought on record 40 documents Exs.P-1 to P-40 apart from Articles A-1 to A-5. The accused / appellants abjured the guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offence and they have been falsely implicated. They have not examined any witness, however, exhibited 12 documents Exs.D-1 to D-12 in support of their defence. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which these appeals have been preferred. 7. Mr. Jugal Kishore Gilda, learned Senior Counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants in Cr.A.No.1181/2014, would submit as under: - Page 8 of 21 (Cr.A.Nos.1181/2014 & 1033/2014) 1. Motive of the offence, allegedly, that accused/appellant Prakash Singh (A-1) had love affair with deceased Sunita is not established at all and even otherwise, motive of the offence cannot be made the sole basis of conviction. 2. Furthermore, theory of last seen together of the appellants and the deceased is not established beyond reasonable doubt. Statements of the witnesses of last seen together namely, Anup Pratap (PW-9), Kashiram (PW-10) & Bali Kumar (PW-14) were recorded after an enormous delay of 9 months, as their statements under Section 161 of the CrPC were recorded on 12-6-2012 & 3-7-2012, whereas the incident took place on 2-10-2011 and the FIR was registered with a huge delay of more than two months on 24-12-2011 vide Ex.P-25, even the date of last seen together is not mentioned in the statements of the alleged witnesses of last seen together. Furthermore, time-gap between the appellants and the deceased were last seen together and the deceased was found dead is too long that it cannot be believed by any stretch of imagination that the appellants are the Page 9 of 21 (Cr.A.Nos.1181/2014 & 1033/2014) authors of the crime, more particularly, when no corroborative piece of evidence has been brought on record. The Supreme Court in the matter of Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police1 had already held that conviction cannot be based solely on the theory of last seen together and it requires corroboration, which is absolutely missing in the present case. 3. The trial Court has placed reliance on call details Ex.P- 40, whereas investigating officer Arvind Kaul (PW-23) has clearly stated in his evidence that no documents have been filed supporting the case that mobile No.9584210271 was owned by deceased Sunita. Even otherwise, no certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, 1872 has been brought on record which is absolutely necessary in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal and others2.