Balrampur, Chhattisgarh v. The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balrampur, Distt
Case Details
1 CRA No.14/2016 AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.08.14 19:00:25 +0530 2025:CGHC:40408-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 14 of 2016 1 - Ramlal and Others S/o Mahaveer Kodaku Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Sapra, Koliyadamar, P.S. Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Civil Distt. Surguja, Rev. Distt. Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh 2 - Ramkumar S/o Bifna Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Badkimadri, P.S. Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Civil Distt. Surguja, Rev. Distt. Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur,Chhattisgarh 3 - Deepak Tirkey S/o Nikols Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Birkima, Piparsota, P.S. Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Civil Distt. Surguja, Rev. Distt. Balrampur, Chhattisgarh., District : Balrampur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Balrampur, Distt. Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- : Mr. Shrikant Kaushik, Advocate For Appellants For Respondent-State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 2 CRA No.14/2016
Legal Reasoning
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 12.08.2025 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03-11-2015 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, C.G. in Sessions Case No.316/2010 whereby learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 302 IPC Section 404 of the IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, in default, R.I. for 25 days each R.I. For 3 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default, R.I. for 10 days each. 2. 3. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently For the sake of convenience the accused/appellant would be referred as Ramlal (A-1), Ramkumar (A-2) and Deepak Tirkey (A-3). (a) Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.05.2010, Dheeraj Singh (PW-26) informed at P.S. Balrampur that on 18.05.2010 at 6.15 a.m., he was informed by Santosh Singh in his mobile that Deepak Singh has died in an accident. On receiving the information, he went to the spot and saw that 3 CRA No.14/2016 the dead body of deceased lying on the ground between the Tractor’s engine and trolley near his bricks kiln. Blood was oozing out from his ears and nose. On the basis of said information, Merg was registered. Crime detail form was prepared vide Exs.P-6 and P-7. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-22. During the investigation, mobile phone of A-1, who is tractor driver of deceased was found in a damaged condition and smeared with blood. After taking the appellants in custody, it was revealed that the appellants and deceased were consuming alcohol in the courtyard of A-2. Due to sudden dispute, the deceased was assaulted by means of hands and fist, bricks and iron rod. With intention of making the incident appear as an accident and to destroy evidence, the appellants placed the deceased in an injured condition between tractors parked near the brick kiln, far from the house of A-2, thereafter, started the tractor and crushed him to death. Subsequently, the appellants fled from the spot with cash and mobile of the deceased. 4. (b) An iron rod, cash amounting to 3,500, mobile phone of ₹ deceased, shoes, and the clothes worn by the appellants at the time of the incident with stains resembling blood, were seized and sent to the FSL, Raipur for examination. Thereafter, the appellants were arrested vide Exs.P-30 to P- 32. After due investigation, the final report was filed against 4 CRA No.14/2016 the appellants. 5. 6. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 29 witnesses and exhibited 41 documents. to bring home the charges. The appellants persons abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellants herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced them as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants- accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that there is absolutely no evidence against any of the appellant conclusively connecting him with the commission of crime. He submits that the conviction of the appellants is based on the basis of memorandum statement and there is no direct evidence against the appellants. Apart from that, there is no eye witness in the present case and the appellant has been falsely implicated. Learned counsel would further submit that the circumstantial evidence does not complete the chain nor an inference of guilt can be drawn on the basis of such evidence as has been brought 5 CRA No.14/2016 on record by the prosecution. He further submits that the feature and ingredients of Section 302 and 404 of the IPC are not available in the present case. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/24) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. R.S. Markam (PW-21). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/24) and the statement of Dr. R.S. Markam (PW-21) that the nature of death of deceased was 11. 12. 6 CRA No.14/2016 homicidal in nature, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. Now the next question would be whether the accused- appellants herein are the author of the crime in question ? PW-10 Geeta Singh, mother of deceased stated in her evidence that on the date of the incident, Deepak Singh, Ramlal, and Ramkumar took lunch together. Thereafter, her son asked for 10,000 to purchase wedding invitation cards ₹ and a tractor tube, which she gave to him. He then left for Ramanujganj along with Deepak Tirki. Ram Lal, who drove the tractor, took it, while the accused Ramkumar, after covering the shed, went to his house. That evening, she kept waiting for Deepak Singh, but he did not return. The next morning, at about 4:30 a.m., Salimuddin came to her house and informed her that deceased was lying near the tractor and blood was oozing out from his nose and ears. She then went to the spot along with her younger son and saw that Deepak Singh lying dead and blood was oozing from his nose and ears. The place where Deepak Singh was lying was their brick kiln. However, in her cross-examination, 7 CRA No.14/2016 she stated that she know the appellants herein and no animosity between the appellants and her son/deceased. She further stated that she has not seen the incident and admits that on the basis of suspicion, she told the name of the appellants. 13. PW-8, Shyam Bihari, who is the witness of memorandum and seizure stated in his cross-examination that seized notes are usually found at every home and seizure of mobile was made from the open place. Similarly, PW-9, Anup Singh, who is the witness of memorandum and seizure stated that the seizure of notes and clothes are generally available in all the houses. 14. Salimuddin Sheikh (PW-28), stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, at about 4:00 a.m., the accused Ramkumar came to his house told him that near the brick kiln, a tractor-trolley was parked and that Deepak Singh/deceased was lying dead. At that time, he did not go with Ramkumar because he could smell alcohol from the mouth of Ramkumar. Later, at about 6:00 a.m., he went to house of deceased and informed his mother about the matter, thereafter, they went to the spot and saw Deepak Singh lying dead under the trolley, with blood coming out of his ear and mouth. However, he stated that Ramkumar had told him that Deepak Singh, his driver Deepak Tirki, and 8 CRA No.14/2016 Ramkumar himself had consumed liquor together that night. On being asked whether Ramkumar had told anyone else about the liquor consumption, the witness stated that Ramkumar had told him he had not yet informed anyone about it. In the case, there is no FSL report and in absence of FSL report, there is no evidence of confirmation of blood upon the seized articles. 15. Admittedly, there is no ocular version of the crime, as no witness has seen the appellants committing the crime. Case of the prosecution, therefore, rests on circumstantial evidence. The principle as to when an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been propounded by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein it has underlined the conditions, which must be fulfilled for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and held in para-153 as under : “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully 9 established. CRA No.14/2016 It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the following observations were made: ‘certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’ (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of 10 CRA No.14/2016 evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 16. In a recent judgment in Nathiya Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore, (2016) 10 SCC 298, the Supreme Court has reiterated the above principles. 17. In Jonh Pandian v State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2010) 14 SCC 129 the Supreme Court has held that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be proved to be done in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. A systematic role played by each accused has to be highlighted. Similarly each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and such circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion is about the guilt of the accused which can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis of the guilt is possible. Since the evidence of conspiracy is very hard to find and the prosecution would always have great difficulty in proving the conspiracy and, therefore, the conspiracy has to be inferred from 11 CRA No.14/2016 circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. 18. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Sherimon v State of Kerala, (2011) 10 SCC 768 and held thus in paras 17 & 18 : The gist of the offence of 17. conspiracy is the agreement between two and more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. There must be meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding commission of the crime. In this case, no such evidence has come on record. PW-5 Biju, the employee of City Auto Finance at Moovattupuzha was the only witness examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged meeting between the appellant and the other accused. He has turned hostile. Therefore, there is nothing on record to establish meeting of minds between the appellant and the other accused. 18. Assuming that the appellant had produced certain documents pertaining to the said auto rickshaw, it cannot be concluded on the basis thereof that he had entered into a conspiracy with A-1 to A-3 to repossess the said auto rickshaw because the loan amount was not repaid and in pursuance thereof A-1 to A-3 murdered the driver of the said auto rickshaw. The evidence on record is totally inadequate to come to such a conclusion. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the impugned judgment. 12 CRA No.14/2016 19. In the case at hand, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, as there is no ocular version of the crime. Except the memorandum statements of appellants, there is no other evidence against the appellants. The dead body of deceased was found near the brick kiln. There is only a memorandum statement of the appellants, on the basis of which, the appellants have been implicated in this case. Mother of deceased PW-10 stated in her evidence, that there is no animosity between the appellants and the deceased. She further stated that due to suspicion, the appellants were made accused in the case. PW-9 Anup singh also not supported the memorandum and seizure made from the appellants and stated that the seizure of notes and clothes are generally available in all houses. PW- 8, who is the witness of memorandum and seizure has categorically stated that the seizure of mobile was made from open place and there was no any specific sign. 20. Considering 17 circumstances that have been enumerated in Para-38 of the judgment, are mostly based on the memorandum statement of the appellants/accused persons. Admissibility of such statement is always questioned under the provisions of Section 24 and 25 of Evidence Act, 1872. The only other incriminating evidence is the recovery of one mobile at the instance of appellant No.3-Deepak Tirkey 13 CRA No.14/2016 allegedly belonging to deceased (Deepak Singh) which was not subjected to any identification parade. It is the only statement of Investigation Officer which has been relied upon. Similarly the evidence regarding seizure of one mobile allegedly belonging to appellant No.1-Ramlal, in support of which the statement of Investigation Officer is the only evidence. It is mentioned in the impugned judgment itself that there is no evidence of last seen together. Recovery of currency notes by itself is not leading to any conclusion. 21.
Decision
In view of the above, there is absolutely no evidence against the appellants. There is no FSL report with respect to recovery of seized articles recovered from the memorandum statement of appellants, there is no other evidence of conclusive nature by which their guilt of committing murder of the deceased can be proved. In the state of evidence on record, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. 22. Accordingly, conviction and sentence imposed on all the appellants are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. 23. In the result, appeal is allowed. The appellants are on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by them at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 14 CRA No.14/2016 of the BNSS. The appellants shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 24. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep