Raipur, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Dharsiwa, District
Case Details
Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 1 2025:CGHC:26111-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 374 of 2019 Devprasad Banjare S/o Parasram Banjare, Aged About 26 Years, R/o Village Shikari Keshli, P. S. Suhela, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Dharsiwa, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Navneet Kumar Yadav, Advocate appears on
Legal Reasoning
behalf of Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent/ : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Government Advocate. State Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Judgment on Board Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge 20.06.2025 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 05.09.2012 passed by Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No.51/2012, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below:- 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 460 read with R.I. for 10 years with fine amount of Section 34 of IPC Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for one month. Under Section 302 read with R.I. for life with fine amount of Rs. Section 34 of IPC 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for one month. (Both sentences were directed to run concurrently) Prosecution Story:- 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, is that an FIR in Ex. P/14 was lodged by Neelkanth Miri (PW-9) in the Police Station on 04.11.2011 that Samundari Bai has been murdered in her house by unknown persons. An investigation was carried out and it is said that later on, the appellant along with co- accused Chetan Ratre were apprehended being the suspect in the alleged crime and their memorandum in Ex. P/1 and Ex. P/6 were recorded, in which it was stated that they had murdered Samundri Bai, looted her jewellery and cash. Further case of the prosecution is that on the basis of the memorandum of the co-accused Chetan Ratre, a cash of Rs. 5,000/- was seized from his house whereas on the memorandum given by the co- accused including the appellant that the looted jewellery has been sold in the jewellary shop of Suraj Soni (PW-15), looted jewellary was seized and later on, according to the prosecution, the same was also identified by Saraswati Bai (PW-7) as the belongings of deceased Samundri Bai. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court 3 framed charges against the appellant as also co-accused Chetan Ratre for alleged commission of offence under Section 302 and 460 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellant having abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 3. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 31 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, no defence was examined by him in his defence. 4. Learned trial Court relying upon recovery of ornaments on the memorandum of the appellants and their identification by Saraswati Bai (PW-7) as belongings to the deceased, held the appellant guilty of commission of offence and sentenced him as mentioned in inaugural paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. Submissions of the parties:- 5. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the entire case of the prosecution rests on an extremely doubtful and weak evidence of alleged recovery of looted ornaments on the memorandum of the co-accused Chetan Ratre and the present appellant. He would further submit that except this, there is no other incriminating material, circumstantial evidence to connect the appellant with the alleged commission of offence and the evidence of Suraj Soni (PW-15), the owner of the jewellery shop and Dakendra Vishwakarma (PW-16) are contradictory on a very material aspect as to whether it was the appellant or co-accused Chetan Ratre, who had come to the jewellery shop for selling allegedly looted gold ornaments. Therefore, on such a shaky evidence as to who had come to the jeweller to sell the looted articles, the appellant is 4 entitled to be acquitted by giving him benefit of doubt. He would next submit that another co-accused Chetan Ratre was already acquitted by this Court vide its judgment dated 05.10.2018 passed in CRA No. 898 of 2012. 6. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and thereby rightly convicted the appellant for the alleged offences and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference by this Court. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record including the impugned judgment. Discussion and Analysis:- 8. It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellant and another co-accused for offence under Section 460 of IPC read with Section 34 of IPC and in alternate Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant and co-accused person for offence under Section 460 read with Section 34 of IPC and Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. 9. It is evident from statement of witness i.e., Suraj Soni (PW-15) is an important witness and entire case of the prosecution rests only on the evidence of PW-15. Suraj Soni (PW-15), the owner of the jewellery shop, has stated that he identified co-accused Chetan Ratre, but did not identify the appellant Dev Prasad Banjare. He has deposed that the co-accused Chetan Ratre had come to his shop for selling of jewellery, but when he was asked to bring the bills as Chetan Ratre was not known to the jeweller, then the co-accused came along with one Dakendra Vishwakarma, resident of 5 nearby place, who identified the co-accused Chetan Ratre and thereafter the deal was struck for a consideration of Rs.40,000- 42,000/- as the cost of jewellery. He further deposed that Chetan Ratre got the bill prepared in the name of appellant Dev Prasad Banjare. Prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, this witness has stated that at the time of sale, Chetan Ratre was given the name of appellant Dev Prasad Banjare and the receipt was also in the name of appellant Dev Prasad Banjare. In para 7, he deposed that the person, who had come in his house, had disclosed his name as Dev Prasad Banjare, resident of Matia, but he further deposed that the co-accused Chetan Ratre introduced himself as Dev Prasad Banjare and sold the jewellery. In cross-examination, he stated that he is neither familiar with co-accused Chetan Ratre nor with the present appellant Dev Prasad Banjare. 10. Dakendra Vishwakarma (PW-16) has stated in his evidence that he knows both Chetan Ratre and Dev Prasad Banjare. He deposed that on 04.11.2011, appellant Dev Prasad Banjare came to him and started weeping saying that he needs money for treatment of his wife and children when this witness expressed inability to lend money, Dev Prasad Banjare showed to him golden chain and said that he wanted to sell it, but the jeweller refused to purchase for want of identification. He further stated that thereafter, he had taken the Dev Prasad Banjare to Mahavir Jewellers and seeing him the goldsmith said that as he has come, he is ready to accept the articles and thereby he took the jewellery and gave money to Dev Prasad Banjare. This witness further deposed that thereafter, Chetan Ratre arrived and when he enquired, Dev Prasad Banjare told him that Chetan Ratre is his brother. In his cross-examination, he admitted that Suraj Soni (PW-15) is known to him. He admits that it is Dev Prasad Banjare, who had gone to the shop of Suraj Soni along with him. In para 8 of his cross-examination, he stated that he 6 was not knowing Chetan Ratre earlier and on the date, when he was introduced by Dev Prasad Banjare, then he came to know that he is his brother since then, he knows Chetan Ratre. In Para 10 of his cross- examination, he again reiterates that in the shop of Suraj Soni, it is Dev Prasad Banjare, who had gone along with him, but it is evident from statement of Suraj Soni (PW-15) that he identified only co-accused Chetan Ratre, but did not identify the present appellant Dev Prasad Banjare. 11. This Court vide order dated 05.10.2018 passed in CRA No. 898 of 2012, acquitted the co-accused Chetan Ratre of the aforesaid offences and observed in paras 14, 15 and 16, which read as under:- 14. This witness goes to the extent of depositng that before Dev Prasad Banjare introduced to him Chetan Ratre, he did not know Chetan Ratre, On that day, itself, after sale and purchase, Dev Prasad Banjare introduced the appellant to Dakendra Vishwakarma. 15. Suraj Soni (PW15) & Dakendra Vishwakarma (PW16) both say that they are known to each other as they are nearby inhabitant. Dakendra Vishwakarma (PW16) admits that it is Dev Prasad Banjare, who had come and identified the person desirous of sale. Dakendra Vishwakarma is empathic that he only took Dev Prasad Banjare. 16. In view of the aforesaid material, contradiction, in the prosecution evidence, it becomes highly doubtful as to whether it was the appellant or Dev Prasad Banjare, who had gone to the shop of Suraj Soni (PW15) to sell the ornaments. 12. It is quite evident from record of learned Trial Court that except the aforesaid evidence, there is no other evidence against the appellant and even Jeweller Suraj Soni (PW-15), had identified the co-accused Chetan Ratre, but could not identify the present appellant, therefore, in these circumstances, we find ourselves unable to affirm the judgment of conviction and sentence and it is evident that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt against the appellant. 7 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed, the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. He be set free forthwith, if not required in any other case. 14. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023. 15. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge AMIT PATEL