Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21622-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 673 of 2018 • Harilal Uaikey S/o Late Ramu Uaikey Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Gatapar, Police Station Gatapar, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. versus ... Appellant. • State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gatapar, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent. For Appellant For Respondent
Legal Reasoning
been named, however, it is well settled that to hold that the appellant has committed the offence, prosecution has to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and merely because the appellant has been named in the Merg Intimation and the FIR (not exhibited), the prosecution is not relieved of its burden to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Further, Hansa Bai (PW-1) who is first informant has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. In that view of the matter, reliance on the Merg intimation as also on the FIR is of no use to the prosecution. Similarly, doctor Vivek Bisen has opined in his query report (Ex.P/15) that injury could be caused by thick wooden log of Sagon, however, the same was not seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant and, as such, query report is also of no use to the prosecution. Apart from the above, there is no other evidence available on record to hold that the appellant is the author of the crime in question. 12. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that the appellant is entitled for acquittal by extending him benefit of doubt. 6
Arguments
: Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate. : Shri Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Jus tice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board (09.05.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 31.03.2018 passed in Sessions Case No.20/2017 by Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh, 2 whereby, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional imprisonment for 06 months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 12.06.2017, at about 8:30 pm, at forest Gatapar, which falls within the jurisdiction of Police Station- Gatapar, District- Rajnandgaon (C.G.), the appellant assaulted Sukhram by a wooden log, as a result of which, he sustained grievous injuries on his head and neck and subsequently, he died during the course of treatment. 3. Merg intimation (Ex.P/2) was lodged by the son of deceased namely Sudan (PW-2). Inquest Report (Ex.P/4) was prepared. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Vivek Bisen (PW-11), who gave his report vide Ex.P/14 opining that the cause of death is coma as a result of head injury sustained by him and the death seems to be homicidal in nature. 4. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents. 5. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and 3 sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, against which, this Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 6. Shri Akath Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no eye witness to the incident and the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of weak circumstantial evidence. He further submits that wife of the deceased- Hansa Bai (PW-1) has not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. Further, in her cross-examination, this witness admitted that the death of the deceased was caused due to injuries sustained by him as he fell on the stone. 7. On the other hand, Shri Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent submits that the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. He further submits that the appellant is not entitled for acquittal and this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions, and have gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in afÏrmative relying on the post-mortem report 4 (Ex.P/14), which was proved by Dr. Vivek Bisen (PW-11) who opined that the death was homicidal in nature, and we do not find any illegality in the said finding, as the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and the said finding is hereby afÏrmed. 10. Now, the next question is, whether the trial Court has rightly held the appellant to be the author of crime in question? 11. In the present case, the conviction of appellant is solely based on the testimony of eye witness Hansa Bai (PW-1), wife of the deceased. A careful perusal of her evidence would show that initially, this witness turned hostile. However, when a leading question was put to her, after being permitted by the Court, she has stated that the appellant assaulted her husband (deceased) by means of a wooden log, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and became unconscious. However, in cross-examination, she has stated that her husband sustained injuries after falling on a stone lying on the ground. This witness further stated that when she reached to the spot, her husband has already fallen on a stone lying on the ground and as such, she has not clearly seen the incident. She has further admitted that the appellant neither raised a quarrel nor committed maar- peet with her husband. Furthermore, the trial Court has 5 relied upon the Merg Intimation (Ex.P/2) and First Information Report (not exhibited) in which appellant has
Decision
13. For the foregoing, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC are set aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall remain in operation for a period of 6 months from today in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 14. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Avinash AVINASH SHARMA Digitally signed by AVINASH SHARMA Date: 2025.05.13 11:31:53 +0530