Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7931-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1414 of 2023 1 - Dev Singh @ Deva S/o Shri Kango, Aged About 40 Years, R/o Village - Pampapur, Outpost - Khadgwa, Police Station - Pratappur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) versus ... Appellant 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Pratappur, District - Surajpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate. For State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 14-02-2025 1. The present appeal has been filed by the appellant under Section 374 (2) of the Cr.P.C. against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28-04-2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Pratappur, District Surajpaur in Session Case No.20/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced with R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 100/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 3 years. 2. The brief facts of the case are that, on 25-12-2020 at about 10:30 Digitally signed by MOHAMMAD AADIL KHAN 2 hours informant Smt. Lalita Lakada PW-3 lodged a dehati merg intimation Ex.-P/3 at Police Outpost Khadgawan, Police Station Pratappur that on 24-12-2020 in the morning at about 09:00 a.m. her mother Pavita Tigga had gone to cut sugarcane, but could not return till evening and when she made a telephonic call in the mobile phone of her mother, which was disconnected by the other side and subsequently it was found switched of. On 25-12-2020 her husband informed her that dead body of her mother is lying near field at Navapara. When she had gone to the place of incident she saw the dead body of her mother having injury on her body. On some distance of the dead body her clothes and sickle and chappal was also lying. The police reached on the spot and prepared inquest Ex.-P/5 in presence of the witnesses. The dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem to Community Health Center, Pratappur where a team of two doctors consisting of Doctor Neha and Doctor Bhupendra Singh (PW-11) conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave their report Ex.-P/14. While conducting the postmortem of the dead body the doctor has noticed following injuries on the body:- (i) contused teared wound over left parietal area having size [(contusion 4 cm x 3 cm) (tear wound 1.5 cm x 2 mm x 2 mm)] (ii) contusion over left face 6 cm x 5 cm, (iii) multiple small contusion over chin and forehead having approx. size 2 cm x 1.5 cm, (iv) abrasion over both knee anterior aspect size 3 cm x 2 cm, (v) abrasion over hip having size 15 cm x 10 cm, (vi) abrasion over both elbow 4 cm x 3 cm, 3 (vii) contused abrasion over sternal area including chest, 6 cm x 4 cm, on her internal examination, subarachnoid hemorrhage present on her brain, slight hematoma underneath the contused area over chest and after conducting postmortem examination, the doctor has opined that after having careful postmortem they came to the conclusion that the cause of death is neurogenic shock due to subarachnoid hemorrhage, nature of death is homicidal and time since death is 18 to 36 hours. Spot map Ex.-P/6 and P/7 were prepared by the police. During the investigation one water bottle, half burned piece of wood, mud scratched from the body and clothes of the victim, blood stained and plain soil, paddy straw of underneath of dead body, soil contained with kerosene oil smell, soil obtained from the petticoat of the deceased, soil from the underwear of the deceased, soil from the sickle, scarf and chappal, plain soil, clothes, ladies chappal and sickle, one ladies underwear, one petticoat, broken piece of bangles and one hair band, one woolen shawl and one plastic bag having Gamchha in it have been seized from the sport vide seizure memo Ex.-P/12. The seized chappal was sent for its query report to the doctor at community health center, Pratappur who gave its query report Ex.-P/15 and opined that the injury whatever else mentioned in PM report specifically over left face can be caused by such type of sleeper. The circumstances whatever else represented by police in reference to PM case can be underlying cause behind the fatal injury, which ultimately resulted into death. Merg intimation Ex.-P/16 was registered at Police Station 4
Facts
Pratappur, Outpost Khadgawa and FIR Ex.-P/17 has been registered against unknown person for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The seized sickle, clothes, hawai chappal, ladies underwear, petticoat, plastic bag and gamchha, broken piece of bangle and one hair band and woolen shawl were identified that the same belongs to deceased
Legal Reasoning
10.2. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed that: “21. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 9 12. In the matter of para Surendra Kumar and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 (20) SCC 430, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held in 11 and 12 as under:- “11. As the case against the appellants is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to determine whether the available evidence lead only to the conclusion of guilt and exclude all contrary hypothesis. The enunciation on the law of circumstantial evidence stood the test of time since Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 where Mahajan J., has written as under:- “10…………It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused……………” 12. The nature, character and essential proof required in criminal cases was discussed in detail by Fazal Ali J in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra2 and the proposition of law culled out on circumstantial evidence was approved in many subsequent judgments and was recently reiterated by Krishna Murari J., writing the opinion for a three Judges Bench in
Arguments
Pavita Tigga by daughter of the deceased Smt. Lalita Tigga and identification panchnama Ex.-P/11 has been prepared in presence of the witnesses. The appellant was arrested on 27-12-2020 and his memorandum statement Ex.-P/8 was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement one gamchha, one pair of hawai chappal and 5 pieces of wood of mango tree have been seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.-P/9. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL Ambikapur, District Surguja from where report Ex.-P/28 was received. According to the FSL report except plain soil article B and hawai chappal article F, blood stains found on all the articles and except the blood stained soil article A, all other articles were found stained with human blood. Further the petticoat of the deceased article D, hawai chappal seized from the appellant article E and saree of the deceased article G are found stained with “B” group of human blood. In the vaginal slide of the deceased article K, semen and sperms were found, however, no semen and sperms were found on the underwear and saree of the deceased. During investigation police has also obtained the CDR/CAF of mobile number 6264574310 and has obtained a certificate under Section 65 B of the Evidence Act from service provider Reliance Jio 5 Infocom Limited. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 and 164 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class Pratappur. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 3. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed for trial. 4. In order to prove charge against the appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence and he is innocent. 5. After appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses, which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant in the alleged offence. There is no eye-witness to the incident 6 and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstances is not complete. The memorandum and seizure have not been proved in accordance with law and except that there is no evidence against the appellant. The articles have been seized from open place and it was common article of regular use in village. In absence of any motive, a link of circumstantial evidence is missing and therefore, there is lack of cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant and he is entitled for acquittal. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State would submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradictions the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are fully reliable and sufficient to convict the appellant in the offence in question. He would further submit that there are overwhelming evidence against the appellant which connect him with the offence in question. He would further submit that from the FSL report as well as call details report, has duly been connected as link of circumstantial evidence and thus every link of circumstantial evidence is connected with each other which has been rightly considered by the learned trial Court while convicting the appellant and the appeal of the appellant does not have any merits and is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case with utmost circumspection. 9. In the case, homicidal death of the deceased has not been specifically challenged by the appellant, further the homicidal death of the deceased has been proved by the witnesses to the inquest as well 7 as postmortem report. PW-8 Ramchandra (correct No. is PW-9) and PW-10 Hari Toppo are the witnesses to the inquest Ex.-P/5. They stated in their evidence that they saw the dead body of the deceased having injuries on her and inquest of the dead body has been prepared in their presence. The injury found on the body of the deceased have further been proved by PW-11 Doctor Bhupendra Singh who along with Doctor Neha has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that on 25-12-2020 he conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Pavita Tigga and found injuries on her body (details of the injuries have been mentioned in earlier part of the judgment). After conducting the postmortem they opined that the cause of death of the deceased was neurogenic shock due to subarachnoid hemorrhage and death was homicidal in nature. In his cross-examination the defence could not extract any material from him so that the homicidal death of the deceased could be disputed. The learned trial Court has also came into conclusion on the basis of the evidence that death of the deceased is homicidal which is based on proper appreciation of evidence and we are also concur with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court. 10. With respect to the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness. 11. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Ravindra Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (7) SCC 581 has held in para 10 as under:- 8 “10. The conviction of A2 is based only upon circumstantial evidence. Hence, in order to sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent. This court has consistently held in a long line of cases [See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890)] that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused. The circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. 10.1. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt.