Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:8397 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 642 of 2012 Judgment reserved on 25/10/2024 Judgment delivered on 18/02/2025 1 - Janak Rajwade S/o Ramesh Rajwade Aged About 23 Years R/o Bhitthikala, P.S. Ambikapur , Distt. Surguja C.G. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Vinod Rajwade S/o Ramsewak Rajwade Aged About 20 Years R/o Bhitthikala, P.S. Ambikapur , Distt. Surguja C.G. , District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh 3 - Lakhneshwar @ Lokesh @ Lokeshwar S/o Vakil Aged About 22 Years R/o Navapara , P.S. Lakhanpur , Distt. Surguja C.G. , District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through - P.S. Lakhanpur, Distt. Surguja C.G. , Chhattisgarh (Cause title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Appellants For Respondent/State : : Mr. V.K. Pandey, Advocate Mr. Kishan Lal Sahu, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal C.A.V. Judgment Digitally signed by VEDPRAKASH DEWANGAN 2 1. The present criminal appeal has been filed by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.07.2012, passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, in Sessions Case No. 399 of 2010, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following manner : Conviction Sentence U/s. 397/34 of IPC U/s. 201/34 of IPC R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 02 months for all appellants. R.I. for 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 02 months for all appellants. U/s. 25(1) (1B) (A) of Arms Act R.I. for 02 years and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 02 months only for appellant No.3. All the sentences are directed to be run concurrently 2.
Legal Reasoning
The brief facts of the case are that, on 09.06.2010, the complainant- Pyarelal/PW-1 was coming from village Pipardhab to his own village Ganeshpur along with his younger brother Chhotelal/PW-3 and his brother-in-law in relation Prakash Ram/PW-2 by motorcycle and when they reached near Chennai River Bridge, at about 11:00 PM, three unknown persons restrained them by putting their motorcycle in front of the motorcycle of the complainant and took out the key of the motorcycle. They took them towards field and assaulted them by danda. They put the country made pistol on the head of Prakash and threatened them not to raise voice or else they would kill them. They 3 torn their clothes and fled away towards Vishrampur along with their motorcycle. They covered their faces by masks. The complainant informed the incident to Jaychand and went to the police station in the night itself for lodging of the report, where he lodged the FIR/exhibit P-1. The FIR was lodged against unknown person for the offence under section 394 of IPC. The spot map/exhibit P-2 was prepared by the police and torn clothes of Pyarelal have been seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-3. The RC book and insurance papers of the motorcycle have also been seized from Chhotelal vide seizure memo/exhibit P-4. Spot map/exhibit P-5 was prepared by the Patwari. The torn clothes of the complainant- Prakash have been seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-8. 3. The appellants- Vinod Rajwade and Janak Rajwade were arrested on 12.06.2010 in another offence of crime No. 355 of 2010, registered at police station Ambikapur and in that offence, their memorandum statement/exhibit P-8C and P-9C were recorded, in which they disclosed about the incident of present case. In the offence of crime No. 355 of 2010 registered at police station Ambikapur on the basis of memorandum statement of Janak Rajwade, one motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-04/ZX-1531, one Gamchha and Rs. 600/- cash have been seized, whereas from the appellant Vinod Rajwade Rs. 400/- cash, one motorcycle having chassis No. MB2HA10EEAHD47946 and engine No. HA10EAAHD63700, one white Gamchha and one thermocol cutter have been seized. The appellant- Lakhneshwar alias Lokeshwar alias Lokesh alias Nanu has been taken into custody in the present case and his 4 memorandum statement/exhibit P-14 was recorded on 12.06.2010, in which he disclosed the entire incident, which he has committed along with other co-accused persons. Based on his memorandum statement one country made pistol and 01 full shirt have been seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-15. One wooden club has also been seized from the appellant Lakhneshwar vide seizure memo exhibit P- 16. One handkerchief has also been seized from the appellant Lakhneshwar vide seizure memo/exhibit P-17. The co-accused Jashwant Singh was also arrested on 12.06.2010 and his memorandum statement/exhibit P-18 was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, one thermocol cutter has been seized vide seizure memo/exhibit P-19. The appellant Vinod Rajwade has also been arrested in the present case on 12.06.2010 and his memorandum statement/exhibit P-20 was recorded. Further, the appellant Janak Rajwade was also arrested on the same day i.e. 12.06.2010 and his memorandum statement/exhibit P-21 was recorded. When the report was lodged by the complainant Pyarelal, he was sent for his medical examination to Community Health Centre, Lakhanpur, where he was medically examined by PW-17/Dr. Premsukh Kerketta, who found one bruise and swelling over left forearm on exterior aspect, which has been caused by hard and blunt object and simple in nature and his report is exhibit P-29. The country made pistols seized from the appellant Lakhneshwar were sent for its report to Armorer Reserved Police Force, Ambikapur, from where report/exhibit P-7 was given by PW-4/Sunil Kumar Ilamkar, who is the Head Constable/Armorer. 5 4. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur against 04 accused persons for the offence under sections 394 and 201 of IPC and sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Surguja, place Ambikapur, from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 5. Learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellants- Vinod Rajwade, Janak Rajwade and Lakhneshwar alias Lokeshwar alias Lokesh for the offence under sections 397/34, 201/34 of IPC and sections 25 and 27 of Arms Act. The charge against the accused Jashwant Singh was framed under section 201/34 of IPC. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the accused persons, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 witnesses. Statement of the accused persons under section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and has submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgement. However, the co-accused Jashwant Singh was convicted for the offence under section 201/34 of IPC. The present appeal is on behalf 6 of the appellants Janak Rajwade, Vinod Rajwade and Lakhneshwar alias Lokesh alias Lokeshwar. 8.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellants 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. There was no test identification parade conducted by the police to identify the accused persons, who committed the offence. Since the present appellants were arrested in another offence of police station Ambikapur in Crime No. 355 of 2010, they have been implicated in the present case also. But there is no evidence that they have committed the offence of present case. The seizure of motorcycle of the complainant is made from an open place, which cannot be said to be the article of loot and seized from the exclusive possession of the appellants. He would also submit that the witnesses of memorandum and seizure have not supported the prosecution's case. Therefore, there is absolutely no evidence against the present appellants to connect them with the offence in question and they are entitled for their acquittal. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State vehemently opposes the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are sufficient material available in the case to hold conviction of the appellants in the offence in question. In their memorandum statement, they disclosed the entire incident and the motorcycle and cash amount have been seized from their possession, which connect them with the offence in 7 question. Even if the test identification parade is not conducted by the prosecution, that alone would not be sufficient to discredit the evidence of the witnesses. The appellants are having criminal antecedents and they have been arrested in the other offences in which they disclosed the present incident also and therefore, there are sufficient, cogent and clinching evidence against them, by which the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced them, which needs no interference. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 11. PW-1/Pyarelal (complainant) has stated in his evidence that he did not know the accused persons. On the date of incident, when he was coming from Pipardhap to his village Ganeshpur by motorcycle at about 10:00 PM, when he reached near Chitkipara, 03 persons stopped him and looted his motorcycle and fled away towards Binkara by his motorcycle. His brother-in-law Prakash was also with him at the time of incident and thereafter they came to their house by walking. The persons who looted their motorcycle were not having any article with him and neither they committed any marpeet with him. On the same day, he lodged a report at police station Lakhanpur, which is Exhibit P-1. The police has not seized any article from him as per the seizure memo/exhibit P-3 and P-4. This witness has turned hostile and when he was cross-examined by the prosecution, he admitted that the accused persons have restrained them by putting their motorcycle in front of their motorcycle, took out the key of the motorcycle and on the point of knife and country-made pistol, they took them towards field and committed marpeet with them 8 by danda. They looted Rs.100/- cash from him and Rs.10/- from Prakash, thereafter, they came back to their house and went to lodge the report. Since, the accused persons were covered their faces by mask, he could not identify them and he could not tell as to whether the present accused persons are the persons who looted them or not. 12. PW-2/Prakash is also one of the victims, who was also there along with the complainant Pyarelal. He stated in his evidence that he did not know the accused persons. At the time of incident, he along with Pyarelal were coming from Khalpara Dhab to his village Ganeshpur at about 10:30 PM. When they reached near Chitkipara culvert, three persons restrained them and looted their motorcycle. Since they covered their faces, he could not identify them. They assaulted only Pyarelal and after loot of their motorcycle, they fled away towards Navapara. This witness has also been declared hostile and cross- examined by the prosecution. Then he stated that the accused persons were having danda, country made pistol and knife. He also admitted that the accused persons took them towards field and looted Rs. 110/- from them. Nothing is there in their cross- examination also to prove the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question as the present appellants have not been identified by him. 13. PW-3/Chhotelal is the person, who owned the Splendor motorcycle. He stated in his evidence that his brother Pyarelal has taken his motorcycle which has been looted near Puhputara river. This witness is only with respect to the ownership of the vehicle. In cross- 9 examination, he admitted that when his brother has given the information about loot of the motorcycle, he raised suspicion on his brother that he himself has kept the vehicle somewhere and giving false information to him. 14. PW-4/Sunil Kumar Ilamkar, who is the Armorer and Head Constable at Reserve Police Centre, Ambikapur, has examined the country made pistol seized from Lakhneshwar alias Lokeshwar. He stated in his evidence that the said country made pistol was examined by him which was identical to revolver and fire could be made from it. He also examined the live cartridges and gave report/exhibit P-7. This witness has examined the country made pistol seized in the case and not the witness of involvement of the appellants in the offence in question. 15. PW-5/Jatandas and PW-6/Vishwanath are the witnesses of memorandum and seizure, but they turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's case. However, they admitted they signatures in the documents/exhibit P-8 to P-12. 16. PW-7/Satya Narayan and PW-8/Heeralal are also the witnesses of memorandum and seizure/exhibit P-14 to P-24. they too have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's case. Though they admitted their signature in the documents, but stated that on the instance of police, they made their signature over these documents. 17. PW9/K.K. Nag, who is the Inspector of Police has stated in his evidence that on 13.06.2010 in the crime No. 155 of 2010, when he interrogated the appellant Vinod Rajwade, he disclosed the 10 commission of the offence of the present case and then the offence of crime No. 148 of 2010 at police station Lakhanpur was registered. He proved the Rojnamcha Sanha (exhibit P-25). He also proved the memorandum statement of Vinod Rajwade/exhibit P-8C and seizure/exhibit P-11C. He further proved the memorandum statement of the appellant Janak Rajwade/exhibit P-9C and seizure/exhibit P- 10C. Though he denied the suggestion given in cross-examination that he has not recorded the memorandum statement of the accused persons and has not seized any article from them, but from the evidence of this witness, it reflects that he recorded the memorandum statement in the offence of crime No. 155 of 2010, registered at police station City Kotwali, Ambikapur. 18. PW-10/O.P. Singh has proved the sanction for prosecution under the Arms Act against the appellant Lakhneshwar, which is exhibit P-25. 19. PW-11/R.K. Nishad has proved the FIR/exhibit P-26, which has been registered at police station Ambikapur as crime No. 355 of 2010 and the original FIR is annexed as exhibit P-1 as Sessions Case No. 400 of 2010. In cross-examination, he admitted that the petrol pump, on which the incident of loot was committed is situated at Ambikapur- Bilaspur main road and he was being cross-examined on the merits of that FIR. 20. PW-12/Uma Shankar Rajwade is the witness, from whose house the knife has been seized by the police. The police persons have informed them that the thermocol cutter has been seized from his 11 roof on the instance of the accused Jashwant and the seizure memo/exhibit P-19 was prepared, in which he also signed. In cross-examination, he admitted that the knife was with the police person and they disclosed that it was seized from the roof. He admitted that his house is situated in an open place and anyone can visit there. 21. PW-13/Vijay Kumar Kurre is the Patwari, who prepared the spot map/exhibit P-5. 22. PW-14/S.P. Singh Sisodia is the Inspector of Police and investigating officer of the case. He proved the part of the investigation, which he has conducted. He stated in his evidence that on 12.06.2010 he interrogated the appellant Vinod Rajwade, who disclosed that the country-made pistol and 03 cartridges have been given to Lakhneshwar, the danda was thrown near the place of incident and the motorcycle was with Janak Rajwade and his memorandum statement is exhibit P-20. He also stated about recording of memorandum statement of the other accused persons and the seizure made on the basis of their memorandum, which are exhibit P-14 to P-22. In cross examination, he stated that in the FIR there is no mention about use of any knife. Before recording the memorandum of Jashwant, they came into knowledge about knife. He further stated that Lakhneshwar was residing in joint family and other inmates were also there in his family. The seizure has been made from his room. He further stated that the motorcycle has already been seized by 12 Ambikapur Kotwali Police from the appellant Janak before recording his memorandum by him. He further stated that the pistol and 03 cartridges have been given to Lakhneshwar. 23. PW-15/Umesh Kumar Rajwade is also the formal witness and nothing has been stated by him. 24. PW-16 is the Sub-Inspector of Police at police station Lakhanpur. He recorded the FIR (exhibit P-1) in crime No. 148 of 2010 and sent the injured Pyarelal for its medical examination to Community Health Centre, Lakhanpur. 25. PW-17/Dr. Premsukh Kerketta, who medically examined the complainant Pyarelal and found bruise on left forearm of the complainant, which are simple in nature and he proved his report/exhibit P-29. 26. PW-18 Lokeshwar Prasad is Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police. He arrested the appellant Janak Rajwade and Vinod. 27. From the evidence of the complainant/PW-1 and his companion PW- 2/Prakash, there is absolutely no evidence that the present appellants have committed loot of the motorcycle of the complainant. There is no evidence with respect to their identification and no TIP was conducted by the police to identify the present appellants that they have committed loot of the motorcycle from the complainant. It is alleged that the looted article i.e. motorcycle of the complainant has been seized on the memorandum statement of Vinod Rajwade, whereas from the document/exhibit P-11C, it appears that the motorcycle has been seized from the appellant Vinod Rajwade in 13 crime No. 355 of 2010, registered at police station Ambikapur and it was seized from Bhitthikala, Ambikapur. It is not mentioned in the seizure memo/exhibit P-11C that it was seized on pointing of the appellant Vinod Rajwade or it was concealed in any hidden place. Further, there is overwriting in its engine number. From the nature of evidence, it cannot be said that by recovery of motorcycle from the appellant Vinod, he has committed the loot from the complainant. The seizure of motorcycle allegedly made from the appellant Vinod in the present case has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt in accordance with law and except this, there is no evidence against the appellants that they looted the complainant on the alleged date of incident. Though they may be the accused persons in other offences also, but there is lack of cogent and clinching evidence against the appellants in the present case, as the accused persons have not been identified by any of the witnesses or complainant. Even no incriminating articles have been recovered from the possession of the accused persons, which connect them with the offence in question. When the complainant himself has denied that the accused persons or the persons who committed loot of the motorcycle have not assaulted him, and then it cannot be said that the injuries found on the body of the complainant Pyarelal have been caused by the accused persons while committing loot. 28. The relevancy or evidentiary value of disclosure statement made by the accused persons came for its consideration before the Hon’ble 14 Supreme Court in the matter of Manoj Kumar Soni v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online SC 984, wherein it has been observed in Para 21 to 25 that: “21. The facts of the case reveal that all the accused persons made disclosure statements to the I.O. whereupon recovery of money, jewellery, etc. was effected. Although it is quite unusual that all five accused, after being arrested, would lead the I.O. to the places for effecting recovery of the stolen articles, we do not propose to disbelieve the prosecution plea only on this score. Manoj’s involvement was primarily based on the disclosure statements made by co- accused Suleman and Jaihind where they admitted to selling the stolen articles to him and a similar statement made by Manoj himself which led to recovery under Section 27, Evidence Act. Similarly, both the courts below, in convicting Kallu, largely relied upon the disclosure statement made by Kallu himself as well as co-accused Jaihind, who confessed to giving Rs.3,000.00 to Kallu from the stolen money and storing a country-made pistol along with three cartridges at his house/tapra. 22. A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 23. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements under Section 27, Evidence Act made by the accused himself seems to be well- established. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya and others vs. King-Emperor4 holds the field even today wherein it was held that the provided information must be directly relevant to the 15 discovered fact, including details about the physical object, its place of origin, and the accused person's awareness of these aspects. The Privy Council observed: The difficulty, however great, of proving that a fact discovered on information supplied by the accused is a relevant fact can afford no justification for reading into s. 27 something which is not there, and admitting in evidence a confession barred by s. 26. Except in cases in which the possession, or concealment, of an object constitutes the gist of the offence charged, it can seldom happen that information relating to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the prosecution case. It is only one link in the chain of proof, and the other links must be forged in manner allowed by law. 24. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements of co-accused too is settled; the courts have hesitated to place reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used them merely to support the conviction or, as Sir Lawrence Jenkins observed in Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty5, to “lend assurance to other evidence against a co- accused”. In Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar6, this Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench, elaborated upon the approach to be adopted by courts when dealing with disclosure statements: 13. …In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused person against another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused person, the court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the 16 conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. 25. In yet another case of discrediting a flawed conviction under Section 411, IPC, this Court, in Shiv Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh7 overturned the conviction under Section 411, declined to place undue reliance solely on the disclosure statements of the co- accused, and held: 24. …, the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of the appellant having knowledge of utensils being stolen goods. The prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the utensils seized from him were stolen articles. The factum of selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those articles. The essential ingredient of mens rea is clearly not established for the charge under Section 411 IPC. The prosecution's evidence on this aspect, as they would speak of the character Gratiano in Merchant of Venice, can be appropriately described as, “you speak an infinite deal of nothing.” [William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act 1 Scene 1.]” 29. 30. Further, the independent witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution's case in memorandum and seizure part of their evidence. From the overall consideration of the entire material available in the case, it is very difficult for this Court to uphold the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants, therefore, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. In the result, the appeal filed by the appellants are allowed. They are acquitted from the alleged 17 31. 32. offences. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants are hereby set aside. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bond shall continue for the further period of six months, as provided under Section 481 of Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) Judge ved