Jashpur (C.G.) v. Ruben Ram Pahadi Korva S
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:28850-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRMP No. 1997 of 2025 State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station Sanna, District- Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus Ruben Ram Pahadi Korva S/o Kesaru Ram Korva Aged About 26 Years R/o Village- Chhatauri, Police Station - Sanna, District - Jashpur (C.G.) ...Respondent(s) For State/Appellant : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
Decision
Order on Board 30.06 .2025 1. Heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate for the appellant/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.30 18:43:53 +0530 2. Learned State counsel submits that the defects pointed out by the Registry had already been cured. He further submits that through memo of submission dated 30.06.2025, the State is hereby filing the relevant 2 exhibited documents, which have taken on record. Therefore, we proceed to hear the matter finally. 3. Also heard on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for condonation of delay. 4. After hearing the learned counsel for the appellant/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufÏcient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is allowed and delay of 196 days in filing the appeal is condoned. 5. The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 30.08.2024 passed in Sessions Case No. 102 of 2021 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Charge F.T.C., Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.), whereby the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Charge F.T.C. has acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences punishable under Sections 342, 376(1), 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) holding that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 6. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that: (i) On 07.08.2021, the deceased/victim had gone to Nirdosh Tirki’s place of plant saplings along with her mother-in-law. At about 5.30 p.m., the victim was returning home with her mother- in-law then the accused,Ruben Ram caught the victim on the way and threw her on the side of the road and did a wrong thin with her. The victim’s mother-in-law got scared and ran away from there. When the victim did not return home, the next day the 3 victim’s mother-in-law went to the accused/respondent’s house and inquired, then the accused said that the victim has not come here. Then the victim’s mother-in-law asked the accused to find the victim and bring her. Thereafter, the father-in-law of the victim has lodged the report before the Police Station Sanna, District Jashpur (C.G.). Thereafter, the Dehati Nalshi and Dehati Merg intimation were recorded vide Exs.P/24 & 25 respectively and the matter was taken under investigation. The case diary statements of the eye witness as well as other witnesses were recorded by the Police and subsequently, the statement under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. of the eyewitness were also recorded before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.). (ii) After due and necessary investigation, the charge-sheet was filed against the respondent/accused and the respondent/ accused was put to face charges before the learned trial Court. The respondent/accused adjured the guilt. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses in its favour. (iii) After appreciating the evidences on record, the learned trial Court did not believe the evidence proving guilt of the respondent/accused, and therefore, acquitted the respondent/accused from the offences charged vide impugned judgment and order dated 30.08.2024, hence, the present Criminal Miscellaneous Petition has been filed seeking leave to appeal. 4 7. Learned State counsel would submit that the learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondent/accused from the offences charged by discarding the evidence of complaint without there being any strong reason to discard the evidences of the prosecution. Learned State counsel further submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate the prosecution evidence in its right prospective, particularly the testimony of the mother (PW-4) of the victim has clearly stated in his judicial statement on the date of the incident, when she was returning home with the victim after taking the wages from the house of Nirdosh, the accused/respondent was holding the victim near village Pakritoli. The witness has revealed that when she tried to free him, the accused started beating her, then she left the victim and went to Rungtu’s house and slept. The witness has revealed that the next day, when the victim’s body was searched, it was found under a bunch of bushes. The accused has raped her daughter-in-law, the victim, and then killed her. However, the learned trial Court overlooked and neglected the statement of the mother-in-law (PW-4) of the victim as well as evidence produced by the prosecution and acquitted the respondent from serious offence, which is illegal and liable to be set aside. He would submit that the learned trial Court also committed error of law in not believing the testimony of the prosecution witnesses and the learned trial Court has acquitted the accused/respondent only on the basis of minor omission and contradictions. Thus, the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent/accused from the aforesaid offences by recording a finding which is perverse to record. Therefore, leave deserves to be granted. 5 8. We have heard learned State counsel and perused the record of the case including the impugned judgment of acquittal. 9. Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Charge F.T.C., Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.) while acquitting the accused/respondent has observed in paragraphs 57, 58, 59, 60, 61, 62, 63 and 64 as follows: “57. Regarding the accused's alleged rape and strangulation of the victim, Dr. Manish Kumar (PW-10), the medical ofÏcer who conducted the postmortem examination, stated that due to the decomposed and mutilated state of the body, it was not possible to determine whether the victim had been raped or to ascertain the exact cause of death. Therefore, based on the findings related to issue No. 1, it is also not established whether the victim's death was accidental or homicidal in nature. 58. Regarding the accused Ruben Ram's alleged rape and murder of the victim, the investigation ofÏcer, Pratap Singh (PW-14), deposed that during the investigation, he took the accused into custody on 23/08/2021, interrogated him, and recorded his memorandum statement (Ex.P/8), which was corroborated by witness Lal Dev (PW-5). Notably, the investigation ofÏcer stated that based on the accused's memorandum statement (Ex.P/8), the victim's body was recovered and a body recovery panchnama (Ex.P/5) was prepared on 22/08/2021. Given that the accused's memorandum statement was recorded on 23/08/2021, it is not possible for the victim's body to have been recovered on 22/08/2021 based on the accused's disclosure statement. Therefore, the recovery of the victim's body does not appear to be based on the accused's voluntary disclosure, and the entire recovery 6 process becomes suspect. 59. Regarding the accused being seen with the victim for the last time before the incident, the victim's mother- in-law (PW-4) testified that on the day of the incident, she saw the accused grappling with the victim near Patratoali village while returning home in the evening after collecting wages. She stated that she tried to rescue the victim, but the accused assaulted her and chased her away from the scene. However, the witness did not see the accused raping or strangling the victim. Although the victim's mother-in-law (PW-4) witnessed the accused grappling with the victim, it is unclear why she did not take the victim to someone for help that night. Her statement that she went to Rangtu's house and slept there after being chased away by the accused raises doubts about the credibility of her testimony. Given her actions, it seems unlikely that the accused's intentions were to molest the victim. The accused cited the judgment in Shravan Kumar Rathia vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 (1) CGLJ 269 (DB)), where the Chhattisgarh High Court held that the principle of "last seen together" does not apply when there is a significant time gap between the accused and deceased being seen together and the discovery of the deceased's body. For this principle to apply, there should be a minimal time gap between the two events, and a proximate relationship between them is essential. 60. In the present case, the victim's mother-in-law (PW- 4) testified that she saw the accused Ruben Ram grappling with the victim on 07/08/2021. However, the victim's body was recovered 15 days later on 22/08/2021. Given the significant time gap between the accused being seen with the victim and the recovery of 7 the body from an open jungle area, the principle of "last seen together" cannot be applied solely based on the witness's testimony. Therefore, it cannot be conclusively determined that the accused Ruben Ram committed rape and strangulation of the victim merely because he was seen with her 15 days prior to the recovery of the body. 61. In the case, the accused's wife, Sukhamani Bai (PW-6), testified that the accused confessed to her that he had killed the victim and thrown her body near a Putrus bush. However, the witness only stated that the accused admitted to killing the victim and did not mention any other details about the crime. The witness stated that she informed the victim's father-in-law (PW- 1) about the confession, but the father-in-law did not corroborate this in his testimony. The prosecution also did not attempt to prove the confession by examining other villagers. It is worth noting that the Supreme Court has held in several judgments, including Balwinder v. State of Punjab and Kavita v. State of Tamil Nadu (1998) 6 SCC 108, that extra-judicial confessions are inherently weak evidence and require careful evaluation. The credibility of such evidence depends on the reliability of the witness to whom the confession was made. 62. In the present case, the testimony of the accused's wife, Sukhamani Bai (PW-6), regarding the extra- judicial confession made by the accused, is not corroborated by the victim's father-in-law (PW-1) or any other villager. The accused's wife's failure to report the information about the crime to the police or anyone else despite knowing about the accused's alleged involvement in the murder, raises doubts about the credibility of her testimony. Therefore, it is not 8 established that the accused made a genuine and voluntary extra-judicial confession to his wife, Sukhamani Bai (PW-6), about the crime. 63. In the present case, no witness has testified to seeing the accused commit rape or murder of the victim. The case, lacking eyewitness evidence, relies entirely on circumstantial evidence. The recovery of the victim's body from the crime scene based on the accused's memorandum statement is not adequately proven. The recovery of the body itself is doubtful, which casts doubt on the accused's memorandum statement made during the investigation. Due to the decomposed and mutilated state of the victim's body, the actual cause of death could not be determined. It is noteworthy that the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 has held that in cases where the prosecution relies on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete and not leave any reasonable doubt about the accused's guilt. The circumstances must necessarily point to the accused's involvement in the crime, ruling out any other hypothesis. 64. Therefore, in the above circumstances, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond a reasonable doubt, through oral, documentary, and medical evidence, and in light of the aforementioned judicial decisions, that the accused committed the alleged offences. The prosecution has not established that on 07/08/2021, at around 6:00-7:00 pm, in the area of Ghanghra Pakritoli, Sanna Police Station, Jashpur district, Chhattisgarh, the accused restrained the victim, forcibly raped her, and subsequently murdered her by beating her and strangling her. The prosecution has 9 also not proven that the accused attempted to shield himself from legal punishment by disposing of evidence by hiding the victim's body in bushes. Therefore, issues No. 2, 3, 4, and 5 are concluded as "not proven".” 10. Taking into consideration the findings recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Additional Charge F.T.C., Jashpur, District Jashpur (C.G.), acquitting the respondent/accused from aforesaid offences, we do not find any reason to allow Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking grant of leave to appeal. 11. Recently, applying the law governing the scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal, the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of "State of Rajasthan Vs. Kistoora Ram" reported in 2022 SCC OnLine SC 984, has held as follows:- “8. The scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal is very limited. Unless it is found that the view taken by the Court is impossible or perverse, it is not permissible to interfere with the finding of acquittal. Equally if two views are possible, it is not permissible to set aside an order of acquittal, merely because the Appellate Court finds the way of conviction to be more probable. The interference would be warranted only if the view taken is not possible at all.” 12. Thus, for the foregoing reasons, the Criminal Miscellaneous Petition seeking for leave to appeal being totally devoid of merits, the same is rejected. Consequently, the appeal also stands dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan