(Ari sing out of judgment dated 22.06.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.11/2018 by the v. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station – Lailun
Case Details
1 CRA No. 1150 of 2019 ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.01.08 10:48:15 +0530 2025:CGHC:590-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1150 of 2019 (Ari sing out of judgment dated 22.06.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.11/2018 by the Additional Sessions ) Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. Tikeshwar Yadav S/o Shri Chudamani Yadav, aged about 40 years, R/o Village – Sihardhar, P.S. Lailunga, District Raigarh, Civil and Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station – Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, Advocate. For Respondent-State :- Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General & Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (06.01.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the sole appellant-accused, 2 CRA No. 1150 of 2019 is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 22.06.2019 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 11/2018 by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of ₹ 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months and also convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for 5 years with fine of ₹ 500/-; in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. Prosecution story:- 2. Between 14.04.2018 at about 10:00 pm to 15.04.2018 at about 6:20 pm at Auragudi forest, Jatara, Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh, the appellant caused the death of Kumari Yadav with the help of sharp edged stone and thereafter to screen himself from the legal punishment, hide the dead body of the deceased with leaves and thereby committed the offence. On the report of Nanak Singh complainant (not examined) dead body of the 3 CRA No. 1150 of 2019 Kumari Yadav was found on 15.04.2018 at 6:20 pm vide Ex.P/15 (unnumbered dehati nalsi). Unnumbered dehati merg intimation was was registered vide Ex.P/12. Merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P/14. On the basis of
Facts
dehati nalsi FIR was registered vide Ex.P/16. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P/9. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/5) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/11) proved by Dr. N. Lakra (PW-5) cause of death was haemorrhagic and neurogenic shock due to excessive bleeding and nature was homicidal. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/11) weapon of offence i.e. two stones and T.V.S. bike & loincloth (ुሴ(cid:2) (cid:3)गी(cid:5)) were seized vide Exs.P/2 & P/3, respectively. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL and as per FSL report (not exhibited) dated 28.07.2018 blood was found on one stone (article A), loincloth (ुሴ(cid:2) (cid:3)गी(cid:5)) of the appellant (article C) and on the clothes of the deceased (articles D1, D2 & D3) and on the other stone (article B) & soil (article E) human blood was found. As per query report (Ex.P/18) proved by Dr. Gulshan Sidar (PW-7), injuries which were 4 CRA No. 1150 of 2019 found over the body of the deceased could be caused by the seized two stones. 3. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 18 documents & FSL report, whereas, defence, in support of its case, has examined 1 witness, but not exhibited any document. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein 5 CRA No. 1150 of 2019 questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the Parties:-
Legal Reasoning
of the appellant in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. It has been held in paragraphs 15 and 16 as under :- “15. The theory of last seen – the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan2. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is not 16. possible to sustain the impugned judgment and sentence. This appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused Kanhaiya Lal are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of doubt. He is directed to be released from the custody forthwith unless required otherwise.” 1 2 (2014) 4 SCC 715 (2010) 15 SCC 588 9 CRA No. 1150 of 2019 15. In the matter of Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam3, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that in a case where other links have been satisfactorily made out and circumstances point to guilt of accused, circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In absence of proof of other circumstances the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation, cannot be made basis of conviction. 16. In the matter of Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police4, the Supreme Court has held that though the evidence of last seen together could point to the guilt of the accused, but this evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration, and observed in paragraph 22 as under:- “22. PW 11 was able to identify all the three accused in the court itself by recapitulating his memory as those persons who came at the time when he was washing his car along with John Bosco and further that he had last seen all of them sitting in the Omni van on that day and his testimony to that effect remains intact even during the cross-examination in 3 4
Arguments
6. Mr. Ajeet Kumar Yadav, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offences in question as the prosecution has failed to bring home the offences. He also submits that only on the basis of theory of last seen together, the appellant has been convicted for offences in question whereas, as per statement of Champa Yadav (PW- 2), daughter of the deceased, Stifan Tigga (PW-1) was also present in the house of the deceased, but PW-1 has not supported the case of the prosecution and further, it has not been corroborated by other piece of evidence and only on the basis of theory last seen together which is also doubtful the appellant could not be convicted that too for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and even otherwise, there is a considerable time gap of about 25 hours when the appellant was seen last with the deceased and when the dead body of the deceased was found and, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and the instant appeal deserves to be allowed. 6 CRA No. 1150 of 2019 7. Per contra, Mr. Ashish Shukla and Ashutosh Shukal, learned State counsel, support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. They also submit that on the weapon of offence i.e. stones and also on the loincloth of the appellant, which were seized pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, human blood and blood, respectively, was found in the FSL report dated 28.07.2018 and, therefore, the conviction of the appellant is well merited and the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the records minutely. Discussion & Analysis :- 9. The first question, as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P/11) proved by Dr. N. Lakra (PW-5), which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse 7 CRA No. 1150 of 2019 nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 10. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has assaulted the deceased? 11. The case of the prosecution is based on the theory of last seen together which the trial Court has found established on the basis of statement of Champa Yadav (PW-2), daughter of the deceased, and further on the fact that pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant weapon of offence i.e. two stones and on the loincloth of the appellant were seized and on which in the FSL report human blood and blood, respectively, was found. 12. Now, question for consideration would be whether the trial Court is justified in convicting the appellant on the basis of last seen together? 13. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the relevant decisions qua the theory of last seen together. 8 CRA No. 1150 of 2019 14. In the matter of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan1, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime and there must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part