Chamraram Potai S/o Gandoram Potai, aged about 20 years, R/o Village – Mundpal v. State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station – Farasgaon
Case Details
1 CRA No. 601 of 2015 ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.04.03 13:17:30 +0530 2025:CGHC:15193-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 601 of 2015 [Arising out of judgment dated 28.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.321/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh] Chamraram Potai S/o Gandoram Potai, aged about 20 years, R/o Village – Mundpal, Police Station – Farasgaon, District – Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station – Farasgaon, District – Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by Chhattisarh High Court Legal Services Committee. For State-Respondent :- Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (01.04.2025) 2 CRA No. 601 of 2015 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section
Facts
374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant herein, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 28.02.2015 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.321/2012, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of ₹ 1,000/-; in default of payment of fine amount the appellant has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. Prosecution story:- 2. On 06.01.2011 at about 9:30 pm at village Mundpal, Police Station – Farasgaon, District – Narayanpur, Chhattisgarh, the appellant herein assaulted his father Gandoram by hand-fist and knee by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that, on 06.01.2011, Gandoram came to the house in the evening in intoxication 3 CRA No. 601 of 2015 state and started quarrelling with his wife Mainibai which was interfered by the appellant and due to which dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased in which the appellant said to have assaulted the deceased with hand-fist and knee by which Gandoram suffered grievous injuries and died. About the said incident, the appellant had given extra- judicial confession in the village panchayat/public meeting. Massuram Gond (PW-2) about the said incident reported the matter to the police pursuant to which merg intimation and FIR were registered vide Exs.P/2 & P/3, respectively. Crime details form was registered vide Ex.P/5. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/4) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/9) prove by Dr. D.S. Thakur (PW-7) cause of death was asphyxia due to respiratory arrest and homicidal in nature. Blood stained clothes were seized from the house of the appellant and deceased vide Ex.P/7, other articles were seized from the spot and the same has been sent for chemical analysis to FSL. However, FSL report has not 4 CRA No. 601 of 2015 been brought on record for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 4. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence 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. 5. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents, whereas, defence, in support of its case, has not examined any witness but exhibited 1 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. 6. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the appeal 5 CRA No. 601 of 2015 has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the Parties:-
Legal Reasoning
should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra2 where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 13.To base the conviction of the appellant, the trial Court has relied upon the statement of Massuram Gond (PW-2) and the extra-judicial confession which is said to have been made by 2 (1973) 2 SCC 793 9 CRA No. 601 of 2015 the appellant in the village panchayat/public meeting before Kachruram (PW-5) and Lachchhu Ram (PW-6). 14.Statement of Massuram Gond (PW-2) :- Massuram Gond (PW- 2) in his statement before the Court, in examination-in-chief, has stated that he had seen the appellant assulting the deceased. However, PW-2 while reporting the merg has nowhere stated that he had seen the appellant while assaulting the appellant. PW-2 has only stated that in the village panchayat/public meeting the apellant had given the extra-judicial confession that he had killed his father. Similarly, in his (PW-2) statement Ex.D/1 recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, he has stated that in the village panchayat/public meeting the apellant had given the extra- judicial confession that he had killed his father. Further, PW-2 in his Court’s statement has stated that he did not know as to how the said fact is not mentioned in the merg as well in his statement vide Ex.D/1. Therefore, in view of the aforesaid discrepancies found in the statements (Court’s statement & Ex.D/1) of PW-2 as well as in the merg pursuant to which FIR 10 CRA No. 601 of 2015 was lodged, the appellant cannot be convicted that too for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Extra-Judicial Confession:- 15.The trial Court has also relied upon the extra judicial confession to base the conviction of the appellant which is said to have been made by the appellant before Kachruram (PW-5) and Lachchhu Ram (PW-6). Kachruram (PW-5), in his statement before the Court has stated that on the date of offence, in the night, the appellant came and stated that his father had died, then on the next day in the morning in the village panchayat/public meeting, on being asked the appellant stated that he had killed his father as under the influence of liquor his father was quarrelling with his mother and also with him. Similarly, Lachchhu Ram (PW-6), cousin brother of the appellant, in his statement before the Court has stated that in the night, the appellant came and inform him (PW-6) that his father had died and on the next day in the village panchayat/public meeting, on being asked the appellant had admitted the fact that he killed his father. As such, the extra judicial confession which is said to have been 11 CRA No. 601 of 2015 made by the appellant to Kachruram (PW-5) and Lachchhu Ram (PW-6) is not true and voluntary. Even otherwise, the evidentiary value of such confession also depends on the person to whom it is made. Going by the natural course of human conduct, normally, a person would confide about a crime committed by him only with such a person in whom he has implicit faith. Normally, a person would not make a confession to someone who is totally a stranger to him and in the present case as per the prosecution case the appellant had made extra judicial confession in the village meeting before the villagers. Furthermore, it is the settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Wherever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. If, however, the extra judicial confession suffers from material discrepancies or inherent improbabilities and does not appear to be cogent as per the prosecution version, it may be difficult for the Court to base a conviction on such a confession. In such circumstances, the Court would 12 CRA No. 601 of 2015 be fully justified in ruling such evidence out of consideration. [See : Sahadevan and another v. State of Tamil Nadu 3 ]. 16.In the matter of Sahadevan (supra), their Lordships of the Supreme Court further considered the earlier decisions including Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab4 and pertinently laid down the principle in paragraphs 15.1, 15.8 and 16 as under :- “15.1. In Balwinder Singh (supra) this Court stated the principle that: (SCC p. 265, para 10) “10. An extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution. Where an extra-judicial confession is surrounded by suspicious circumstances, its credibility becomes doubtful and it loses its importance.” 15.8. Extra-judicial confession must be established to be true and made voluntarily and in a fit state of mind. The words of the witnesses must be clear, unambigous and should clearly convey that the accused is the perpetrator of the crime. The extra-judicial confession can be accepted and can be the basis of conviction, if it passes the test of credibility. The extra-judicial confession should inspire confidence and the court should find out whether there are other cogent circumstances on record to support it. (Ref. Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B.5 and Pancho v. State of Haryana6.) 3 (2012) 6 SCC 403
Arguments
7. Mr. Rajkumar Pali, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that the only circumstance which has been brought on record by the prosecution is that the appellant had given extra- judicial confession in the village panchayat/public meeting and no other evidence has been brought on reocrd by the prosecution. He would further submit that the extra-judicial confession which is said to have been given by the appellant is not true and voluntary, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He would also submit that the extra-judicial confession given by 6 CRA No. 601 of 2015 the appellant is true and voluntary and the trial Court has rightly relied upon the extra-judicial confession to base the conviction of the appellant. Therefore, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the with utmost care and circumspection. Discussion & Analysis:- 10.The first question, as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative in relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P/9) proved by Dr. D.S. Thakur (PW-7), which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse 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. 7 CRA No. 601 of 2015 11. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has assaulted the deceased? 12.The case of the prosecution is not based on the direct evidence as the so called eye witness Maini Bai (PW-1), who is the mother of the appellant and wife of the deceased, has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. As such, the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence and the trial Court has found incriminating circumstances established. The five golden principles which constitute panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1 in paragraph 153 which state as under:- “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 8 CRA No. 601 of 2015