Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Statio
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by BHOLA NATH KHATAI Date: 2025.01.23 11:56:38 +0530 2025:CGHC:3810-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1674 of 2018 Rajendra Yadav S/o Ramhau Yadav, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Kharra, Police Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Gandai, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
9. However, it is well settled principles of law that discovery of object at the disclosure of accused alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of object and its use in the commission of offence. In this regard, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan1, in paragraphs - 25 observed as under: “25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the 1 (2011) 11 SCC 724 5 conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution. 10. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court, it is clear that the recovery of stone pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant has been proved by Jageshar Yadav (PW-15). But, there is no evidence on record to hold that the said stone was used by the appellant in commission of the offence. Mere recovery of stone pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant cannot lead to the conclusion that the appellant has committed the said offence. Even otherwise, as per the principle of law laid down in the case of Mustkeem (supra), which has been followed in the matter of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh2, the finding of blood stain on the seized article is one of the circumstances, on the sole basis of which, the accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. 11. In that view of the matter, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant for the aforesaid offence. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 07.09.2018 passed by the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside/quashed on the basis of benefit of doubt and the appellant is acquitted from the said offence. The appellant is reported to be in jail. He be released from jail forthwith, if 2 (2024) SCC Online SC 67 6 his detention is not required in connection with any other offence. 12. This criminal appeal, accordingly, stands allowed. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court for necessary information & action, if any. A copy of the judgment may also be sent to the concerned Jail Superintendent wherein the appellant is suffering the jail sentence. Sd/- Sd/- S Sd/- Sd/- Khatai Judge Judge (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Arguments
: Mr. Abhishek Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (22.01.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of 2 sentence dated 07.09.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.02/2017, whereby the appellant herein has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of 500/- and in default of ₹ payment of fine, to suffer six months additional imprisonment. 2. The case of prosecution, in brief, is that on 13.10.2016 in the morning, near the field of Manglu at village Kharra, PS Gandai, District Rajnandgaon, the appellant herein assaulted his father Ramhau Yadav (now deceased) by wooden log, due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died. The matter was reported to the Police by Ramdayal Yadav (PW-2), pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-8 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-4. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-7A and dead body of deceased Ramhau Yadav was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Manish Baghel (PW-16), who proved the post-mortem report Ex. P-18, according to which, cause of death was stated to be brain hemorrhage due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant (Ex. P- 18), the stone was seized vide Ex. P-15. The wooden log and other articles were seized vide Ex. P-6 from the spot. All the seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL and as per FSL report Ex. P-29B, human blood was found on Articles – A, B, E & F i.e. sticks, stone & clothes of deceased respectively. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal 3 in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 29 documents including Article-A/1 and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The statement of 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. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant herein as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment. 5. Mr. Abhishek Sharma, learned counsel for appellant would submit that there is no direct evidence against the appellant and the appellant has been convicted only on the ground that human blood was found on the stone seized on the memorandum statement of appellant and on the stick seized from the spot. He would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 6. Mr. Sharad Mishra, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution 4 has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The case of prosecution is not based on any direct evidence. It is based on only one incriminating circumstance that human blood was found on the stone which was seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant and on the stick which was seized from the spot. No other incriminating circumstance has been found. Ramcharan Maravi (PW-9) and Jageshar Yadav (PW-15) are the memorandum witnesses and Jageshar Yadav (PW-15) has supported the recording of the memorandum statement of appellant pursuant to which the recovery of stone was made.