Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:33701-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA CRA No.1514 of 2019 Judgment reserved on : 21.04.2025 Judgment delivered on : 17.07.2025 1 - Mohammad Afjal Khan @ Monu Khan S/o Maqbul Rainy Aged About 26 Years R/o Yusufpur, Darji Mohalla, Police Station Nawapura Mode, District Gajipur, Uttar Pradesh. Presently Residing At Village Chandandih (Tatibandh), Police Station Amanaka, Raipur, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh versus Appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Dugli, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent(s) : : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate Mr. Anurag Tripathi, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.07.2019 passed by the learned Special Judge, Scheduled Castes and Scheduled 2 Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Special ST (SC/ST Act) No.104/2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life improvement with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 25.04.2018 one Kewal Sai Netam lodged the report to the police of Police Station Dugli alleging that when he was in the village at that time one Maniram informed that a dead body of women was found at Tultuli canal, Palwadi and thereafter the persons went there and saw the dead body and thereafter the dead body was identified and the police started the investigation. In the investigation it was found that on 18.04.2018 the deceased left the house at about 9:30 and informed her family members that she was going to the house of her friend i.e. Ku. Sevti Diwan and thereafter the deceased traveled in a jeep and came to Dugli and from Dugli she again travel in a bus and was going towards Dhamtari and the deceased talk to the appellant and at bus stand Kukrel the deceased went in the motorcycle of appellant. During invenstigation, it was found that the appellant established physical relation with the deceased and thereafter committed murder of her. After investigation police registered case against the accused and he was arrested and charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record,
Legal Reasoning
learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned 3 in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The learned trial court has convicted the appellant on the basis of call details and last seen together but prosecution has failed to establish the connectivity of last seen theory as well as the call details for the commission of the alleged offence. As per the prosecution itself, the appellant was having affair with the deceased, as such frequent calls were made to each other. The mobile from which the appellant used to talk frequently with the deceased is also not in the name of appellant, but the learned Trial Court has not considered these aspects of the matter. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Ballu @ Balram @ Balmukund and another vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2024) 4 SCR 48 and Ravishankar Tandon vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2024) SCR 558. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be 4 dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 376 & 302 of IPC and Section (3) (2) (v) of the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court acquitted the appellant under Sections 376 of IPC and Section (3) (2) (v) of the provisions of the SC/ST (Prevention of Atrocities) Act and convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The first question for consideration is that whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not? 8. Inspector S. L. Sinha (PW-25) stated that the complainant Kewal Ram informed about the murder of his sister Kumari Tikeshwari as per merg intimation No.5/2018, which is Ex-P/25. Kewal Ram (PW-17) stated that his sister went to Hyderabad with his friend Sevti and after one week, she came there and thereafter by saying that she is going to the house of Sevti, she went away and after 5-6 days, he came to know that her sister has been murdered. He admitted his signatures on merg intimation (Ex-P/25) and memo (Ex-P/26). The Inspector S. L. Sinha (PW- 25) stated that he issued notice for inquest to the witnesses Kewal Ram, Maniram Markam, Prahlad Netam, Asharam Netam, 5 Ramdas Suryawanshi vide Ex-P/2 and before witnesses, he prepared inquest memo of the deceased Tikeshwari, which is Ex- P/3 and thereafter he registered FIR (Ex-P/36) under Sections 302 & 376 of IPC. 9. Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-15) conducted the postmortem of the deceased and he discussed the internal and external injuries which are as under:- आंतरि(cid:5)क प(cid:5)(cid:8)्ቌण ेሰ(cid:12) ेሰ(cid:13)ने(cid:15) प(cid:16)या(cid:16) किक सि(cid:20)(cid:5) क(cid:15) चेሰडी(cid:8) क(cid:23) “ आं(cid:2)तरि(cid:5)क प(cid:5)(cid:8)्ቌण- खो(cid:23)लने(cid:15) प(cid:5) ल(cid:16)ल (cid:5)(cid:2)ग क(cid:27) ईक(cid:16)ईेሰ(cid:23)सि(cid:20)(cid:20) 08 ेሰ(cid:8) आंडी(cid:16) आंक(cid:16)(cid:5) क(cid:16) ग(cid:29)ण(cid:16) 06 (cid:20)(cid:15). च(cid:23)ट क(cid:15) किनेशा(cid:16)ने ेሰ जू"द थे(cid:15) जू(cid:23) सि(cid:20)(cid:5) क(cid:15) प%् क(cid:15) ऑቍኌ)(cid:20)प(cid:8)टल भा(cid:16)ग प(cid:5) ेሰ जू"द थे(cid:16)। याह च(cid:23)ट ेሰ%त्या(cid:29) प"्ብ/ क(cid:16) थे(cid:16) तथे(cid:16) ्ቚक% कित क(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:16)ेሰ(cid:16)न्या अने(cid:29)केሰ ेሰ(cid:12) ेሰ%त्या(cid:29) क(cid:16)रि(cid:5)त कशा(cid:15)रूक(cid:16) (cid:20)(cid:16)बु(cid:29)त थे(cid:8)। क(cid:5)ने(cid:15) क(cid:15) ेሰቜኌ9तष्क क(cid:27) झि<ल्ल(cid:8) (cid:20)(cid:16)बु(cid:29)त थे(cid:8)। ेሰቜኌ9तष्क ए्ብ ेሰ(cid:15)रू(cid:5)ሸ" (cid:20)डीने क(cid:15) क(cid:16)(cid:5)ण ቇኔ(cid:15)ई(cid:20) किपलकिपल(cid:16) ह(cid:23) च(cid:29)क(cid:16) थे(cid:16)। ्ብ्ቌ ्ብ(cid:16)ल(cid:15) भा(cid:16)ग ेሰ(cid:12) प(cid:20)ल(cid:8) (cid:20)(cid:16)बु(cid:29)त थे(cid:15)। प(cid:5)द(cid:16) ए्ብ(cid:2) क(cid:23)ेሰल9्ብ ेሰ(cid:29)ल(cid:16)याेሰ ह(cid:23) च(cid:29)क(cid:15) थे(cid:15)। कठ ए्ብ 9्ብ(cid:16)शा नेल(cid:8) ेሰ(cid:12) (cid:20)ड़ने क(cid:15) क(cid:16)(cid:5)ण भा(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:15) त(cid:5)ल पद(cid:16)थे/ ेሰ जू"द थे(cid:15)। द(cid:23)नेB फे(cid:15) फेडी(cid:15) (cid:20)डीने क(cid:15) क(cid:16)(cid:5)ण भा(cid:29)(cid:5)(cid:16)- क(cid:16)ल(cid:16) (cid:5)(cid:2)ग क(cid:16) ह(cid:23) गया(cid:16) थे(cid:16) तथे(cid:16) आंतरि(cid:5)क (cid:20)(cid:5)चने(cid:16)ए कि्ብदDण/ ह(cid:23) च(cid:29)क(cid:16) थे(cid:16)। सिलए पया(cid:16)/प्त नेह5 थे(cid:8)। खो(cid:23)पडी(cid:8). कप(cid:16)ल, बु(cid:16)्ቨ प(cid:5)(cid:8)्ቌण- ेሰकिहल(cid:16) क(cid:27) थे(cid:8) बु(cid:16)्ቨ प(cid:5)(cid:8)्ቌण क(cid:5)ने(cid:15) प(cid:5) ेሰ(cid:13)ने(cid:15) प(cid:16)या(cid:16) किक शा्ብ एक जू(cid:23) (cid:20)ड़ने क(cid:27) अकितेሰ अ्ብቝኋ(cid:16) ेሰ(cid:12) थे(cid:8)। ेሰ%कितक(cid:16) क(cid:15) शा्ብ प(cid:5) ह(cid:5)(cid:15) (cid:5)ग क(cid:16) (cid:20)ल्ብ(cid:16)(cid:5), ह(cid:5)(cid:15) (cid:5)(cid:2)ग ल(cid:15)किग(cid:20), ቜኋ(cid:16), अडी(cid:5) कि्ብया(cid:5) ेሰ जू"द थे(cid:16)। ेሰ%कितक(cid:16) क(cid:15) द(cid:16)किहने(cid:15) अቇኔ भा(cid:29)जू(cid:16) ेሰ(cid:12) ग(cid:29)दने(cid:16) ेሰ जू"द थे(cid:16)। ेሰ%कितक(cid:16) क(cid:15) शा(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:5) प(cid:5) लगभाग 03 (cid:20)(cid:15).ेሰ(cid:8) टDआंई क(cid:15) या" (टDक) आंक(cid:16)(cid:5) ्ብ(cid:16)ल(cid:15) क(cid:27)डी(cid:15) ेሰ जू"द थे(cid:15)। आंखो(cid:15) (cid:20)ड़ने(cid:15) क(cid:15) क(cid:16)(cid:5)ण अद(cid:5) ध(cid:20)(cid:8) हुई थे(cid:8) तथे(cid:16) किपचक गया(cid:16) थे(cid:16)। ेሰ(cid:29)ह खो(cid:29)ल(cid:16) हुआं थे(cid:16) तथे(cid:16) आंतरि(cid:5)क भा(cid:16)ग प(cid:5) क(cid:27)डी(cid:15) ेሰ जू"द थे(cid:15)। ेሰ%कितक(cid:16) क(cid:16) उप(cid:5) द(cid:16)त दिदखो(cid:16)ई द(cid:15) (cid:5)ह(cid:16) थे(cid:16)। जू(cid:8)फे अ(cid:2)द(cid:5) क(cid:27) त(cid:5)फे थे(cid:16)। शा(cid:5)(cid:8)(cid:5) ेሰम्ेሰ(cid:8)किफेक(cid:15) शाने क(cid:15) 9ट(cid:15)जू प(cid:5) थे(cid:16)। ेሰ%कितक(cid:16) क(cid:15) बु(cid:16)ए ह(cid:16)थे कल(cid:16)ई क(cid:15) प(cid:16)(cid:20) (cid:20)(cid:15) ेሰ जू"द नेह5 थे(cid:16)। ेሰ%कितक(cid:16) क(cid:15) दBनेB पM(cid:5) ऐकल ज््ብ(cid:16)ईंट क(cid:15) प(cid:16)(cid:20) (cid:20)(cid:15) ेሰ जू"द नेह5 थे(cid:16) तथे(cid:16) हकिQया(cid:16) दिदखो (cid:5)ह(cid:8) थे(cid:8) ए्ብ हकिडीडीया(cid:23) ेሰ(cid:12) जू(cid:16)ने्ብ(cid:5) क(cid:15) क(cid:16)टने(cid:15) क(cid:15) किनेशा(cid:16)ने ेሰ जू"द थे(cid:15)।" He opined the death of deceased ‘due to neck compression and gave his report vide Ex-P/22. He also stated that as per Ex-P/23, he answered the query of Investigating Officer, which are as under:- )या(cid:16) ेሰ%कितक(cid:16) क(cid:15) गल(cid:15) क(cid:23) दबु(cid:16)ने(cid:15) (cid:20)(cid:15) ेሰ%त्या(cid:29) ह(cid:23) (cid:20)कत(cid:8) हM ? “1. उ्ቈर - हॉ(cid:6). मृ(cid:8)ति(cid:10)का(cid:12) का(cid:13) गले(cid:13) का(cid:16) दबा(cid:12)ने(cid:13) से(cid:13) मृ(cid:8)त्यु(cid:23) हॉ(cid:16) सेका(cid:10)(cid:24) हॉ(cid:25)। 2. क्यु(cid:12) मृ(cid:8)ቈኌ्ቈका(cid:12) का(cid:13) गले(cid:12) मृ(cid:29) चु(cid:23)ቐኍ(cid:24) (कापडा(cid:12)) बा"धा(cid:12) हॉ$आ था(cid:12), गले(cid:12) बा"धाने(cid:13) से(cid:13) मृ(cid:8)त्यु(cid:23) हॉ(cid:16) सेका(cid:10)(cid:24) हॉ(cid:25) क्यु(cid:12) ? उ्ቈर हॉ(cid:12)’, मृ(cid:8)ति(cid:10)का(cid:12) का(cid:13) गले(cid:12) मृ(cid:29) चु(cid:23)ቐኍ(cid:24) (कापडा(cid:12)) बा"धा(cid:12) हॉ$आ था(cid:12) एवं" गले(cid:12) बा"धाने(cid:13) से(cid:13) 6 मृ(cid:8)त्यु(cid:23) हॉ(cid:16) सेका(cid:10)(cid:24) हॉ(cid:25)।" In the cross-examination, he also admitted that he found teeth and bone marks on the body of the deceased. 10. It is clear from the statement of Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-15) that he found injuries on the neck and head of the deceased, however he has not clearly stated that nature of death is homicidal but looking to the injuries found on the body of the deceased, it is clear that the nature of death is homicidal in nature. In the cross-examination, no question was asked by the defence regarding nature of death of the deceased so the prosecution has proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 11. Now the second question we have to examine that whether the accused is the author of this crime or not? 12. The learned Trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of (i) last seen together (ii) Memorandum and seizure, (iii) call details/data of deceased and accused mobile phones. 13. PW-19 - Jaswant Kunjam stated that on the date of incident, he saw deceased at bus stand. At that time a wheatish skinned boy came there and took the deceased on his motorcycle and went away. When it was asked to him that whether the accused present in the Court is the same boy or not, then he replied that he is the same boy. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he does not know that boy prior to the incident and another boy can 7 be of the same physique. He also admitted that when he came to know about the death of deceased, then he did not go to the police station to tell that he had seen the deceased with some other boy. 14. Ku. Sevati Diwan (PW-24) stated that she had gone to Raipur along with deceased Tikeshwari, where the accused came and did conversation for 10-15 minutes, thereafter she and deceased went Rajasthan, where they stayed together and worked there for 6 months and during this time, the deceased used to talk with the accused. Thereafter they went to Hyederabad for work and stayed there for 1-2 months and there also the deceased used to talk to the accused. In para 7, she stated that in April month, she came to her village for attending the marriage. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her then she admitted this suggestion of the prosecution that the deceased Tikeshwari used to talk with the accused on his mobile number i.e. 9009260197. In the cross-examination in para 9, she admitted that after meeting of the accused and deceased in the year 2017 at Railway Station, she did not see the accused meeting with the deceased. 15. As per memorandum of the accused, one mobile and SIM was seized from the house of the accused. As per seizure memo (Ex- P/6) one mobile battery was seized. As per seizure memo (Ex- P/7) one motorcycle was seized and as per seizure memo (Ex- P/8), one underwear was seized. 16.
Legal Reasoning
Shri Vibhor Rastogi (PW-26), nodal officer in cellular mobile 8 company, stated that as per letter of SP, he gave call details of mobile number Nos.8185084929, 9009260197 & 7745967045 from 01.04.2018 to 25.05.2018 as per Ex-P/34. In para 10 of his cross-examination, he admitted this suggestion of defence that as per Ex-P/34 all 3 mobile numbers are not registered in the name of the appellant. 17. The Investigating Officer S. L. Sinha (PW-25) admitted in the cross-examination that as per memorandum statement (Ex-P/4), no scarf (chunri) was recovered. He also admitted that no document showing that the seized battery belongs to the deceased was seized by him. He also admitted that he did not take fingerprint of the accused and neck marks of the deceased and the same were not sent to expert. 18. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Ravishankar Tandon (supra) held in paras 8, 9 & 10 as under:- “8. Undoubtedly, the prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence. The law with regard to conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has very well been crystalized in the judgment of this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, wherein this Court held thus: “152. Before discussing the cases relied upon by the High Court we would like to cite a few decisions on the nature, character and essential proof required in a criminal case which rests on circumstantial evidence alone. The most fundamental and basic decision of this Court is Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1952 SCR 1091 : 1953 Cri LJ 129]. This case has been uniformly followed and applied by this Court in a large number of later decisions up-to-date, for instance, the cases of Tufail (Alias) Simmi v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 9