Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 80 (CHH)

NARENDRA PRAKASH MEHER v. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

2003-05-07

K.H.N.KURANGA

body2003
L. C. BHADOO, J. ( 1 ) THE accused/appellant Narendra Prakash Meher has filed this criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure being aggrieved by the Judgment dated 21st October, 2002 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 17/2002 holding the appellant guilty of the commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo six months Rigorous Imprisonment. ( 2 ) THE relevant prosecution story for the disposal of this criminal appeal is that on 24th November, 2001 at 9 a. m. Mana Ram, Kotwar gave a merg intimation to the police stationbilaigarh Districtraipur that today in the morning at 7 a. m. Than Singh informed him that on 23rd November 2001 at about 8. 30 p. m. in the night narendra Prakash has murdered his father Punilal by inflicting assault by stone. On receiving this information he went to the site alongwith Than Singh, Aajuram, Vijay Kumar and Ram Kripal and saw that the body of Punilal Meher was lying in front of door of his house in the corridor. The death of Punilal as informed has been caused by inflicting assault by stone. This merg intimation was taken on record which is Ex. P/i. After this merg intimation the S. H. O. gave notice Ex. P/2 to the panchas and thereafter Ex. P/3 panchnama of the body was prepared. During the police custody accused Narendra Prakash Mehar gave information Ex. P/li under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act and in pursuance to this information the stone was recovered through Ex. P14. Through Ex. P/5 simple soil and blood smeared soil was taken into possession. Through Ex. P/6 full pant on which the blood spots were there was taken into possession. Through Ex. P/7 dead body of Punilal was handed over to Muniram, brother of the deceased. Spot map Ex. P/8 was prepared and the accused was arrested through Ex. P19. Based on the report Ex. P/i the f. I. R. Ex. P110 was registered. The postmortem of the body was got conducted which is Ex. P/12. After recording the statements of witnesses the clothes were taken through Ex. P/17. Spot map Ex. P/8 was prepared and the accused was arrested through Ex. P19. Based on the report Ex. P/i the f. I. R. Ex. P110 was registered. The postmortem of the body was got conducted which is Ex. P/12. After recording the statements of witnesses the clothes were taken through Ex. P/17. The stone and clothes were sent for chemical examination to the FSL Laboratory, Raipur from where report Ex. P/19 was received and after completion of the investigation the challan was filed against the accused/appellant. ( 3 ) LEARNED Additional Sessions Judge, framed charge under Section 302 of I. P. C. against the accused/appellant which he denied. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined in all 10 witnesses and statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Cr. P. C. in which he denied the statement of witnesses and said that he has been falsely implicated in the crime and he was not at village. Learned Additional Sessions Judge after hearing the arguments of learned public Prosecutor and learned counsel for the accused passed the impugned judgment. ( 4 ) WE have heard Shri G. S. Ahluwalia, learned counsel for the accused/appellant and Shri Ashok Verma, learned Deputy Advocate General for the State. ( 5 ) AS far as nature of death of the deceased Punilal as homicidal is concerned counsel for the accused/appellant has not disputed. Even otherwise the doctor Kishore Kumar Gandharwa has stated that on 24/1/ 2001 he was posted as Rural Medical Officer in Govt. Hospital Bilaigarh, on that day constable Brijlal Sahu brought dead body of Punilal for postmortem. He examined the body and conducted the postmortem. On inspection it was found that the bone of the right side cheek was fractured, the fracture was one and a half inch in width and one inch deep and the wound was incised and lacerated, maxillary artery was also cut, even on right side of the eyebrow there was incised and lacerated wound, on the right parital region the bone was fractured which was one and a half inch incised, the right side frontal bone above the right eyebrow was fractured and it was incised and there was lacerated wound which was bone deep and half inch above the right ear. On account of these injuries there was excessive bleedings. On account of these injuries there was excessive bleedings. There was blood on whole face, on dissection it was found that the right side of the heart less blood was present. His report is Ex. P112. As per this report cause of death was due to severe external head injury. In view of the above statement of the doctorthe death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. ( 6 ) AS far as the question of causing death by inflicting stone blow on the head of Punilal is concerned in this case there is no direct evidence and there is no eyewitness. The whole case rests upon the circumstantial evidence and the law on the point is that in a case based on the circumstantial evidence the Court can record conviction but it must satisfy itself that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt could be drawn have been established by unimpeachable evidence led by the prosecution and that all the circumstances put together are not only of a conclusive nature but also complete the chain so fully as to unerringly point only to the guilt of the accused and are not capable of any explanation which is not consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. ( 7 ) IT is on the basis of above principles that we shall examine the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this case. In the present case the prosecution relied upon and based its evidence on following circumstances: - (i) That the accused made extrajudicial confession before Than Singh. (ii) That the stone by which the injury was inflicted was recovered at the instance of the accused. (iii) That blood was found on the recovered stone and full pant of the accused. ( 8 ) AS far as the first circumstance against the accused/appellant that he gave extrajudicial confession before than Singh (P. W. 7) is concerned, this witness has turned hostile and he has not supported the prosecution case. Even after declaring this witness hostile the prosecution has not been able to extract any circumstance on which it is said that the accused/appellant has made any extrajudicial confession about murder of his own father, therefore the prosecution has not been able to establish that the accused/appellant has made extrajudicial confession before Than Singh. Even after declaring this witness hostile the prosecution has not been able to extract any circumstance on which it is said that the accused/appellant has made any extrajudicial confession about murder of his own father, therefore the prosecution has not been able to establish that the accused/appellant has made extrajudicial confession before Than Singh. ( 9 ) NOW as far as to the second circumstance against the accused/appellant that the stone was recovered at his instance is concerned, the said stone was lying near the dead body of Punilal and the same was known to all the inmates and all the villagers were coming there and saw the dead body and the stone. Manaram (P. W. 1) in para-8 of his statement has said that the stone was lying near the dead body of Punilal. Muniram (P. W. 4) has turned hostile, Vijay Kumar (P. W. 5) has also turned hostile, Dhansai (P. W. 6) has prepared the spot map only and Ram Kripal (P. W. 8) has said that on the request of Maniram he went to the house of Punilal and saw that he was dead and stone was also lying by the side of the body. Therefore, in view of the above statements the stone was known to everyone so it is of no significance and cannot connect the accused/appellant with the murder of his father Pu nilal. ( 10 ) AS far as the question that blood was found on the stone and full pant of the accused/appellant is concerned there is no report that the blood was human blood and moreover it was of the blood group of the deceased. Therefore on this circumstance also the accused/appellants involvement in the murder of Punilal is not proved. ( 11 ) IN view of the above discussion the findings of learned trial Court that the accused/appellant was responsible for murder of his father Punilal is not sustainable because the prosecution has not been able to bring home the guilt against the accused/appellant based on the principles laid down by the Honble Apex Court in the matter of circumstantial evidence. ( 12 ) IN the result the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court dt. ( 12 ) IN the result the appeal filed by the appellant is allowed. The judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court dt. 21st October, 2002 is set aside and the appellant Narendra Prakash Meher is directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal allowed. --- *** --- .