Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2003 DIGILAW 91 (CHH)

LALOO YADAV v. STATE OF C. G.

2003-05-09

K.H.N.KURANGA, L.C.BHADOO

body2003
JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri L.C. Bhadoo, J. :- 1. Appellants Laloo Yadav and Ram Prasad Thakur Gond have preferred this appeal being aggrieved by the judgment dated 4- 7 - 2002 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 305/2001 by which learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the accused/appellants guilty under section 302 of the IPC sentenced both of them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. The relevant prosecution story for the disposal of this criminal appeal is that on 27th June 2001 at 10.50 in the night one Ramji Thakur reported the matter to the police station-Bhilai that at about 9.30 in the night after taking dinner he was sitting in his house, at that time Sanju Paul and Rajkumar came and informed him that the accused persons have assaulted your son Raju Chukiya by iron rod and murdered him, body of Raju is lying on the comer of the road. On receiving this information he went to the seen of occurrence and saw that Raju was lying dead. The accused persons had murdered him on account of animosity. This report (Ex.P/1) was registered by Sub Inspector S.K. Pandey (P.W. 5). The Investigating Officer gave notice (Ex. P/3) to the witnesses and prepared Panchayatnama (Ex.P/4) of the body of the deceased. He took into possession the simple soil as well as blood smeared soil from the seen of occurrence through Ex. P/6. On 28th June 2001 the Investigating Officer took into possession one full sleeve check shirt, one sando baniyan, full pant smeared with blood and mud from the accused Ram Prasad through Ex.P/7. On the same day the police took into possession the clothes of the accused Laloo Yadav, one half T -shirt, one pajama which were smeared with blood and mud through Ex.P/8. On the same day on the information of Ram Prasad the Investigating Officer took into possession the iron rod through Ex.P/9 which was 33 inch in length and 1.75 inch in width and another iron rod were recovered through Ex.P/10 at the instance of Laloo Yadav which was 47.5 inch in length and 1.5 inch in width. Based on the memo of Laloo Yadav (Ex. P/11) and Ram Prasad (Ex.P/12) the dead body was sent for postmortem through Ex.P/18. Dr. S.P. Kesharwani after conducting the postmortem sent report Ex.P/19. Based on the memo of Laloo Yadav (Ex. P/11) and Ram Prasad (Ex.P/12) the dead body was sent for postmortem through Ex.P/18. Dr. S.P. Kesharwani after conducting the postmortem sent report Ex.P/19. The clothes of the deceased were taken into possession through Ex.P/20 and after completion of the investigation the challan was filed. 3. Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed the charges under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The prosecution examined in all 9 witnesses. The statements of the accused persons were recorded in which they denied the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and after hearing arguments of learned counsel for the accused/appellants and the Public Prosecutor, learned Additional Sessions Judge passed the impugned judgment. 4. We have heard Shri Kanak Tiwari, Advocate for the appellants and Shri Ashok Verma, Deputy Advocate General for the State. 5. As far as the question of nature of death of the deceased Raju Chukiya as homicidal is concerned, learned counsel for the accused has not disputed this fact. Even otherwise Dr. S.P. Kesharwani (P.W.9) has said that on 28th June, 2001 he was working as Medical Officer in District Hospital, Durg and on that day he conducted post mortem on the body of Raju Chukiya and he found in all 17 injuries mentioned in the post mortem report. The injuries were ante mortem in nature and on opening the body he found that parietal part of the skull bone was fractured, the right parietal of the skull bone was fractured, there was compound fracture on the skull and there was blood clot in the brain, some portion of the brain was crushed. The cause of death was above injuries and death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. So in view of this statement of the doctor it is proved that the nature of death of the deceased Raju Chukiya was homicidal in nature. 6. As far as the question of involvement of the accused persons in murdering Raju Chukiya is concerned, Ramji Thakur (P. W.l ) who is father of the deceased has stated that Sanju Paul and Raj Kumar came in the night at about 9.30 and informed him that Raju Chukiya has been murdered. They also informed that Laloo Yadav and Ram Prasad have murdered him and injuries have been inflicted by rod and the body is lying in the Railway Colony. They also informed that Laloo Yadav and Ram Prasad have murdered him and injuries have been inflicted by rod and the body is lying in the Railway Colony. On that he reached the Railway Colony and found that his son was lying dead. He reported the matter to the police which registered Ex.P/l, and Panchnama of the body was prepared through Ex.P/4. However, Sanju Paul (P.W.2) and Raj Kumar Yadav (P.W.3) who were eye witnesses have turned hostile and stated that Raju Chukiya is dead; they did not know who has murdered Raju. Even both these witnesses have admitted that the recovery and information memos bear their signatures but they have denied that the accused Laloo and Ram Prasad gave any information and iron rods were recovered from the spot pursuant to their information. Therefore, after turning hostile of these two witnesses, there is no other eye witness or direct evidence against the accused persons regarding inflicting injuries on the deceased and thereby causing murder of the deceased. 7. The only circumstantial evidence against the accused persons which has been adduced by the prosecution is that on the information given by them and on their instance iron rods were recovered through Ex.P/9 and Ex.P/10 and the information memo given by them are Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/12 and the clothes of the accused Ram Prasad were recovered through Ex.P/7 and the clothes of Laloo were recovered vide Ex.P/8. As far as recovery of rods and clothes of the accused persons which were said to have been smeared with blood are concerned, first of all the panch witnesses namely Sanju Paul and Ram Prasad have turned hostile and they said that no recovery was made in their presence. Even the iron rods which are said to be weapon of the offence were recovered from the open place near Railway cabins and no blood was found on these iron rods. Such rods are easily available anywhere. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence which shows that the clothes of the accused persons were smeared with blood as there is no report of chemical examination or serologist showing that the clothes of Ram Prasad and Laloo Yadav were smeared with human blood and that was of the same group as of the deceased. 8. The prosecution has not adduced any evidence which shows that the clothes of the accused persons were smeared with blood as there is no report of chemical examination or serologist showing that the clothes of Ram Prasad and Laloo Yadav were smeared with human blood and that was of the same group as of the deceased. 8. Therefore the circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution is of no help and does not connect the accused/appellants with the murder of Raju Chukiya. 9. In view of the above reasoning the conviction of the accused/appellants cannot be sustained and the judgment passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge is liable to be set-aside. 10. In the result, the appeal of the appellants is allowed and the judgment of conviction passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge dated 4th July, 2002 is set aside and the accused/appellants are acquitted of the charge levelled against them under section 302 of the IPC. They be set at liberty, if not required in any other offence. Appeal Allowed.