Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2012 DIGILAW 1 (CHH)

SOMNATH v. STATE OF M. P.

2012-01-02

RAJEEV GUPTA, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2012
JUDGMENT As per Hon'ble Shri Rajeev Gupta, C.J. :- 1. Appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana stand convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code with sentence of imprisonment for life vide impugned judgment dated 11.05.1996, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.368/1994. 2. Both the appellants have been found guilty by the trial Court for the commission of murder of one Kadti Karu by causing injuries on him by means of Tangia and Danda in the evening of 17.08.1994. 3. The capital charge of murder was sought to be proved by the prosecution against both the accused persons on the evidence of PWI Poyami Sukki, PW2 Lachhu Ram, PW3 Prakash Singh Netam, PW4 Dr. R.N. Arya, PW5 Kadti Samli, PW6 Sukku, PW7 Badru and PW8 HP Shukla. 4. Of the above named 8 prosecution witnesses, PW1 Poyami Sukki was examined as star witness of the prosecution case being eyewitness of the alleged incident of assault on deceased Kadti Karu. Her evidence was sought to be corroborated by the prosecution by the evidence of PW7 Badru, who stated that PW 1 Poyami Sukki narrated the incident of commission of murder by two accused persons Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana to this witness. 5. The trial Court after discussing the evidence of the prosecution witnesses from paras 14 to 21 of the impugned judgment found the accused persons guilty of the commission of murder of deceased Kadti Karu. The trial Court, therefore, convicted and sentenced them as mentioned above. 6. Shri Vishnu Koshta, learned counsel for the appellants submitted that the trial Court has erred in recording the appellants' conviction as there is not even an iota of legal and admissible evidence against the appellants for establishing the charge of murder against them. 7. Shri J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer for the State, on the other hand, supported the impugned judgment and contended that the evidence of the eight prosecution witnesses examined before the trial Court taken cumulatively is more than sufficient for establishing the charge of murder against both the appellants. 8. The fact that deceased Kadti Karu died a homicidal death was neither in dispute before the trial Court, nor is under challenge before us in this appeal. 9. 8. The fact that deceased Kadti Karu died a homicidal death was neither in dispute before the trial Court, nor is under challenge before us in this appeal. 9. The only question which arises for consideration before us in this appeal is as to whether the prosecution has succeeded in establishing that appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana are the author of the injuries found on deceased Kadti Karu and resulted in his death. 10. Though the prosecution examined as many as eight witnesses before the trial Court, the charge of murder was sought to be proved against the appellants/accused persons, mainly, on the evidence of PW 1 Poyami Sukki and PW7 Badru. 11. PW1 Poyami Sukki in her examination-in-chief categorically stated that no one killed deceased Karu. This witness apparently did not utter even a single word against appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana. At this stage, this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and subjected to cross-examination. In her cross-examination, she categorically denied those portions of her case-diary statement (Ex.P1) relating to the alleged assault of the deceased by the two accused persons. Thus, it is apparent that there is not even an iota of incriminating evidence against appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana in the statement of PW 1 Poyami Sukki. 12. The other witness PW7 Badru stated in para 1 that PW5 Kadti Samli, wife of deceased Kadti Karu informed him that her husband Karu was missing since last night. This witness then went in search of Karu and found his dead body in the river. He, however, stated that PW1 Poyami Sukki on interrogation informed him that accused persons Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana have murdered Karu by causing injuries by means of Tangia and Danda. The above statement of PW7 Badru being hear-say evidence, is not admissible in evidence. 13. Learned Panel Lawyer could not point out any other incriminating evidence against appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana. 14. On a thorough scrutiny of the entire records of the trial Court, we also do not find any other incriminating direct or circumstantial evidence against appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana. 15. As there is no incriminating and admissible evidence available against appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana for connecting them with the commission of murder of deceased Kadti Karu, their conviction by the trial Court cannot legally be sustained. 16. 15. As there is no incriminating and admissible evidence available against appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana for connecting them with the commission of murder of deceased Kadti Karu, their conviction by the trial Court cannot legally be sustained. 16. For the foregoing reasons, the appeal filed by appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana against their conviction and sentence is hereby allowed. The conviction of appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence of imprisonment for life are hereby set aside. Appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana are acquitted of the charges framed against them. 17. Appellants Somnath and Jagannath @ Kana are on bail. Their bail bonds shall stand discharged. Appeal Allowed.