Research › Search › Judgment

Chhattisgarh High Court · body

2013 DIGILAW 59 (CHH)

RAMESHAR SATNAMI v. STATE OF C. G.

2013-02-11

RANGNATH CHANDRAKAR, SUNIL KUMAR SINHA

body2013
JUDGMENT Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. :- 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 2nd of July, 2003, passed in Sessions Trial No. 249/2002 by the Sessions Judge, Rajpur. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 100/- with default sentence of R.I. for 1 month. 2. The facts briefly stated, are as under :- Deceased-Shanti Bai was a married lady. On 19.2.2002, at about 11.00 am, she was doing some stitch work sitting on the Chabutara of Panchayat Bhawan. It was in front of the house of Durga Bai (PW-2). The allegations are that the appellant came there with a lathi and gave her repeated lathi blows, due to which, she sustained multiple serious injuries and succumbed to those injuries. The incident was witnessed by Durga Bai (PW-2). She was the sole eyewitness to the incident. The Sessions Judge, on appreciation of her evidence, did not rely her testimony to the effect that she, in fact, had seen the incident. However, relying on her testimony that she had seen the appellant running away from the place of occurrence and holding that there were other circumstances also, convicted and sentenced the appellant as above. Hence, this appeal. 3. Shri Ashok Verma, counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has argued that the solitary eye-witness namely-Durga Bai (PW-2) has not supported the prosecution case. She has only deposed that she had seen the appellant running away from the place of occurrence; she had not deposed that at that time whether the appellant was holding any weapon or not; the circumstances relied by the Sessions Judge in para 10 of the judgment are capable of being explained. Therefore, the conviction based on the above circumstances as also on the evidence of Durga Bai (PW-2) cannot be sustained. 4. On the other hand, Shri Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties at length we have perused the records of the Sessions case. 6. Durga Bai (PW-2) was the sole eye-witness of the incident. She deposed that on the fateful day, she was present in her house. She had seen the appellant running away at some distance from the place of occurrence. 5. Having heard counsel for the parties at length we have perused the records of the Sessions case. 6. Durga Bai (PW-2) was the sole eye-witness of the incident. She deposed that on the fateful day, she was present in her house. She had seen the appellant running away at some distance from the place of occurrence. She could not see as to what the appellant was holding in his hands. The Chabutara of Panchayat Bhawan is situated in front of her house. The deceased was on the Chabutara. At that time, Durga Bai (PW-2) was taking meals in her house. Her grand-son - Nitesh was present outside the house. In cross-examination, she deposed in clear words that she saw nothing except that the appellant was running away. 7. The Sessions Judge, in para 27 of the judgment has relied on the following six circumstances: i. According to Durga Bai (PW-2), at the relevant time, the appellant was seen running away near the place of occurrence; ii. Some other witness had seen that while running away he was holding a lathi; iii. Blood stains were found in the wash material of the legs of the appellant; iv. A lathi was seized at the instance of the appellant; v. There was a motive with the appellant to commit murder of the deceased; and vi. A named report was lodged against the appellant. 8. We have gone through the evidence relating to the above circumstances. 9. As we have already mentioned that Durga Bai (PW-2) had seen the appellant running away at some distance from the place of occurrence. Though Krishna (PW-3) had deposed that she had also seen that the appellant was running away from the place of occurrence with a lathi in his hands, but she did not support the case of the prosecution and she was declared hostile. 10. Except the evidence of Durga Bai (PW-2) and Krishna (PW-3), there is no other evidence to show that the appellant was seen running away with a lathi near the place of occurrence. Even if the appellant was seen running away with lathi at some distance from the place of occurrence, how it would be incriminating against him? In village, normally all the persons carry lathi with them. The circumstance of running away by itself would not connect any person with a crime. There must be some positive evidence against him. Even if the appellant was seen running away with lathi at some distance from the place of occurrence, how it would be incriminating against him? In village, normally all the persons carry lathi with them. The circumstance of running away by itself would not connect any person with a crime. There must be some positive evidence against him. There may be many reasons for running away from a place where such a heinous offence has been committed. In absence of any positive evidence, one cannot be held guilty of such a heinous offence as it shall go against the doctrine of innocence. 11. After the incident, during the course of investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex. P/6) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a lathi was seized from his possession vide seizure memo Ex. P/5. We note that this lathi was sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur, and a report (Ex. P/29) was received. According to the FSL report, blood stains were not found on the lathi. Therefore, this was also not an incriminating circumstance against tile appellant. 12. So far as blood stains found in the wash material of the leg of the appellant is concerned, we find that there is no report to establish that what was the 'origin' of the blood and what was the 'group' of the stains found in the wash solution. There is also no report to show that the blood stains found in the wash solution were of the blood group of the deceased. Therefore, in absence of any Serologist report, the above circumstance was also not sufficient. 13. The Sessions Judge has held that since the appellant wanted to make illicit relations with the deceased and the deceased used to deny it, the appellant had a 'motive' to commit murder of the deceased. This appears to be imaginary and insufficient. The motive must be reasonable. The above motive set-forth by the prosecution does not appear to be reasonable to us. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the above set of evidence. The eye witness examined by the prosecution could not establish that the appellant had assaulted the deceased. The circumstances set-forth by the prosecution were also not of conclusive nature and tendency. 14. For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the above set of evidence. The eye witness examined by the prosecution could not establish that the appellant had assaulted the deceased. The circumstances set-forth by the prosecution were also not of conclusive nature and tendency. The circumstances were capable of being explained and they do not lead to an irresistible conclusion that it was none else than the appellant, who was the author of the crime. 15. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant under Section 302 IPC are set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. It is stated that the appellant is in jail since 20.2.2002. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. Appeal Allowed.