Chattisgarh High Court
Pratap Singh And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 January, 2022
Author: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Bench: Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Page No.1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2013
1. Pratap Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o. Kangalu Ram,
2. Maharu Ram, aged about 30 years, S/o. Late Tiruram Gond,
3. Mahendra Kumar, aged about 44 years, S/o. Sanakuram Gond,
All R/o. Village-Gudabeda, P.S. - Koyalibeda, Revenue and Civil
District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station - Koyalibeda, District
- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.).
---- Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocates
For State/Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
JUDGMENT ON BOARD
Per Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.
04/01/2022
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.2013, passed by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.06/2012, convicting the appellants under Sections 148, 364, 365, 302 R/w 149 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of Rs.100/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-, R.I. for 7 years Page No.2 with fine of Rs.100/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.100/- respectively with default stipulations.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 01.06.2011 deceased-
Patiram Dhruw was abducted by a naxalite group, in which, the appellants were present as associates. On 04.06.2011, the Naxalites held a Jan Adalat, in which, the deceased- Patiram Dhruw was charged as an informer of the Police and BSF. Death sentence was pronouced for him. Some of the Naxalite Group throttled the deceased to death by using a club. The dead-body of the deceased was cremated and his ashes and remains were thrown in the nearby river. The complainant Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12), wife of the deceased lodged FIR on 27.07.2011 in the Police Station Koyalibeda, Bastar giving information regarding abduction of her husband by the Naxalite Group, mentioning that, the appellants were also their associates. The police after making inquiry, lodged mourgue intimation on 31.07.2011 mentioning that the deceased was murdered in a Jan Adalat held by the Naxalite Group on 04.06.2011. The dead-body of the deceased was not found, neither any remains were recovered, however, a statement of the complainant Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) was separately recorded as Panchanama (Ex.P-16), in which, she has stated about her presence in Jan Adalat, where her husband was murdered by the Naxalite Group and that his body was cremated and remains were thrown in the nearby river. The police has investigated the case, recorded the statement of the Page No.3 witnesses and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed againt these appellants and other co-accused persons, who were in absconsion.
3. The learned trial Court framed the charges againt the appellants for the offence under Section 148, 364, 365, 302/149, 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-b) (a) read with Section 3 and Section 27 of the Arms Act against these appellants. The appellants denied the charges. The learned trial Court proceeded in the trial and examined as many as 20 witnesses. On completion of prosecution witness, the appellants/accused persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which, they denied all the incriminating evidence against them and pleaded that they are innocense and that they have been falsely implicated in this case. No witness was examined in the defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of the prosecution and defence has pronounced the judgment of conviction and sentencing the appellants as mentioned hereinabove.
4. It is submitted that by the learned counsel for the appellants that the whole story of the prosection is full of doubts. The conviction of the appellants is based only on the statement of complainant Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12), who is not a reliable witness. According to her panchnama statement (Ex.P-16), she had knowledge that her husband was murdered on 04.06.2011, however, she lodged FIR on 27.07.2011 giving limited information to the police that her husband was abducted by a Naxalite Group and the appellants on 01.06.2011. Whereas, Page No.4 she has made statement in (Ex.P-16) that she was present at the time of death of her husband and in the Court statement, she has improved her statement and stated that the body of her husband was handed over to her, therefore, she is not reliable to any sense. The other witnesses of the panchanama (Ex.P-
16) namely Ayatu Ram (P.W.-1), Lakhiram (P.W.-17), Mahipal (P.W.-20), Rajju Ram (P.W.-2) and Daan Sai (P.W.-18), they have not made any statement in support of the Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12), therefore, there is no corroboration of the statement given by her at later on stage, which is clearly a development on the statement made by her while lodging FIR (Ex.P-15). Hence, under these circumstances, the death of the deceased was caused by these appellants can not be held proved.
5. It is further submitted that there is admission in the statement of the witness Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) herself in the cross- examination that the appellants are her neighbours and the resident of the same village at the time, when the deceased was abducted. The Naxalite Group had summoned all the villagers in Jan Adalat at the time, when the, deceased was done to death. Hence, there is no participation of the appellants in the crime as alleged. Therefore, the appellants have not committed any offence. The conviction against them is bad in law, therefore, the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted from all the charges.
6. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellants. It is submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The Page No.5 statement of Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) has been thoroughly examined and scrutinized by the learned trial Court and that have been relied upon in convicting the appellants for the offences mentioned hereinabove. Further her statement is corroborated by the deposition of the Investigation Officer, Amit Tiwari (P.W.-19), therefore, no error has been comitted by the trial Court in convicting the appellants. It is prayed that the appeal be dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and perused the records of the trial Court.
8. The conviction of the appellants is based only on the evidence of Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12). Her statement in examination-in- chief is this that Sukmuram, Maharuram, Mahendra, Nohar Singh, Raju, Rupesh, Shankar, who were 50 in numbers and were members of Naxalite Group had come to the village. The appellants were also present with them as their associates. In her presence, the Naxalite Group compelled her husband Patiram to go with them, as they had some work with him. This statement of her has remained unrebutted in cross-examination, which shows that the appellants were members of group, who had abducted the deceased on the date of incident i.e. 01.06.2011.
9. The another incident is of date 04.06.2011, which occurred in village - Gutta. Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) has stated that she was summoned to the jungle of the village Gumdagaon, where the naxalite group made allegations gainst her husband that he Page No.6 has done durty work to which the deceased denied. The witness implored the Naxalite Group to release her husband, but some persons of the group started raising slogan that the deceased be executed. Subsequent to which the deceased was forced to lay down on the ground and by putting a club on his neck, he was throttled to death. She has specifically named that Shankar, Raju, Rupesh were the person, who had throttled the deceased to death. She has stated that the body of the deceased was handed over to her. This statement has also remained unrebutted in the cross-examination, however, the allegations in this part of the statement is not specific against these appellants. Neither there is a mention that the appellants have been the persons, who raised slogan for execution of death of deceased nor they were present as the associates of the Naxalite Group in this incidents. Some of the statement of Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) is also improved as her previous statement Ex.P-16 mentions that the dead body of the deceased was cremated and remains were thrown in the nearby river. Hence, in the matter of allegation of causing death of the deceased- Patiram by these appellants, the statement of Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) can not be held reliable. Hence, on this basis, we are of the considered opinion that the offence under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code is not made out against these appellants.
10. The conviction of the appellants under Section 148, 364, 365 is made out on the basis of the evidence present, however, there appears to be presence of ground to reduce the sentence of Page No.7 imprisonment imposed upon the appellants for the offence under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. After discussions made hereinabove and the conclusions drawn, we are of the view that this appeal is fit to be allowed in part. The appeal is allowed in part. The conviction against the appellants under Section 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code is set-aside. The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section 148 and 365 of the I.P.C. is confirmed and upheld. The conviction of the appellants under Section 364 of the I.P.C. is maintained, however, the sentence of imprisonment given for life is reduced to the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of up till 10 years along with the fine as ordered by the trial Court with direction of concurrent running of all the jail sentences.
11. The appellants are in jail since 21.09.2011 and have completed more than 10 years, they be released forthwith if not required in any other case and after deposition of fine amount awarded to them. If the fine amount is not deposited, then the authorities concerned are directed to make the appellants serve the default sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Balram