Chattisgarh High Court
Ramnath vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 21 March, 2022
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal, Rajani Dubey
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2013
Ramnath S/o Laxman, 36 years, R/o Village Puspal,
P.S. Mardum, Post Lohandiguda, Distt. Bastar,
Chhattisgarh, Civil/Revenue Distt. Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through District
Magistrate, Jagdalpur, Distt. Bastar,
Chhattisgarh, Civil and Revenue Distt. Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
For State : Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. and
Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
21/03/2022
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 02/05/2013 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 136/11 whereby 2 the appellant/accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and he has been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 16/09/2011 at about 4:30 PM, the applicant Roopdhar Muriya along with his father Lekhan Muriya were heading towards their field when the appellant Ramnath along with his son Laxman came to assault Lekhan Muriya on account of some previous enmity between them and Ramnath committed the murder of Lekhan Muriya with a bow and arrow and, thereby, committed the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Laxman also assaulted Lekhan Muriya in his private part (now he has been acquitted by the trial Court).
3. Further case of the prosecution is that, the applicant Roopdhar (P.W.1), son of deceased Lekhan Muriya, came on the spot and on seeing his father lying down with an arrow struck to his chest, shouted and gathered other villagers on the spot namely Kaviram (P.W.3), Balram (P.W.4) and one Patel Ramdhar. Meanwhile, the present appellant/accused Ramnath and his son Laxman absconded from the spot. On the same day, 3 Panchayat was convened but the accused persons remained absent and on the next day, applicant Roopdhar (P.W.1) reported about the incident at Police Station Mardum on the basis of which merg intimation was registered (Ex. P/10) and First Information Report No. 21/11 (Ex. P/11) was lodged against the appellant/accused and coaccused Laxman for offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Summons were issued to the witnesses under Section 175 of CrPC (Ex. P/14) and after preparing the inquest report (Ex. P/15), the dead body of deceased Lekhan Muriya was sent for postmortem to Medical Officer, Lohandiguda and thereafter, spot map (Ex. P/12) was prepared and blood stained soil was collected from the spot (Ex. P/3). Thereafter, on 19/09/2011, both the accused persons namely Ramnath and Laxman were arrested and pursuant to their memorandum statement (Ex. P/1), the bow was recovered from Ramnath (Ex. P/2) and a blood stained lungi was recovered from Laxman (Ex. P/4). On 23/09/2011, the blood stained arrow as well as the clothes worn by deceased Lekhan Muriya at the time of the incident were taken from the Hospital (Ex. P/5) and all the seized articles were sent to State 4 Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination and after recording the statements of the witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC and after due investigation, appellant/accused Ramnath and coaccused Laxman were chargesheeted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC which was committed to the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur for disposal in accordance with law. The appellant/accused and the co accused abjured their guilt and entered into defence.
4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined 7 witnesses and brought into record 23 documents. Statements of the appellant/accused and coaccused were recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied guilt, however, they examined none in their defence.
5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence on record, though acquitted coaccused Laxman, however, convicted the present appellant namely Ramnath for offence under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence as mentioned hereinabove against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused 5 questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
6. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court has committed grave legal error in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC as the three witnesses who are said to have been witnessed the incident themselves namely Roopdhar (P.W.1), Balram (P.W.2) and Kaviram (P.W.3) are not eyewitnesses and there is no other proof or circumstantial evidence to implicate the appellant herein for the aforesaid offence. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside.
7. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment of conviction and submit that prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, learned Session judge has rightly convicted the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offence.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
6
9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the death of deceased Lekhan Muriya was homicidal in nature ?
10. The trial Court has recorded an affirmative finding with regard to this question on the basis of medical opinion of Dr. Virendra Thakur (P.W.4) who has opined that there were two major injuries found on the body of deceased Lekhan Muriya, one lacerated wound 7 cms long and 1 cm wide caused by a penetrative object in the epigastrium of the deceased and the other lacerated wound 3 cms long and 0.3 cm wide in the left axillary side of his chest. It has further been stated in the postmortem report (Ex. P/7) that the death of deceased Lekhan Muriya has been caused due to injury No. 1 and his death is homicidal in nature. Moreover, the fact that the death of deceased Lekhan Muriya was homicidal in nature has also not been seriously disputed by learned counsel for the appellant. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that death of Lekhan Muriya is homicidal in nature is hereby affirmed.
11. Now, the next question would be, whether the penetrative injury on account of which Lekhan Muriya died was caused by the appellant/accused ? 7
12. The prosecution has cited Roopdhar (P.W.1), Balram (P.W.2) and Kaviram (P.W.3) as eye witnesses. We will consider the testimonies of each one of them one by one.
13. Roopdhar (P.W.1), son of deceased Lekhan Muriya, in paragraph 1 of his statement before the Court, has clearly stated that his father was working in the field when the appellant/accused Ramnath assaulted him with a bow and arrow on account of which he suffered an injury in his chest. He has further stated that he informed about the incident to others. Thereafter, in his cross examination, he has stated in paragraph 5 that he was not on the spot at the time of the incident and upon hearing of the incident, he went to the house of Patel Ramdhar and came back after one hour and found the dead body of his father lying in the field and at that time, none was present in the spot.
14. A careful perusal of the entire statement of Roopdhar (P.W.1) would show that he has not actually seen the incident and he came to the spot only after his father Lekhan Muriya had already been assaulted and had succumbed to death. Moreover, the trial Court in paragraph 6 of its judgment has also recorded the finding 8 that Roopdhar (P.W.1) has not seen the incident, yet the trial Court relied upon his version to hold that appellant/accused Ramnath has caused injury to the deceased Lekhan Muriya with a bow and arrow on account of which he succumbed to death.
15. Coming to the statement of Balram (P.W.2) wherein he has clearly stated in paragraph 1 that he has not seen the incident though in paragraph 3 he has further stated that along with him, Kaviram (P.W.3) and one Ramdhar have also seen the incident and then he was declared hostile and prosecution was permitted to ask leading questions. Thereafter, in his crossexamination, he has stated in paragraph 4 that when he reached the spot, deceased Lekhan Muriya had already succumbed to death and that none has assaulted Lekhan Muriya in front of him.
16. Similarly, Kaviram (P.W.3) in paragraph 1 of his statement has stated that Roopdhar (P.W.1) came to his house and informed that appellant/accused Ramnath has killed his father with bow and arrow and thereafter, he was declared hostile and prosecution was permitted to ask questions. In paragraph 2, he has also stated that he reached the spot after deceased Lekhan Muriya had already 9 been assaulted. In paragraph 4, he has further stated that on being informed by Roopdhar (P.W.
1), he went to the spot/field and noticed the dead body of deceased Lekhan Muriya lying on the field. He has also admitted the fact that he has not seen anyone causing injury to the deceased or absconding from the spot after causing injury.
17. As such, all the three witnesses whom the prosecution has cited to be eyewitnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and they themselves have admitted that they have not seen the appellant/accused causing injury to deceased Lekhan Muriya. The trial Court has also accepted that Balram (P.W.2) and Kaviram (P.W.
3) have not supported the case of the prosecution yet since they were the first ones to reach to the spot, partly accepting their statement, the trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused for the aforesaid offence. Apart from that, though on the basis of memorandum statement of appellant/accused Ramnath (Ex. P/1), bow was seized from the possession of the appellant herein but as per paragraph 5 of the statement of Balram (P.W.2) almost everyone in the village possesses such a bow as in District Bastar, it is very common for the tribal people to have 10 possession of a bow and arrow which they use for the purpose of worshiping. As such, mere recovery of the bow from the possession of the appellant/accused pursuant to his memorandum statement will not connect the appellant from the aforesaid offence, particularly when no blood was found in the bow and it was not sent for chemical analysis either. Though as per the FSL report (Ex. P/22), blood was found in the arrow but that will not help the prosecution to connect the appellant unless it is proved that the injury caused by the bow to the deceased Lekhan Muriya was caused by the appellant herein.
18. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion that prosecution has failed miserably to bring home the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC registered against the appellant herein and further, the trial Court has also committed illegality in convicting the appellant for offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and awarding sentence as stated above.
19. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction dated 02/05/2013 as well as the sentence awarded to the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC is hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted of the said charges. The appellant be 11 released from jail forthwith, if not required in any other case.
20. This criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.
Sd/ Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
Harneet