Recently, the Chhattisgarh High Court allowed an appeal, directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.03.2021, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, whereby the appellant was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court held that the appellant’s memorandum statement and subsequent recovery of the weapon could not be treated as conclusive proof of guilt, as there was no forensic confirmation that the bloodstains on the shirt and bamboo stick belonged to the deceased.
Brief Facts:
The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge for the murder of Jhaduram. The prosecution alleged that the appellant followed the deceased to his farm in the early morning, where he assaulted him with a bamboo stick. A land dispute between the deceased and the appellant was cited as the motive. The police registered an FIR under Section 302 IPC and conducted an investigation. The trial court relied on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant’s memorandum statement and the recovery of a bamboo stick and a bloodstained full-sleeve shirt. The appellant was convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel for the appellant argued that the prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. It was contended that there were no eyewitnesses to the crime, and the conviction was solely based on the appellant’s memorandum statement and weapon recovery, which are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 27 of the Evidence Act. It was further argued that the serologist's report did not confirm the blood on the seized items as belonging to the deceased, rendering the forensic evidence inconclusive.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The learned State counsel supported the conviction, arguing that the appellant had a longstanding dispute with the deceased and was last seen with him before the incident. It was submitted that the prosecution’s circumstantial evidence was sufficient to establish the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Observations of the Court:
The Court noted that as per merg intimation and FIR report, there are no eyewitnesses to the incident, but only Smt. Ram Bai, wife of the deceased and stepmother of the accused, suspected that her husband was murdered by the accused due to a dispute over the land.
The Court observed that mere recovery of the weapon from the appellant cannot become the basis of conviction and in criminal cases, the guilt should be proved beyond any reasonable doubt that a reasonable man with ordinary prudence can have and there should be no doubt whether the accused is guilty or not. The prosecution also failed to establish that the appellant was the last person seen with the deceased. The court found that the trial court’s reliance on weak circumstantial evidence led to an erroneous conviction.
Decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, allowing the appeal, held that the conviction of the appellant and the sentence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC are hereby set aside.
Case Title: Lakhan Lal Sahu vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Case No.: CRIMINAL APPEAL NO: 538/2021
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. D.N. Prajapati
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. S.S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate
Picture Source :
