Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Melaram on 1 April, 2021
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRMP No.811 of 2020
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh ---- Petitioner
Versus
1. Melaram S/o Tiharu Ram Sahu Aged About 35 Years Resident Of Village
Loharsi, Police Station Shivarinarayan, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
2. Sitaram S/o Niranjan Sahu Aged About 32 Years Resident Of Village Amoda,
Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
3. Yaadram S/o Niranjan Sahu Aged About 34 Years Resident Of Village Amoda,
Police Station Nawagarh, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh
--- Respondents
For State/Petitioner : Mr. K.K. Singh, Government Advocate
DB : Hon'ble Shri Justice Manindra Mohan Shrivastava
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Order On Board
01/04/2021
Heard on prayer for condonation of delay in filing appeal as well as prayer for
grant of leave to appeal.
1. Even if we were inclined to condone the delay in filing the instant appeal, we
do not find present to be a fit case for grant of leave to appeal against acquittal of two
accused Sitaram and Yaadram.
2. Learned State counsel would argue that though the Trial Court has convicted
Melaram for the assault and murder, Sitaram and Yaadram have been acquitted by
the Trial Court by giving benefit of doubt though Saraswati (PW8) has clearly
deposed that at the time when Melaram was inflicting injury on victim, these two
accused were also present and they were loudly speaking that all should be
murdered and no one should be spared. He would argue that even though these two
accused did not commit any overt act, the utterances made by them at the spot
telling Melaram to kill all and not to spare anyone is clear proof of all of them sharing
common intention to cause death.
3. We have gone through the impugned judgment and the evidence, particularly
evidence of Saraswati (PW8). At the first place, though there are other eyewitnesses
of the incident which have been believed to convict one of the co-accused Melaram,
learned Trial Court had taken note of evidence of these witnesses that other
eyewitness have not involved the accused Sitaram and Yaadram in the alleged
incident of assault. The prosecution evidence against Yaadram and Sitaram is mainly
based on the evidence of Saraswati (PW8) another eyewitness only and that too
because she has deposed in the Court that at the time when Melaram was assaulted,
these two accused stated that everyone should be murdered and no one should be
spared. However, the learned Trial Court had disbelieved this part of the Court
statement of Saraswati (PW8) on the ground that this is an improvement in the Court
statement over her case diary statement Ex.P/2 wherein, she has not stated that at
the time of incident Yaadram and Sitaram were telling Melaram to kill all and spare
none.
4. Except the aforesaid statement which also suffers from improvement, no other
evidence has been led by the prosecution to involve Sitaram and Yaadram in the
alleged incident. Taking into consideration the aforesaid aspect and that other
witnesses have not supported, the trial Court has recorded a finding that the
involvement of these two accused Sitaram and Yaadram becomes doubtful that they
shared any common intention with co-accused Melaram to kill the deceased.
5. In the absence of any patent illegality or perversity in the finding of learned trial
Court, merely because of possibility of another view, we are not inclined to interfere
with the judgment of acquittal of Yaadram and Sitaram. The CRMP has no merit and
is therefore dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Manindra Mohan Shrivastava) (Narendra Kumar Vyas)
Judge Judge
Rekha
