Chattisgarh High Court
Anand Singh @ Mukesh And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 8 November, 2021
Cr.A.No.139/2012
Page 1 of 8
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.139 of 2012
{Arising out of judgment dated 6-1-2012 in Sessions Trial No.35/2011 of the
learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur}
1. Anand Singh alias Mukesh, S/o Gulab Singh, aged 25 years,
Agriculturist by profession.
2. Gulab Singh, S/o Shivraj Singh, aged 50 years, Agriculturist by
profession.
3. Rupesh Singh, S/o Gulab Singh, aged 20 years
All are R/o Village Gowaru, Police Station Asta, Tahsil Jashpur,
District Jashpur (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Asta, District Jashpur
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants: Mr. R.V. Rajwade, Advocate.
For Respondent / State: Mr. Aditya Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Arvind Singh Chandel, JJ.
Judgment On Board
(08/11/2021)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is
directed against the judgment of conviction recorded and sentence
awarded by the learned Sessions Judge by which the appellants have
been convicted for offence under Sections 302 read with Section 34 &
450 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and
pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/- each, in default, to further undergo RI for three
months and to undergo RI for three years and pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/-
Cr.A.No.139/2012
each, in default, to further undergo RI for three months, respectively.
The sentences were directed to be run concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 30-12-2010 at about 4.30
p.m., the three appellants herein entered into the house of deceased
Bahadur Singh forcefully and started abusing him and threatened to
kill him and at that time, Anand Singh (A-1) assaulted Bahadur Singh
by hands and fists on his face and neck, and the other accused /
appellants were present there and were standing on the spot. On
account of injuries so caused, Bahadur Singh became unconscious
and started bleeding from nose and immediately, he was admitted to
Holy Cross Hospital, Kunkuri, but he was referred to higher medical
centre whereby he was escorted to hospital at Ranchi, but on the way
to hospital at Ranchi, he succumbed to the injuries sustained by him
and died. On 1-1-2011, Vivekanand Singh (PW-4) informed the police
and morgue intimation vide Ex.P-6 was recorded and thereafter, FIR
Ex.P-5 was registered and copy of the FIR was sent to the
jurisdictional Magistrate vide Ex.P-3. The investigating officer reached
to the spot and prepared inquest Ex.P-8. On being produced by
Vivekanand Singh (PW-4), shawl and baniyan with bloodstains were
recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-9 and spot map Ex.P-10 was
prepared. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem vide
Ex.P-12A which was conducted by Dr. Purushottam Singh (PW-9) and
cause of death was reported to be subarachnoid haemorrhage due to
trauma of nose.
3. After completion of investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted
by the respondent herein and on the case being committed, charges
were framed against the appellants herein for offence under Sections
Cr.A.No.139/2012
302 read with Section 34 & 450 of the IPC. The appellants abjured
the guilt and entered into witness / defence.
4. In order to prove the case, nine witnesses were examined by the
prosecution and they have proved documents Exs.P-1 to P-13 to bring
home the offence. No witness was examined on behalf of the defence
and they have not brought any document on record.
5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on
record, held that death of Bahadur Singh was homicidal in nature and
it has been caused by the appellants herein after making house-
trespass and proceeded to convict them for the offence under
Sections 302 read with Section 34 & 450 of the IPC and sentenced for
punishment as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment
against which this appeal has been preferred and conviction has been
sought to be questioned by the appellants herein.
6. Mr. R.V. Rajwade, learned counsel appearing for the appellants,
would submit that conviction recorded by the learned Sessions Judge
is based solely on the testimony of Vivekanand Singh (PW-4) -
brother of the deceased, Prabhavati (PW-5) - wife of Vivekanand
Singh (PW-4) and Vipti Bai (PW-6) - wife of the deceased, but they
have not supported the case of the prosecution and they have turned
hostile and declared hostile by the prosecution. The entire conviction
is based on surmises and conjectures as the learned Sessions Judge
has drawn inference which is based on no evidence. As such, there is
no legal evidence on record to convict the appellants for offence under
Sections 302 read with Section 34 & 450 of the IPC and therefore the
judgment of conviction so recorded and sentences so awarded are
liable to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted from
Cr.A.No.139/2012
the aforesaid charges.
7. Mr. Aditya Sharma, learned State counsel, would submit that death of
Bahadur Singh is duly established to be homicidal in nature and
conviction is based on the testimony of eye-witnesses Vivekanand
Singh (PW-4), Prabhavati (PW-5) and Vipti Bai (PW-6) as such, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed, as the prosecution has proved the
offence against the appellants herein beyond reasonable doubt.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the
record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.
9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the death of
Bahadur Singh was homicidal in nature which the trial Court has held
that death was homicidal in nature.
10. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. Purushottam
Singh (PW-9). In his report Ex.P-12A, he has categorically stated that
cause of death is subarachnoid haemorrhage due to trauma of nose
and accordingly the death was held to be homicidal in nature. He has
been examined as PW-9 in which also he has stated that cause of
death of the deceased was subarachnoid haemorrhage due to trauma
(nose) and thereby he has maintained his version. Even otherwise,
the fact of homicidal death of the deceased has not been seriously
disputed by learned counsel for the appellants, therefore, the finding
of the learned Sessions Judge that death of deceased Bahadur Singh
was homicidal in nature, is hereby affirmed.
11. Now, the next question would be, whether the death of Bahadur Singh
was caused by the present appellants herein as it has been held so by
Cr.A.No.139/2012
the Sessions Judge resting the conviction on the basis of testimonies
of Vivekanand Singh (PW-4), Prabhavati (PW-5) and Vipti Bai (PW-6).
12. It is the case of the prosecution that on 30-12-2010 at around 4.30
p.m., Bahadur Singh was sitting in his house with his cousin Baldev
Singh and he was talking with his cousin Baldev Singh & sister-in-law
Vipti Bai (PW-6), then, at that time, the appellants herein forcefully
entered into the house and abused Vivekanand Singh (PW-4),
Prabhavati (PW-5) & Vipti Bai (PW-6) and threatened to kill them.
Anand Singh (A-1) caused hand and fist blow to Bahadur Singh on his
face & neck and the other accused remained silent standing there.
Bahadur Singh became unconscious and fell down on the ground and
while taking to higher medical centre, he succumbed to the injuries
and died on the way.
13. Vivekanand Singh is brother of deceased Bahadur Singh. He has
been examined as PW-4 before the trial Court. In his examination-in-
chief, he omitted to support the prosecution case and therefore he
was declared hostile by the prosecution and permission was sought
by the prosecution to put leading questions and cross-examine him
which was allowed by the trial Court and thereafter also he has stated
that he has informed about the names of the appellants herein to the
police and admitted his signature in Ex.P-10 and has still not
supported the case of the prosecution. In paragraph 12, he has
stated that his brother Bahadur Singh was having weak eyesight and
unable to watch the things at night and refuted the entire prosecution
case.
14. Prabhavati (PW-5) is wife of Vivekanand Singh (PW-4), meaning
thereby, she is deceased Bahadur Singh's brother's wife. She is also
Cr.A.No.139/2012
an eye-witness to the incident according to the prosecution and the
prosecution has cited her as eye-witness, but she has not supported
the case of the prosecution and accordingly, she was also declared
hostile and the prosecution was permitted to ask leading questions.
She has only admitted the fact that all the three named appellants
herein entered their house and also admitted the fact that the
deceased, her husband Vivekanand Singh (PW-4), she herself and
Vipti Bai (PW-6) - wife of the deceased, were present in the house at
that time, but further omitted to state that any injury was caused by
Anand Singh (A-1) to deceased Bahadur Singh. She has further
stated that Bahadur Singh fell down on the ground and she has also
stated in paragraph 5 that Bahadur Singh was having weak eyesight.
15. Similarly, Vipti Bai (PW-6) - wife of the deceased, was said to be
present on the spot according to the prosecution and accordingly, she
was cited as prosecution eye-witness, but she has partly supported
the case of the prosecution and while replying to the leading question
put to her in paragraph 5 of her evidence that Anand Singh (A-1) had
assaulted her husband Bahadur Singh by which he became
unconscious and fell into the ground, she has categorically stated in
paragraph 6 that she did not see the causing of assault to her
husband by any of the accused / appellants. As such, she has refuted
her statement made in paragraph 3 while replying to the leading
question in paragraph 6 by stating that she has not seen causing
assault by any one of the accused to her husband Bahadur Singh. In
paragraph 5, she has also admitted that Bahadur Singh had fell into
the courtyard.
16. As such, a careful perusal of the evidence of the aforesaid three
Cr.A.No.139/2012
witnesses namely Vivekanand Singh (PW-4), Prabhavati (PW-5) &
Vipti Bai (PW-6), who are near relatives of the deceased being
brother, brother's wife and wife of the deceased, respectively, would
show that they have not supported the case of the prosecution, rather
they have stated that the deceased fell into the courtyard of his house
and suffered injuries. Vipti Bai (PW-6), though initially in paragraph 3
of her evidence has supported the case of the prosecution, but on
being declared hostile, in cross-examination, she has refuted that she
has not seen causing injury to her husband Bahadur Singh by Anand
Singh (A-1) or by any of the accused / appellants. As such, it cannot
be held that the appellants had caused injury to the deceased on neck
& face by which he sustained injuries and became unconscious and
subsequently died. Apart from this, Prabhavati (PW-5) & Vipti Bai
(PW-6) have also stated that while coming out from house to the
courtyard, Bahadur Singh fell on the ground and suffered injuries. Dr.
Purushottam Singh (PW-9), in his cross-examination, paragraph 8 has
also said that the injuries suffered by the deceased may occur on
account of falling on ground. As such, the prosecution has failed to
establish that the appellants have assaulted the deceased by which
he suffered injuries and thereafter succumbed to death.
17. Prabhavati (PW-5) has also stated in her cross-examination that the
appellants and Bahadur Singh had previous acquaintance with each
other and the accused / appellants used to come to the house of the
deceased. Similarly, Vipti Bai (PW-6) in paragraph 5 has also stated
that the appellants used to come to the house of the deceased without
any interruption. As such, the family of the deceased / deceased and
the appellants herein were in good terms having close acquaintance.
Cr.A.No.139/2012
18. As such, the prosecution has failed to establish that the appellants
have caused house-trespass and thereafter, assaulted deceased
Bahadur Singh on his neck & face by which he suffered serious
injuries and succumbed to death. The learned Sessions Judge has
misread the statements of the three eye-witnesses for resting the
conviction which we are unable to concur with and accordingly, the
judgment of conviction recorded and sentences awarded to the
appellants for offences under Sections 302 read with Section 34 &
450 of the IPC are hereby set aside. The appeal is allowed and the
appellants are reported to be on bail, they need not surrender.
However, the bail bonds will remain in force for a period of six months
in view of Section 437-A of the CrPC.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Soma
