Chattisgarh High Court
Pralay @ Prem Pradhan And Anr vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 February, 2022
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.630 of 2015
Judgment Reserved on : 18.1.2022
Judgment Delivered on : 24.2.2022
1. Pralay @ Prem Pradhan, son of Radheshyam Pradhan, aged about 23
years, resident of Beldar Para, Thana Champa, District Janjgir-
Champa, Chhattisgarh
2. Chhotu @ Himalay Pradhan, son of Laxminarayan Pradhan, aged
about 20 years, resident of Village Thanapara, Thana Champa, District
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Chakardhar Nagar
(wrongly mentioned as Kharsiya), District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
Criminal Appeal No.34 of 2016
Rinku @ Ravi @ Ravishankar, son of Jaggu @ Jwala, aged 21 years,
resident of Mission Hospital Road, Champa, P.S. Champa, District
Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, PS
Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
and
Criminal Appeal No.327 of 2016
Raju @ Guddu Chauhan, son of Lakhan Chauhan, aged about 20
years, resident of Village Lachhanpur, P.S. Champa, District Janjgir-
Champa, Civil and Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh
---- Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Aarakshi Kendra Kharasiya, District
Raigarh, Civil and Revenue District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
2
For Appellants in Cr.A.No.630/2015 : Shri Ashok Kumar Swarnkar and
Shri Neeraj Kumar Mehta, Advocates
For Appellant in Cr.A.No.34/2016 : Smt. Fouzia Mirza, Senior Advocate
with Shri Navin Shukla and Shri
Shobhit Mishra, Advocates
For Appellant in Cr.A.No.327/2016 : Shri Santosh Bharat, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Shri Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
C.A.V. JUDGMENT
Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.
1. Since all the appeals arise out of a common judgment, they are
heard and decided together.
2. The appeals are directed against the judgment dated 14.5.2015
passed by 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh in Sessions Trial
No.48 of 2014, whereby all the Appellants have been convicted and
sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 394 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 10
Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.2,000
with default stipulation
Under Section 302/34 of the Imprisonment for Life (2
Indian Penal Code (2 counts) counts) and fine of Rs.4,000
(2 counts) with default
stipulation
Under Section 201 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 7
Indian Penal Code years and fine of Rs.1,000
with default stipulation
All the sentences are directed
to run concurrently
3. Names of the deceased persons are Ratnibai and Keshav Ranjan.
Both were residing in Stationpara, Village Kotraliya. Case of the
prosecution is that the deceased persons had got constructed a
residential premises in which they were living and were also giving
other rooms of that premises on rent. The incident occurred in the
intervening night of 19th and 20th of August, 2013. 15 days prior to
the incident, Appellant Ravi alias Rinku alias Ravishankar had
taken one room on rent from the deceased persons telling them
that he was doing business of selling of bangles along with co-
accused persons. In the intervening night of 19 th and 20th of
August, 2013, all the Appellants/accused persons looted ornaments
worn by deceased Ratnibai on her body and cash and mobile
phone of Micromax company kept in the pocket of deceased
Keshav and caused their murder. Further case of the prosecution
is that the ornaments and cash kept in the almirah of the deceased
persons were also looted. Thereafter, all the accused persons tied
the bodies of the deceased persons with saree and stone and
threw their bodies in the well situated in the residential premises of
the deceased persons. Pradeep Kumar Chouhan (PW1), nephew
of the deceased persons saw the dead body of deceased Ratnibai
in the said well on 20.8.2013 at about 2 p.m. Then he lodged
morgue intimation (Ex.P1). In the evening of 20.8.2013, police
officials reached the spot. Darkness had taken place at that time
and, therefore, the dead body of Ratnibai was not taken out from
the well. On 21.8.2013 at about 8 A.M., after taking out the dead
body of Ratnibai, when again hook was thrown into the well, dead
body of Keshav was found. Thereafter, Dehati Morgue Intimation
(Ex.P2) was lodged by Pradeep (PW1). Inquest proceedings of the
dead bodies of Ratnibai and Keshav were conducted vide Ex.P5
and P6, respectively. Post mortem of the dead bodies was
conducted by Dr. Ratna Manik Meshram (PW6). Post mortem
reports are Ex.P27 and P28. Cause of death of the deceased
persons was asphyxia due to throttling. During the course of
investigation, on the basis of disclosure statements of the
Appellants, looted articles and mobile phone of deceased Keshav
were seized from the Appellants. Seized articles were identified by
Pradeep (PW1), Sitadevi (not examined) and Kumari Chouhan
(PW13) vide identification memo (Ex.P12). On 12.11.2013, test
identification parade of the Appellants was also conducted vide
Ex.P11 upon which they were identified by the witnesses.
Statements of the witnesses were also recorded under Section 161
Cr.P.C. On completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was
filed. The Trial Court framed the charges.
4. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 18
witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure, the Appellants denied the guilt and pleaded
innocence. In their defence, Appellant Ravi examined himself as
DW1 and one Laxminarayan has also been examined as DW2 by
the Appellants.
5. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial
Court convicted and sentenced the Appellants as mentioned in
second paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the appeals.
6. Learned Counsel appearing for the respective Appellants argued
that without there being sufficient and clinching evidence available
on record the Trial Court has convicted the Appellants. There is no
eyewitness of the incident available in the case and the Trial Court
has convicted the Appellants only on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. There is no documentary evidence available on record
to establish that the Appellants were residing in the premises of the
deceased persons as tenants. There is also no clinching evidence
led by the prosecution to show that anybody in the village had seen
the Appellants in the village before the incident. It was further
argued that arrest of Appellant Raju was done on 7.9.2013,
Appellant Pralay Pradhan on 8.9.2013, Appellant Himalay Pradhan
on 8.9.2013 and Appellant Ravi alias Rinku on 4.10.2013, but test
identification parade of the Appellants was conducted on
12.11.2013. The prosecution has not explained the inordinate
delay in conducting the test identification parade of the Appellants.
It was further argued that though some ornaments were seized
from the Appellants during the course of investigation, the evidence
adduced by the prosecution shows that there were no specific
identification on the said ornaments and they were common
ornaments which are generally available with all the persons in
villages. There is no evidence available to show that the
ornaments were of the deceased persons themselves. The
incident was of intervening night of 19 th and 20th of August, 2013
and the ornaments were seized on 8.9.2013 and 8.10.2013 and the
identification of the ornaments was done on 12.11.2013. 1-2
months after the incident, if any ornaments are seized from the
Appellants, it does not mean that the Appellants had committed
murder of the deceased persons. The act of the Appellants falls
under the offence under Section 411 IPC only. Looking to the entire
evidence, chain of circumstances is not complete. Therefore,
conviction of the Appellants is not sustainable. Reliance was
placed on Sonu @ Sunil v. State of Madhya Pradesh, Criminal
Appeal No.57 of 2013, Supreme Court, Limbaji v. State of
Maharashtra, (2001) 10 SCC 340, Ratan Lal v. State of Rajasthan,
(2015) 15 SCC 754, Raj Kumar @ Raju v. State (NCT of Delhi),
(2017) 11 SCC 160, State of Rajasthan v. Talevar, (2011) 11 SCC
666, Nagappa Dondiba Kalal v. State of Karnataka, 1980 (Supp)
SCC 336, Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406,
Bharat v. State of M.P., 2003 CriLJ 1297, State of Uttar Pradesh v.
Wasif Haider etc., AIR 2019 SC 38, Vijay Kumar v. State of
Rajasthan, AIR 2014 SCW 1364 and Hari Nath v. State of U.P., AIR
1988 SC 345.
7. Opposing the above contentions, Learned Counsel appearing for
the State supported the impugned judgment of the Trial Court. It
was argued that sufficient evidence is available on record which
shows that all the Appellants were residing in the premises of the
deceased persons as tenants from before 15 days of the incident.
The evidence also shows that immediately after the incident all the
Appellants left the door of the room open in which they were living
and disappeared from the village without any information.
Immediately after the incident why did they disappear from the
village, no explanation has been offered by them. There is also
sufficient evidence available on record which shows that the looted
articles were seized from the Appellants and were duly identified by
the witnesses. Chain of circumstances is complete. Therefore, the
Trial Court has rightly convicted the Appellants.
8. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and
perused the statements of the witnesses and other evidence
available on record with utmost circumspection.
9. Conviction of the Appellants is based upon the circumstantial
evidence only. The main circumstances on the basis of which the
Trial Court has convicted the Appellants are as under:
(i) The Appellants were living in the deceased
persons' house as tenants and soon before the
incident Kumari (PW13) had seen them living in the
said house.
(ii) Immediately after the incident the Appellants left
the house and the village and disappeared and
they were not seen again in the village.
(iii) No ornaments were found on the dead body of
Ratnibai which she was normally wearing on her
body.
(iv) The said ornaments were seized from the
Appellants on the basis of their disclosure
statements and they have not offered any
explanation how those ornaments came into their
possession.
10. With regard to Circumstance No.(i), Pradeep (PW1), Vijay (PW3),
both grandsons of the deceased persons, Manoj (PW2), nephew of
the deceased persons, Kumari (PW13), daughter of the deceased
persons deposed that the deceased persons had got constructed 8-
10 rooms in their residential premises for the purpose of giving
those rooms on rent and at the time of incident two rooms were
occupied by tenants. According to the Court statements of above
four witnesses, in one rented room, the Appellants were living for
the last 15 days. The above statements of the four witnesses are
not rebutted during their cross-examination and they have
remained firm on this point. According to the Court statement of
Kumari (PW13), 1 day prior to the incident also, she had visited the
house of her mother Ratnibai and at that time, i.e., at about 7-8
A.M. it was seen by her that all the Appellants were sitting in the
rented room which was taken by Appellant Ravi on rent. Though
the above fact is not mentioned in her diary statement (Ex.D1) in
the same manner as is deposed by her before the Trial Court, in
her diary statement (Ex.D1) it is mentioned that when she visited
the house of her mother at that time she saw them there. The
above statement of this witness is not duly rebutted in her cross-
examination. On the contrary, during cross-examination of Manoj
(PW2), in paragraph 7, on a suggestion being given to him that he
was acquainted with Appellant Ravi well before, he admitted the
fact and thus this fact also corroborates the prosecution case that
Appellant Ravi was living along with other Appellants there as
tenants.
11. During the course of investigation, on 12.11.2013, test identification
parade of Appellants Raju, Pralay and Himalay was conducted vide
Ex.P11. During the test identification parade, Pradeep (PW1) and
Vijay (PW3) identified all the above 3 accused persons/Appellants.
Both these witnesses as well as Manoj (PW2) and Kumari (PW13)
also identified all the Appellants in the Court during recording of
their statements. It was argued by Learned Counsel for the
Appellants that Appellant Raju was arrested on 7.9.2013 and
Appellants Himalay and Pralay were arrested on 8.9.2013, but test
identification parade was conducted on 12.11.2013. The inordinate
delay in conducting the test identification parade has not been
explained by the prosecution. True that the test identification
parade was conducted after 2 months of the arrest of the above
Appellants, but why this inordinate delay in conducting the test
identification parade was committed, no explanation was sought
from Investigating Officer D.L. Mishra (PW16). Therefore, if any
delay has occurred in conducting the test identification parade, that
does not adversely affect the prosecution case. Moreover, all the
Appellants were identified by the witnesses in the Court also.
Therefore, Circumstance No.(i), i.e., the Appellants were living in
the premises of the deceased persons as tenants and 1 day prior to
the incident all the Appellants were seen by Kumari (PW13) in the
said house is well established.
12. As regards Circumstance No.(ii), Pradeep (PW1) categorically
deposed that after the incident having heard noise other tenants of
the said house reached at the spot but the Appellants did not come
there. According to this witness, they went to the room of the
Appellants and saw that the said room was open and the
Appellants had disappeared from there with their belongings. On
this point also, this witness has remained firm during cross-
examination and the above statement of this witness has also not
duly been rebutted.
13. With regard to Circumstance No.(iii), Kumari (PW13), daughter of
deceased Ratnibai and Pradeep (PW1), grandson of deceased
Ratnibai and Vijay (PW3), another grandson of deceased Ratnibai
deposed that deceased Ratnibai used to ear 4 gold bangles, silver
kardhan, gold ear tops, gold nose top and 1 chain made of gold and
pearl. When her dead body was taken out from the well, no
ornament was found on her body. Pradeep (PW1) and Vijay (PW3)
further deposed that when they went to the room of the deceased
persons, they saw that pearls of a chain and 1 gold wheat seed
were spread there. The above statement of these two witnesses
are also not rebutted during their cross-examination. Thus, it is
also established that on taking out of the dead body of Ratnibai, no
ornaments were found on her body and in the room of deceased
persons pearls of a chain and 1 gold wheat seed were spread.
14. As regards Circumstance No.(iv), case of the prosecution is that on
the basis of disclosure statements of the Appellants recorded under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act, vide seizure memo Ex.P14 1 silver
kardhan from Appellant Raju, vide seizure memo Ex.P19 1 gold
nose top and 4 gold bangles from Appellant Himalay, vide seizure
memo Ex.P17 4 gold wheat seeds and 2 gold lockets from
Appellant Pralay and vide seizure memo Ex.P21 1 gold ear top and
1 silver chain from Appellant Ravi were seized and on 12.11.2013
the seized articles were identified vide Ex.P12 by Pradeep (PW1),
Kumari (PW13) and Sitadevi (not examined). Recording of the
disclosure statements of the Appellants and the seizures of the
ornaments as described above were duly corroborated by Pradeep
(PW1) and Kumari (PW13) though they have admitted the fact that
the ornaments identified by them are normally available in the
market and such kinds of ornaments are worn by the villagers.
True that identification of the ornaments was done after 2 months of
their recovery, but why this delay was committed, no explanation
has been sought for by the prosecution from Investigating Officer
D.L. Mishra (PW16). It is also true that the seized ornaments are
normally available in the market, but the seized ornaments were
identified by the close relatives of deceased Ratnibai, i.e., her
daughter Kumari (PW13) and grandson Pradeep (PW1), who used
to see those ornaments on the body of deceased Ratnibai.
Therefore, we do not find any ground to disbelieve their statements
in this regard.
15. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is well
established that the circumstances are well established that the
Appellants were living in one room of the residential premises of the
deceased persons on rent 15 days from before the incident. Just 1
day prior to the incident also, the Appellants were seen inside the
rented room by Kumari (PW13). It is also established that
immediately after the recovery of the dead bodies, it was found that
the Appellants had already left the rented room along with their
belongings. They had left the room open and disappeared from the
village without any information to anyone and were not seen in the
village again. Reliance was placed on Sujit Biswas case (supra), in
which, dealing with the subject issue, it was observed as under:
"23. Thus, in a case of this nature, the mere abscondence of
an accused does not lead to a firm conclusion of his guilty mind. An
innocent man may also abscond in order to evade arrest, as in light of
such a situation, such an action may be part of the natural conduct of
the accused. Abscondence is in fact relevant evidence, but its
evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding circumstances, and
hence, the same must only be taken as a minor item in evidence for
sustaining conviction. (See Paramjeet Singh v. State of Uttarakhand,
(2010) 10 SCC 439 and Sk. Yusuf v. State of W.B., (2011) 11 SCC
754."
But, the case in hand is not only of absconding of the Appellants.
Instead of that, the case is that the Appellants who had come to live
in the room 15 days prior to the incident, left the room open and
disappeared from the village immediately after the incident without
any information to anyone and did not appear again in the village
and they have not offered any explanation in this regard in their
statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal
Procedure. Further, later on, the ornaments belonging to deceased
Ratnibai were also seized from them. Thus, it is established that
they had absconded due to their guilt only. In our considered view,
all the circumstances discussed above clearly indicate that the
Appellants were the persons who committed the loot of the
ornaments from the deceased and they only were the persons who
committed the murder of both the deceased persons. In our
considered view, the Trial Court has rightly convicted the
Appellants.
16. Consequently, we do not find any merit in these appeals. The
appeals are, therefore, dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Gopal
