Chattisgarh High Court
Pratap Singh And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 January, 2022
Page No.1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No. 836 of 2013
1. Pratap Singh, aged about 45 years, S/o. Kangalu Ram,
2. Maharu Ram, aged about 30 years, S/o. Late Tiruram Gond,
3. Mahendra Kumar, aged about 44 years, S/o. Sanakuram Gond,
All R/o. Village-Gudabeda, P.S. - Koyalibeda, Revenue and Civil
District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
---- Appellants
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through : Police Station - Koyalibeda, District
- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.).
---- Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellants : Mr. P.K. Tulsyan, Advocates
For State/Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer
Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel
JUDGMENT ON BOARD
Per Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant, J.
04/01/2022
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred against the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 09.07.2013, passed by
the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker
(C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.06/2012, convicting the appellants
under Sections 148, 364, 365, 302 R/w 149 & 201 of I.P.C. and
sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 2 years with fine of
Rs.100/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-, R.I. for 7 years
Page No.2
with fine of Rs.100/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/- and
R.I. for 3 years with fine of Rs.100/- respectively with default
stipulations.
2. According to the prosecution case, on 01.06.2011 deceased-
Patiram Dhruw was abducted by a naxalite group, in which, the
appellants were present as associates. On 04.06.2011, the
Naxalites held a Jan Adalat, in which, the deceased- Patiram
Dhruw was charged as an informer of the Police and BSF.
Death sentence was pronouced for him. Some of the Naxalite
Group throttled the deceased to death by using a club. The
dead-body of the deceased was cremated and his ashes and
remains were thrown in the nearby river. The complainant Smt.
Anand Devi (P.W.-12), wife of the deceased lodged FIR on
27.07.2011 in the Police Station Koyalibeda, Bastar giving
information regarding abduction of her husband by the Naxalite
Group, mentioning that, the appellants were also their
associates. The police after making inquiry, lodged mourgue
intimation on 31.07.2011 mentioning that the deceased was
murdered in a Jan Adalat held by the Naxalite Group on
04.06.2011. The dead-body of the deceased was not found,
neither any remains were recovered, however, a statement of
the complainant Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) was separately
recorded as Panchanama (Ex.P-16), in which, she has stated
about her presence in Jan Adalat, where her husband was
murdered by the Naxalite Group and that his body was
cremated and remains were thrown in the nearby river. The
police has investigated the case, recorded the statement of the
Page No.3
witnesses and on completion of investigation, charge-sheet was
filed againt these appellants and other co-accused persons,
who were in absconsion.
3. The learned trial Court framed the charges againt the appellants
for the offence under Section 148, 364, 365, 302/149, 201 of the
Indian Penal Code and Section 25 (1-b) (a) read with Section 3
and Section 27 of the Arms Act against these appellants. The
appellants denied the charges. The learned trial Court
proceeded in the trial and examined as many as 20 witnesses.
On completion of prosecution witness, the appellants/accused
persons were examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., in which,
they denied all the incriminating evidence against them and
pleaded that they are innocense and that they have been falsely
implicated in this case. No witness was examined in the
defence. The learned trial Court after hearing the arguments of
the prosecution and defence has pronounced the judgment of
conviction and sentencing the appellants as mentioned
hereinabove.
4. It is submitted that by the learned counsel for the appellants that
the whole story of the prosection is full of doubts. The conviction
of the appellants is based only on the statement of complainant
Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12), who is not a reliable witness.
According to her panchnama statement (Ex.P-16), she had
knowledge that her husband was murdered on 04.06.2011,
however, she lodged FIR on 27.07.2011 giving limited
information to the police that her husband was abducted by a
Naxalite Group and the appellants on 01.06.2011. Whereas,
Page No.4
she has made statement in (Ex.P-16) that she was present at
the time of death of her husband and in the Court statement,
she has improved her statement and stated that the body of her
husband was handed over to her, therefore, she is not reliable
to any sense. The other witnesses of the panchanama (Ex.P-
16) namely Ayatu Ram (P.W.-1), Lakhiram (P.W.-17), Mahipal
(P.W.-20), Rajju Ram (P.W.-2) and Daan Sai (P.W.-18), they
have not made any statement in support of the Smt. Anand Devi
(P.W.-12), therefore, there is no corroboration of the statement
given by her at later on stage, which is clearly a development on
the statement made by her while lodging FIR (Ex.P-15). Hence,
under these circumstances, the death of the deceased was
caused by these appellants can not be held proved.
5. It is further submitted that there is admission in the statement of
the witness Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) herself in the cross-
examination that the appellants are her neighbours and the
resident of the same village at the time, when the deceased was
abducted. The Naxalite Group had summoned all the villagers in
Jan Adalat at the time, when the, deceased was done to death.
Hence, there is no participation of the appellants in the crime as
alleged. Therefore, the appellants have not committed any
offence. The conviction against them is bad in law, therefore,
the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted from all
the charges.
6. Learned State counsel opposes the submissions made by the
learned counsel for the appellants. It is submitted that the
prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts. The
Page No.5
statement of Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) has been thoroughly
examined and scrutinized by the learned trial Court and that
have been relied upon in convicting the appellants for the
offences mentioned hereinabove. Further her statement is
corroborated by the deposition of the Investigation Officer, Amit
Tiwari (P.W.-19), therefore, no error has been comitted by the
trial Court in convicting the appellants. It is prayed that the
appeal be dismissed.
7. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and
perused the records of the trial Court.
8. The conviction of the appellants is based only on the evidence
of Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12). Her statement in examination-in-
chief is this that Sukmuram, Maharuram, Mahendra, Nohar
Singh, Raju, Rupesh, Shankar, who were 50 in numbers and
were members of Naxalite Group had come to the village. The
appellants were also present with them as their associates. In
her presence, the Naxalite Group compelled her husband
Patiram to go with them, as they had some work with him. This
statement of her has remained unrebutted in cross-examination,
which shows that the appellants were members of group, who
had abducted the deceased on the date of incident i.e.
01.06.2011.
9. The another incident is of date 04.06.2011, which occurred in
village - Gutta. Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) has stated that she
was summoned to the jungle of the village Gumdagaon, where
the naxalite group made allegations gainst her husband that he
Page No.6
has done durty work to which the deceased denied. The witness
implored the Naxalite Group to release her husband, but some
persons of the group started raising slogan that the deceased
be executed. Subsequent to which the deceased was forced to
lay down on the ground and by putting a club on his neck, he
was throttled to death. She has specifically named that Shankar,
Raju, Rupesh were the person, who had throttled the deceased
to death. She has stated that the body of the deceased was
handed over to her. This statement has also remained
unrebutted in the cross-examination, however, the allegations in
this part of the statement is not specific against these
appellants. Neither there is a mention that the appellants have
been the persons, who raised slogan for execution of death of
deceased nor they were present as the associates of the
Naxalite Group in this incidents. Some of the statement of Smt.
Anand Devi (P.W.-12) is also improved as her previous
statement Ex.P-16 mentions that the dead body of the
deceased was cremated and remains were thrown in the
nearby river. Hence, in the matter of allegation of causing death
of the deceased- Patiram by these appellants, the statement of
Smt. Anand Devi (P.W.-12) can not be held reliable. Hence, on
this basis, we are of the considered opinion that the offence
under Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 201 of the
Indian Penal Code is not made out against these appellants.
10. The conviction of the appellants under Section 148, 364, 365 is
made out on the basis of the evidence present, however, there
appears to be presence of ground to reduce the sentence of
Page No.7
imprisonment imposed upon the appellants for the offence
under Section 364 of the Indian Penal Code. After discussions
made hereinabove and the conclusions drawn, we are of the
view that this appeal is fit to be allowed in part. The appeal is
allowed in part. The conviction against the appellants under
Section 302/149 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code is set-aside.
The conviction and sentence of the appellants under Section
148 and 365 of the I.P.C. is confirmed and upheld. The
conviction of the appellants under Section 364 of the I.P.C. is
maintained, however, the sentence of imprisonment given for
life is reduced to the sentence of rigorous imprisonment of up
till 10 years along with the fine as ordered by the trial Court with
direction of concurrent running of all the jail sentences.
11. The appellants are in jail since 21.09.2011 and have completed
more than 10 years, they be released forthwith if not required in
any other case and after deposition of fine amount awarded to
them. If the fine amount is not deposited, then the authorities
concerned are directed to make the appellants serve the default
sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court.
Sd/- Sd/-
(R.C.S. Samant) (Arvind Singh Chandel)
Judge Judge
Balram
