Arjun Das Manikpuri vs State Of C.G
2022 Latest Caselaw 1126 Chatt

                                                                                NAFR
                HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

                         Criminal Appeal No.340 of 2012

   Arjun Das Manikpuri, son of Uttam Das Manikpuri, aged 50 years, resident of
   Kundrubari Chingrajpara, Police Station Sarkanda, District Bilaspur,
   Chhattisgarh
                                                                        ---- Appellant
                                       versus
   State of Chhattisgarh     through     District    Magistrate,   District   Bilaspur,
   Chhattisgarh
                                                                      --- Respondent


   For Appellant                   :   Shri Dheerendra Pandey, Advocate
   For Respondent                  :   Shri Sudeep Verma, Dy. Govt. Advocate


              Hon'ble Shri Justice Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant
                   Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Singh Chandel

                                  Judgment on Board

   Per Arvind Singh Chandel, J.

3.3.2022

1. The instant appeal has been preferred against the judgment dated

31.3.2012 passed by 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in

Sessions Trial No.184 of 2010, whereby the Appellant has been

convicted and sentenced as under:

Conviction Sentence

Under Section 302 of the Imprisonment for life and fine Indian Penal Code of Rs.100 with default stipulation

Under Section 201 of the Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 Indian Penal Code year and fine of Rs.100 with default stipulation Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently

2. Name of the deceased is Amit alias Bantha. According to the

prosecution case, he was residing in the house of the Appellant on

rent. There was a cordial relation between the deceased and the

Appellant's daughter. On 9.7.2010, a quarrel took place between

the Appellant and the deceased. Thereafter, at about 5 a.m., the

Appellant committed murder of the deceased by assaulting him with

the help of a sabbal. After committing murder of the deceased,

allegedly, the Appellant cut away the head and legs of the

deceased with the help of an aari. He kept the dhad (headless

body) with both hands in one gunny bag and the head and legs in

other gunny bag and threw both the gunny bags in Arpa River. On

11.7.2010, the headless body of the deceased was found on road.

Unnumbered morgue (Ex.P21) was registered. Inquest proceeding

(Ex.P13) of the dead body was conducted. Post mortem

examination of the dead body was conducted by PW3 Dr. C.S.

Uike. Post mortem report is Ex.P7. Identification of the dead body

was done vide Ex.P18 by mother and sister of the deceased,

namely, PW12 Amrotin and PW13 Kavita, respectively. During the

course of investigation, on the basis of disclosure statement

(Ex.P1) of the Appellant, 1 wood cutting aari, 1 iron sabbal, 1 iron

cutting aari and 1 lady bicycle were seized vide Ex.P2. Plain soil,

blood stained soil, blood stained cotton and 1 gorsi made of soil

were also seized vide Ex.P3. Statements of witnesses were

recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. On completion of the

investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the Appellant. The

Trial Court framed charges against him under Sections 302 and

201 IPC.

3. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as 15

witnesses. In examination under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, the Appellant denied the guilt and pleaded

innocence. No witness was examined in his defence.

4. On completion of the trial, vide the impugned judgment, the Trial

Court convicted and sentenced the Appellant as mentioned in first

paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

5. Learned Counsel appearing for the Appellant submits that without

there being sufficient evidence on record against the Appellant, the

Trial Court has wrongly convicted him. Virtually, it is a case of no

evidence. Conviction imposed by the Trial Court is based upon the

statement of PW2 Laxman Yadav. According to the prosecution,

he is the witness who last saw the Appellant and the deceased

together in the fateful night, but, this witness, in his cross-

examination, has admitted the fact that when and where he saw the

Appellant is not known to him. Therefore, the last seen together

theory is gone. It is further argued that though the dead body,

which was actually a dhad (headless body) only, was identified by

PW12 Amrotin and PW13 Kavita, this identification itself is doubtful

because as stated by both these witnesses, in the right hand of the

deceased word Mamta was written by tattoo, but in the left hand of

the dead body which was sent for post mortem examination a sign

of heart was made by tattoo and letters AL were written there and

another tattoo was made on the chest of the dead body in which

word Lali was written. Therefore, it is not established that the dead

body was of Amit alias Bantha itself. It is further argued that though

at the instance of the Appellant, on the basis of his disclosure

statement (Ex.P1), 1 wood cutting aari, 1 iron sabbal, 1 iron cutting

aari and 1 lady bicycle were seized vide Ex.P2, no report of

examination of these articles by the Forensic Science Laboratory is

available on record. Therefore, the prosecution does not get help

even from recovery of the blood stained soil and blood stained

cotton.

6. Learned Counsel appearing for the State opposes the above

submission and supports the impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence.

7. We have heard Learned Counsel appearing for the parties and

perused the statements of the witnesses and other evidence

available on record with due care.

8. It is not in dispute that the recovered dead body was only a dhad

(headless body). Head and legs of the recovered dead body were

not found. It is also not in dispute that homicidal death of the

person was caused whose dhad (headless body) was found.

9. First question that arises for consideration is whether the recovered

dead body was of Amit alias Bantha.

10. According to the post mortem report (Ex.P7) and statement of PW3

Dr. C.S. Uike, who conducted the post mortem examination on the

dead body, a sign of heart was made by tattoo on the left hand of

the dead body and letters AL were also written there. Another

tattoo was made on the chest in which word Lali was written. The

dhad (headless body) was identified by PW12 Amrotin and PW13

Kavita, mother and sister of the deceased, respectively. According

to their statements, they had identified the dead body by seeing

photo on mobile phone. Both the witnesses have deposed that the

deceased had got word Mamta written on his hand by tattoo. But,

the word Mamta was not written by tattoo in the hand of the

recovered dead body. Rather, a sign of heart was made in the left

hand of the recovered dead body and letters AL were written there

and word Lali was written in the chest by tattoo. Therefore, it is

highly suspicious that the dhad (headless body) which was

recovered was of Amit alias Bantha.

11. The Trial Court has relied the statement of PW2 Laxman Yadav. He

deposed that at 9:30 p.m. he had seen the deceased at the house

of the Appellant, but, in paragraph 10 of his cross-examination, he

admitted that he could not state that when and where he saw the

deceased. Therefore, it is also not established that this witness

had last seen the deceased and the Appellant together.

12. During the course of investigation, on the basis of disclosure

statement (Ex.P1) of the Appellant, 1 wood cutting aari, 1 iron

sabbal, 1 iron cutting aari and 1 lady bicycle were seized vide

Ex.P2. 1 cotton piece which was used for mopping the blood

spread in one room of the house of the Appellant, blood stained

soil, plain soil and 1 plastic bottle stained with blood were seized

vide Ex.P3. On perusal of Ex.P29, it appears that some articles

were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical

examination, but, the prosecution has failed to submit any FSL

report in this regard for the reasons best known to them. Therefore,

it is not established that blood stains, particularly of human blood,

were present on the articles and weapons seized from the place of

occurrence and from the possession of the Appellant.

13. On a minute examination of the above evidence, it is clear that

there is no eyewitness in this case. The prosecution has also failed

to prove that PW2 Laxman Yadav is the person who last saw the

Appellant and the deceased together. The prosecution has also

failed to prove that the articles and weapons seized from the

possession of the Appellant and from the place of occurrence had

any connection with the crime in question. Moreover, the

recovered dead body was of Amit alias Bantha is also suspicious.

Looking to the entire evidence, in our considered view, the

prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

Virtually, this case is of no evidence. Thus, the finding of the Trial

Court is not in accordance with the evidence available on record.

The conviction of the Appellant is not sustainable.

14. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of

conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of

the charges framed against him. He is in jail. He be set at liberty

forthwith.

                          Sd/-                                  Sd/-
              (Rajendra Chandra Singh Samant)          (Arvind Singh Chandel)
                         Judge                                 Judge
Gopal