Ramnath vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2022 Latest Caselaw 1431 Chatt

                                    1

                                                                    NAFR
             HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
                    Criminal Appeal No. 578 of 2013


        Ramnath S/o Laxman, 36 years, R/o Village Puspal,
        P.S.    Mardum,    Post    Lohandiguda,    Distt.     Bastar,
        Chhattisgarh,          Civil/Revenue      Distt.      Bastar,
        Chhattisgarh.

                                                       ­­­Appellant

                                   Versus

        State       of     Chhattisgarh        through       District
        Magistrate,            Jagdalpur,      Distt.         Bastar,
        Chhattisgarh,      Civil and Revenue Distt.           Bastar,
        Chhattisgarh.

                                                    ­­­Respondent




    For Appellant         :­    Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
    For State             :­    Mr. Sudeep Verma, Dy. G.A. and
                                Mr. Anmol Sharma, P.L.




             Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
                Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
                        Judgment on Board
                            21/03/2022
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of CrPC

is directed against the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 02/05/2013

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at

Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No. 136/11 whereby

the appellant/accused has been convicted for

offence under Section 302 of the IPC and he has

been sentenced to life imprisonment and fine of

Rs. 1,000/­.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on

16/09/2011 at about 4:30 PM, the applicant

Roopdhar Muriya along with his father Lekhan

Muriya were heading towards their field when the

appellant Ramnath along with his son Laxman came

to assault Lekhan Muriya on account of some

previous enmity between them and Ramnath

committed the murder of Lekhan Muriya with a bow

and arrow and, thereby, committed the offence

under Section 302 of IPC. Laxman also assaulted

Lekhan Muriya in his private part (now he has

been acquitted by the trial Court).

3. Further case of the prosecution is that, the

applicant Roopdhar (P.W.­1), son of deceased

Lekhan Muriya, came on the spot and on seeing his

father lying down with an arrow struck to his

chest, shouted and gathered other villagers on

the spot namely Kaviram (P.W.­3), Balram (P.W.­4)

and one Patel Ramdhar. Meanwhile, the present

appellant/accused Ramnath and his son Laxman

absconded from the spot. On the same day,

Panchayat was convened but the accused persons

remained absent and on the next day, applicant

Roopdhar (P.W.­1) reported about the incident at

Police Station Mardum on the basis of which merg

intimation was registered (Ex. P/10) and First

Information Report No. 21/11 (Ex. P/11) was

lodged against the appellant/accused and

co­accused Laxman for offence punishable under

Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. Summons

were issued to the witnesses under Section 175 of

CrPC (Ex. P/14) and after preparing the inquest

report (Ex. P/15), the dead body of deceased

Lekhan Muriya was sent for postmortem to Medical

Officer, Lohandiguda and thereafter, spot map

(Ex. P/12) was prepared and blood stained soil

was collected from the spot (Ex. P/3).

Thereafter, on 19/09/2011, both the accused

persons namely Ramnath and Laxman were arrested

and pursuant to their memorandum statement (Ex.

P/1), the bow was recovered from Ramnath (Ex.

P/2) and a blood stained lungi was recovered from

Laxman (Ex. P/4). On 23/09/2011, the blood

stained arrow as well as the clothes worn by

deceased Lekhan Muriya at the time of the

incident were taken from the Hospital (Ex. P/5)

and all the seized articles were sent to State

Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical

examination and after recording the statements of

the witnesses under Section 161 of CrPC and after

due investigation, appellant/accused Ramnath and

co­accused Laxman were charge­sheeted for offence

punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC which was

committed to the Court of Judicial Magistrate

First Class, Jagdalpur for disposal in accordance

with law. The appellant/accused and the co­

accused abjured their guilt and entered into

defence.

4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution

examined 7 witnesses and brought into record 23

documents. Statements of the appellant/accused

and co­accused were recorded under Section 313 of

CrPC wherein they denied guilt, however, they

examined none in their defence.

5. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral

and documentary evidence on record, though

acquitted co­accused Laxman, however, convicted

the present appellant namely Ramnath for offence

under Section 302 of IPC and awarded sentence as

mentioned herein­above against which this appeal

has been preferred by the appellant/accused

questioning the impugned judgment of conviction

and order of sentence.

6. Mr. Keshav Dewangan, learned counsel for the

appellant, would submit that the trial Court has

committed grave legal error in convicting the

appellant for offence punishable under Section

302 of IPC as the three witnesses who are said to

have been witnessed the incident themselves

namely Roopdhar (P.W.­1), Balram (P.W.­2) and

Kaviram (P.W.­3) are not eye­witnesses and there

is no other proof or circumstantial evidence to

implicate the appellant herein for the aforesaid

offence. As such, the impugned judgment of

conviction deserves to be set aside.

7. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, would

support the impugned judgment of conviction and

submit that prosecution has proved the offence

beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly, learned

Session judge has rightly convicted the

appellant/accused for the aforesaid offence.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein­

above and went through the records with utmost

circumspection.

9. The first question for consideration would be,

whether the death of deceased Lekhan Muriya was

homicidal in nature ?

10. The trial Court has recorded an affirmative

finding with regard to this question on the basis

of medical opinion of Dr. Virendra Thakur

(P.W.­4) who has opined that there were two major

injuries found on the body of deceased Lekhan

Muriya, one lacerated wound 7 cms long and 1 cm

wide caused by a penetrative object in the

epigastrium of the deceased and the other

lacerated wound 3 cms long and 0.3 cm wide in the

left axillary side of his chest. It has further

been stated in the postmortem report (Ex. P/7)

that the death of deceased Lekhan Muriya has been

caused due to injury No. 1 and his death is

homicidal in nature. Moreover, the fact that the

death of deceased Lekhan Muriya was homicidal in

nature has also not been seriously disputed by

learned counsel for the appellant. As such, the

finding recorded by the trial Court that death of

Lekhan Muriya is homicidal in nature is hereby

affirmed.

11. Now, the next question would be, whether the

penetrative injury on account of which Lekhan

Muriya died was caused by the appellant/accused ?

12. The prosecution has cited Roopdhar (P.W.­1),

Balram (P.W.­2) and Kaviram (P.W.­3) as eye­

witnesses. We will consider the testimonies of

each one of them one by one.

13. Roopdhar (P.W.­1), son of deceased Lekhan Muriya,

in paragraph 1 of his statement before the Court,

has clearly stated that his father was working in

the field when the appellant/accused Ramnath

assaulted him with a bow and arrow on account of

which he suffered an injury in his chest. He has

further stated that he informed about the

incident to others. Thereafter, in his cross­

examination, he has stated in paragraph 5 that he

was not on the spot at the time of the incident

and upon hearing of the incident, he went to the

house of Patel Ramdhar and came back after one

hour and found the dead body of his father lying

in the field and at that time, none was present

in the spot.

14. A careful perusal of the entire statement of

Roopdhar (P.W.­1) would show that he has not

actually seen the incident and he came to the

spot only after his father Lekhan Muriya had

already been assaulted and had succumbed to

death. Moreover, the trial Court in paragraph 6

of its judgment has also recorded the finding

that Roopdhar (P.W.­1) has not seen the incident,

yet the trial Court relied upon his version to

hold that appellant/accused Ramnath has caused

injury to the deceased Lekhan Muriya with a bow

and arrow on account of which he succumbed to

death.

15. Coming to the statement of Balram (P.W.­2)

wherein he has clearly stated in paragraph 1 that

he has not seen the incident though in paragraph

3 he has further stated that along with him,

Kaviram (P.W.­3) and one Ramdhar have also seen

the incident and then he was declared hostile and

prosecution was permitted to ask leading

questions. Thereafter, in his cross­examination,

he has stated in paragraph 4 that when he reached

the spot, deceased Lekhan Muriya had already

succumbed to death and that none has assaulted

Lekhan Muriya in front of him.

16. Similarly, Kaviram (P.W.­3) in paragraph 1 of his

statement has stated that Roopdhar (P.W.­1) came

to his house and informed that appellant/accused

Ramnath has killed his father with bow and arrow

and thereafter, he was declared hostile and

prosecution was permitted to ask questions. In

paragraph 2, he has also stated that he reached

the spot after deceased Lekhan Muriya had already

been assaulted. In paragraph 4, he has further

stated that on being informed by Roopdhar (P.W.­

1), he went to the spot/field and noticed the

dead body of deceased Lekhan Muriya lying on the

field. He has also admitted the fact that he has

not seen anyone causing injury to the deceased or

absconding from the spot after causing injury.

17. As such, all the three witnesses whom the

prosecution has cited to be eye­witnesses have

not supported the case of the prosecution and

they themselves have admitted that they have not

seen the appellant/accused causing injury to

deceased Lekhan Muriya. The trial Court has also

accepted that Balram (P.W.­2) and Kaviram (P.W.­

3) have not supported the case of the prosecution

yet since they were the first ones to reach to

the spot, partly accepting their statement, the

trial Court has convicted the appellant/accused

for the aforesaid offence. Apart from that,

though on the basis of memorandum statement of

appellant/accused Ramnath (Ex. P/1), bow was

seized from the possession of the appellant

herein but as per paragraph 5 of the statement of

Balram (P.W.­2) almost everyone in the village

possesses such a bow as in District Bastar, it is

very common for the tribal people to have

possession of a bow and arrow which they use for

the purpose of worshiping. As such, mere recovery

of the bow from the possession of the

appellant/accused pursuant to his memorandum

statement will not connect the appellant from the

aforesaid offence, particularly when no blood was

found in the bow and it was not sent for chemical

analysis either. Though as per the FSL report

(Ex. P/22), blood was found in the arrow but that

will not help the prosecution to connect the

appellant unless it is proved that the injury

caused by the bow to the deceased Lekhan Muriya

was caused by the appellant herein.

18. In that view of the matter, we are of the

considered opinion that prosecution has failed

miserably to bring home the offence punishable

under Section 302 of IPC registered against the

appellant herein and further, the trial Court has

also committed illegality in convicting the

appellant for offence punishable under Section

302 of IPC and awarding sentence as stated above.

19. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction

dated 02/05/2013 as well as the sentence awarded

to the appellant for offence under Section 302 of

IPC is hereby set aside and the appellant is

acquitted of the said charges. The appellant be

released from jail forthwith, if not required in

any other case.

20. This criminal appeal is allowed to the extent

indicated herein­above.

            Sd/­                        Sd/­
    (Sanjay K. Agrawal)            (Rajani Dubey)
             Judge                      Judge


Harneet