Chattisgarh High Court
Karan Prasad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 4 May, 2022
1
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.533 of 2014
Karan Prasad S/o Shri Mangatu Satnami (wrongly
mentioned as "Mangalu Satnami" in the judgment dateed
09.04.2014), Aged About 32 years, R/o Village Chhata,
Police StationLalpur, Distt.Mungeli (CG)
Appellant
(In Jail)
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through - Police Station -
Lalpur, Distt.Mungeli (CG)
Respondent
For Appellant: Ms Savita Tiwari, Advocate
For Respondent/State: Mr.Sunil Otwani, Addl.A.G. with
Mr.Devesh Chand Verma, Govt.Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Smt.Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
(4.5.2022)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC
is directed against the impugned judgment dated
9.4.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Mungeli, in Sessions Trial No.13/2013, by which the
appellant herein has been convicted for offences under
Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him to
undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/, in
default of payment of fine to further undergo
imprisonment for one month and rigorous imprisonment
for seven years and fine of Rs.1000/, in default of
payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one
month. Both sentences were directed to run
concurrently.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the
appellant/accused on 13.1.2013 at 4 p.m. committed
murder of his wife Baijantibala by strangulation and
caused disappearance of the evidence by falsely
informing the police that she died by electrification.
It is further case of the prosecution that the
appellant along with his two daughters Rameshwari and
Chandani had visited village Lalpur on 18.12.2013 to
Ghasidas mela organized therein and from where the
parents of the deceased namely Rohit Kumar (PW1) and
his wife Smt.Shail Bai (PW5) also met them and
thereafter they had gone to the house of Rohit Kumar
(father of the deceased) at village Baigakapa, wherein
the appellant herein demanded money from his wife,
which she refused to give and the appellant also
assaulted to her and thereafter the appellant came back
to village Chhata along with his daughters on
19.12.2012. Thereafter on the understanding given by
Golu and Govind from village Chhata, Baijantibala
(deceased) came back to stay with the appellant on
1.1.2013, but on 13.1.2013, Rohit Kumar (PW1) (father
of the deceased) received information that his daughter
became unwell and thereafter also received information
that Baijantibala has died, then he came to village
Chhata along with other 45 persons and on being asked,
the appellant informed to him that Baijantibala is said
to have died by electrification. Rohit Kumar (PW1)
reported the matter to Police Station Lalpur vide merg
intimation (Ex.P1) and thereafter First Information
Report was registered vide Ex.P10. Jurisdictional
Judicial Magistrate First Class was informed about the
incident. Thereafter the Station House Officer, Police
Station Lalpur reached to the spot and served notices
to the witnesses. Naksha panchnama was prepared vide
Ex.P3. Spot map was prepared by investigating officer
vide Ex.P5. Dead body of deceased Baijantibala was
sent for postmortem to Government Hospital, Mungeli
vide Ex. P11, where postmortem was conducted by
Dr.Deepak Dhritlahre (PW9) vide Ex.P14 in which he
opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to
strangulation. Thereafter the accused was arrested, he
was given memorandum statement on 12.2.2013 (Ex.P7),
but no recovery pursuant to memorandum statement was
made. However, sari was recovered from possession of
the appellant on 14.1.2013 vide Ex.P4. The appellant
was chargesheeted before the Judicial Magistrate First
Class, Mungeli, who was committed the case to the Court
of Session, Mungeli, from where the Additional Sessions
Judge, Mungeli received the case on transfer for trial.
The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered
into defence.
3. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution
examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited 14
documents Exs.P1 to P14. Statement of the
accused/appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was
recorded in which he denied guilt. However, the accused
took a plea of alibi and examined 4 witnesses to prove
his defence and brought out statement of Shail Bai in
his favour as Ex.D1.
4. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence available on record, by its
judgment dated 9.4.2014, convicted the appellant herein
holding that death of deceased Baijantibala was
homicidal in nature and further theory of last seen
together has been established and it is only the
appellant who has caused murder of his wife
Baijantibala and also caused disappearance of the
evidence and sentenced him as aforementioned, against
which, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the
appellant herein.
5. Ms Savita Tiwari, learned counsel for the
appellant/accused, would submit as under:
(i) That death of deceased Baijantibala was not
homicidal in nature as it is the case of hanging.
(ii) That theory of last seen together which is one of
the incriminating piece of evidence has not been
established as according to Smt.Shail Bai (PW5)
(mother of deceased Baijantibala), prior to and on the
date of incident, the accused was residing along with
his father, mother, two sisters, his brother Gaukaran,
Gaukaran's wife Sulakshana and two daughters Rameshwari
and Chandani. As such, the prosecution has failed to
establish the plea of last seen together on the date of
offence.
(iii) Assuming though not admitting that the plea of
last seen together is established, yet in statement
recorded under Section 313 CrPC, the appellant has not
been afforded an opportunity to explain such an
incriminating evidence against him, which the trial
Court was obliged to offer in order to act upon the
selfserving incriminating piece of evidence of last
seen together, otherwise he would have explained the
said incriminating piece of evidence allegedly made out
by the prosecution.
(iv) That the appellant has established the plea of
alibi and on the date of offence he along with his
family members had gone for threshing paddy and he was
not present in the house and he was informed by his
daughter Rameshwari (DW4) and they have clearly proved
that the appellant was not present in the house on the
date of commission of offence and even in cross
examination, this witness has maintained her version
and as such, the plea of alibi is fully established.
Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set
aside.
6. On the other hand, Mr.Sunil Otwani, learned Additional
Advocate General with Mr.Devesh Chand Verma, learned
Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State,
would submit that the prosecution has adduced
sufficient evidence of clinching nature to demonstrate
that it is only the appellant who has committed murder
of deceased Baijantibala and therefore, the trial Court
has rightly convicted the appellant herein for offences
under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. They would
further submit that death has rightly been held to be
homicidal in nature as it is proved by medical evidence
adduced on behalf of the prosecution particularly by
Dr.Deepak Dhritlahre (PW9), who has conducted
postmortem on the body of the deceased and in para7,
he has clearly stated that it is the case of
strangulation. Therefore, death of the deceased to be
homicidal in nature is clearly established. They would
also submit that on the date of offence, the appellant
and the deceased were staying together as husband &
wife and they have seen together in good health and on
the same date, she (Baijantibala) has been found dead
in the house of the appellant herein. As such, it has
fully been established that death was caused by the
appellant herein and therefore, criminal appeal
preferred by the appellant herein deserves to be
dismissed.
7. We have heard learned appearing for the parties,
considered their rival submissions made hereinabove
and also went through the records with utmost
circumspection.
8. The first question for consideration would be, whether
the trial Court was justified in holding that death of
the deceased Baijantibala was homicidal in nature. The
trial Court has answered the issue in affirmative
relying upon medical evidence of Dr.Deepak Dhrithare
(PW9), who has conducted postmortem on the body of the
deceased. For sake of convenience, paras 2 to 6 are
relevant and being reproduced hereinbelow:
2& ijh{k.k djus ij nks cts esjs }kjk &'kjhj dks ih0,e0 Vscy esa
fpr voLFkk esa FkkA jkbxj ekfVZl mi0 FkkA nksuksa gkFk ,oa iSj esa
vdMu FkkA eaqg can Fkk] psgjk uhyxw Fkk] I;wfiy cMk Fkk] vka[k yky
FkkA xys esa rhu czswt mifLFkr FkkA nwljk czswt xys ds e/; Hkkx esa Fkk]
ftldk vkdkj 2 x 1-5 lseh FkkA nwljk czswt& Fkk;jkbZV dkftZyst ds
uhps Fkk] vkSj LVueZ ds mij Fkk ftldk vkdkj 2-1 x 2-9 lseh- FkkA
rhljk czwt xnZu ds nkfgus lkbZTk esa Fkk ftldk vkdkj 2-1 x 1-3 lseh-
FkkA rhuksa czwt Hkwjs jax dk FkkA gYdk lk lw[kk FkkA peMs ds mij
dkxt tSlk gks x;k FkkA igys czwt ds ysVjsjy lkbZt esa nks uk[kwu ds
fu'kku v/kZ pUnzkdj esa FkkA ftldk vkdkj 1 lseh FkkA e`frdk dh
pksaVs & ,aVheksVZe FkkA
3& esjs }kjk vkarfjd ijh{k.k djus ij [kksiMh diky d'ks:dk flYyh]
esa dqN ugha Fkk lkekU; FkkA efLr"d vkSj es:jTtw datsLVsM FkkA rFkk
NksVs NksVs lqbZ ds vkdkj dk [kwu fjlko dk pksaV FkkA inkZ] ilyh
dkseyl lkekU;] QwLQwl datsLVsM] daB vkSj 'okl uyh] esa Fkk;jkbZV
dkfVZyst dk QSDpj Fkk] Vªsfd;k jIpj gks x;k Fkk] f=dk;sM dkfVZyst dk
QSDpj FkkA nka;k QsQMk datsLVsM Fkk ,oa lc I;wyk ds uhps gsejst FkkA
4& cka;k QsQMk datsLVsM Fkk] isufØ;kl datsLVsM Fkk] ân; ds nkfgus
rjQ [kwu Hkjk Fkk ,oa cka;k [kkyh FkkA o`gn okfgdk lkekU; Fkk] inkZ]
lkekU; Fkk] vkarksa dh f>Yyh] eqag xzkl uyh xzluh datsLVsM Fkk] isV
[kkyh Fkk] NksVh vkar ,oa mlds Hkhrj v/kipk [kkuk Fkk cMh vkar esa ipk
gqvk [kkuk FkkA ;--r Iyhgk xqnkZ datsLVsM FkkA ew=k'k;] Hkhrjh ,oa
ckgjh tuusfUnz; lkekU; FkkA
5& eSus rhu ckVy esa Lis'khesu lhycan dj lacaf/kr vkj{kd dks fn;k
FkkA
6& esjs erkuqlkj e`rd ds 'kjhj ij ik;h x;h pksaVs ijh{k.k ds 24 ?
k.Vs ds vanj dh FkhA e`frdk dh e`R;q xyk nckus ls ne ?kqVus ls 'okl
vojks/k gksus ds dkj.k mlds ân; ,oa QsQMs dke djuk can gksus ls
mldh e`R;q gqbZA esjh fjiksVZ iz0ih014 gS] ftlds v ls v Hkkx ij esjs
gLrk0 gSA
9. In his crossexamination, it was suggested by defence
to Dr.Deepak Dhrithare (PW9) that in case of hanging
also, there can be rapture to thyroid and trachea,
which he answered in affirmative, but he has further
clarified that in the instant case in view of nature
of injuries, it is the case of strangulation. Nothing
further has been brought out to demonstrate that it is
the case of hanging and not the case of strangulation.
After going through the records and after hearing
learned counsel appearing for the parties, we are of
the considered view that the learned trial Court is
absolutely justified in holding that it is the case of
strangulation and not the case of death by hanging. We
affirm the finding so recorded by the trial Court.
10. The next question for consideration would be, whether
death of deceased Baijantibala was caused by the
appellant herein, which the trial Court has held that
it has been caused by the appellant herein and
convicted & sentenced for the said offence.
11. From the statements of Rohit Kumar (PW1) (father of
the deceased), Tileshwari (PW2) (sister of the
deceased), Minakshi (PW4) (sister of the deceased) and
Smt.Shail Bai (PW5) (mother of the deceased), it is
established fact that the appellant along with his two
daughters namely Rameshwri and Chandani had visited on
18.12.2013 to Ghasidas mela organized at village Lalpur
and on that place, the deceased parents Rohit Kumar
(PW1) and Smt.Shail Bai (PW5) had also joined therein
and thereafter all of them went back to village
Baigakapa (resident of the deceased father and mother)
and in the next morning, the appellant demanded money
from Baijantibala, which she refused to give stating
that she left out the money for payment of insurance,
then the appellant became annoyed and assaulted his
wife Baijantibala and came back to village Chhata along
with his two daughters on 19.12.2013. Thereafter, the
appellant sent his nephew Golu and one other relative
Govind to village Baigakapa to bring Baijantibala to
his house and on understanding given by that two
persons, the appellant's wife Baijantibala came back
to the accused house on 1.1.2013 and thereafter she was
staying with her husband.
12. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice the
statement of Smt.Shail Bai (PW5) (mother of the
deceased), she has clearly stated in his statement
before the Court that the deceased used to stay with
the appellant in joint family. In para11, she has
clearly stated that the appellant used to stay with his
parents, two sisters, his two daughters Rameshwari and
Chandani, his brother Gaukaran and Gaukaran's wife
Sulakshana (DW2). As such, it is established fact that
the appellant used to stay in joint family along with
abovestated persons in house in question where
Baijantibala died and it is not the case that on the
date of offence, he was staying with Baijantibala
alone.
13. Deceased Baijantibala was found dead on 13.1.2013 at 4
p.m. as Rohit Kumar (PW1) (father of the deceased) was
informed by Vedkumar Satnami (not examined) about
Baijantibala became unwell, then Rohit Kumar (PW1)
along with 45 persons visited to village Chhata where
he found his daughter Baijantibala to be dead and
accordingly, he reported the matter to the police
station and wheels of investigation started running
which culminated into filing of chargesheet against
the appellant herein for the aforesaid offences. The
trial Court after recording the death to be homicidal
in nature that she died by strangulation further
proceeded to hold that the deceased and the appellant
both were residing as husband and wife in the house and
the deceased and the appellant both were seen in
healthy condition and on the same date, Baijantibala
was found dead in the house of the appellant.
14. Now the question for consideration would be, whether
the plea of last seen together can be held to be
established, which is based on Section 106 of the
Evidence Act.
15. Section 101 of the Evidence Act states as under:
"101. Burden of proof.Whoever desires any
Court to give judgment as to any legal right or
liability dependent on the existence of facts
which he asserts, must prove that those facts
exist.
When a person is bound to prove the existence
of any fact, it is said that the burden of
proof lies on that person."
16. Under Section 101 of the Evidence Act, whoever desires
any Court to give a judgment as to a liability
dependent on the existence of facts, he must prove that
those facts exist. Therefore, the burden is always on
the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused
beyond a reasonable doubt. Thus, Section 106
constitutes an exception to Section 101.
17. Section 106 of the Evidence Act states as under:
"106. Burden of proving fact especially within
knowledge. - When any fact is especially within
the knowledge of any person, the burden of
proving that fact is upon him.
Illustrations
(a) When a person does an act with some
intention other than that which the character
and circumstances of the act suggest, the
burden of proving that intention is upon him.
(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway
without a ticket. The burden of proving that he
had a ticket is on him."
18. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to
those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in
establishing the facts from which a reasonable
inference can be drawn regarding the existence of
certain other facts which are within the special
knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to
offer proper explanation about the existence of said
other facts, the Court can always draw an appropriate
inference.
19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Bodhraj alias Bodha
and others v. State of Jammu and Kashmir 1 has laid down
the principle on which last seen theory can be invoked
into and held as under:
"31. The lastseen theory comes into play where
the timegap between the point of time when the
accused and deceased were seen last alive and
when the deceased is found dead is so small
that possibility of any person other than the
accused being the author of crime becomes
impossible. It would be difficult in some cases
to positively establish that the deceased was
last seen with the accused when there is a long
gap and possibility of other persons coming in
between exists. In the absence of any other
positive evidence to conclude that the accused
and the deceased were last seen together, it
would be hazardous to come to a conclusion of
guilt in those cases. In this case there is
positive evidence that deceased, A1 and A2
were seen together by witnesses. i.e. PWs 14,
15 and 18; in addition to the evidence of PWs l
and 2."
20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Trimukh Maroti
Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra 2 has held that when the
death had occurred in his (the appellant therein)
custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a
plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his
statement under Section 313 CrPC. It was observed as
under:
"22. Where an accused is alleged to have
committed the murder of his wife and the
prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to
show that shortly before the commission of
crime they were seen together or the offence
takes place in the dwelling home where the
husband also normally resided, it has been
consistently held that if the accused does not
offer any explanation how the wife received
injuries or offers an explanation which is
found to be false, it is a strong circumstance
which indicates that he is responsible for
1 (2002) 8 SCC 45
2 (2006) 10 SCC 681
commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State
of H.P.3 it was observed that the fact that the
accused alone was with his wife in the house
when she was murdered there with "khukhri" and
the fact that the relations of the accused with
her were strained would, in the absence of any
cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt.
In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra4 the
appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his
wife which took place inside his house. It was
observed that when the death had occurred in
his custody, the appellant is under an
obligation to give a plausible explanation for
the cause of her death in his statement under
Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the
prosecution case coupled with absence of any
explanation was held to be inconsistent with
the innocence of the accused, but consistent
with the hypothesis that the appellant is a
prime accused in the commission of murder of
his wife...."
21. Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of
Rajasthan v. Thakur Singh5 relying upon the decision of
the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of
Ajmer6 has held as under:
"16. Way back in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of
Ajmer this Court dealt with the interpretation
of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and held
that the section is not intended to shift the
burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the
accused but to take care of a situation where a
fact is known only to the accused and it is
wellnigh impossible or extremely difficult for
the prosecution to prove that fact. It was
said: (AIR p. 406, para 11)
"11. This [Section 101] lays down the
general rule that in a criminal case the
burden of proof is on the prosecution and
Section 106 is certainly not intended to
relieve it of that duty. On the contrary,
it is designed to meet certain exceptional
cases in which it would be impossible, or
at any rate disproportionately difficult,
for the prosecution to establish facts
which are 'especially' within the knowledge
3 (1972) 2 SCC 80
4 (1992) 3 SCC 106
5 (2014) 12 SCC 211
6 AIR 1956 SC 404
of the accused and which he could prove
without difficulty or inconvenience.
The word 'especially' stresses that.
It means facts that are preeminently or
exceptionally within his knowledge. If the
section were to be interpreted otherwise,
it would lead to the very startling
conclusion that in a murder case the burden
lies on the accused to prove that he did
not commit the murder because who could
know better than he whether he did or did
not."
22. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vikramjit Singh
alias Vicky v. State of Punjab 7 has held that Section
106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the
prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved
the burden in regard to such facts which was within the
special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the
accused for explaining the same. It was observed as
under:
"14. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not
relieve the prosecution to prove its case
beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the
prosecution case has been proved the burden in
regard to such facts which was within the
special knowledge of the accused may be shifted
to the accused for explaining the same. Of
course, there are certain exceptions to the
said rule e.g. where burden of proof may be
imposed upon the accused by reason of a
statute."
23. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of
principles of law laid down by the Supreme Court in the
abovestated judgments (supra) qua principle of
invocation of theory of last seen together and
incriminating evidence on behalf of the prosecution, it
7 (2006) 12 SCC 306
would be appropriate to consider the nature of evidence
available on record as to whether on the date and time
of offence only the appellant alone was present in
house in question along with his wife deceased
Baijantibala. Smt.Shail Bai (PW5) (mother of deceased
Baijantibala) in para11 of her crossexamination has
clearly stated that the appellant used to stay along
with his father, mother, two sisters, two daughters,
one brother Gaukaran and Gaukaran's wife Sulakshana.
Gaukaran's wife Sulakshana has been examined as DW2.
Sulakshana (DW2) has also clearly stated in her
examinationinchief that prior to the date of alleged
offence she has delivered a baby, therefore, she was in
the house on that very day and the deceased was also
sleeping in next room (after one wall) and in the
afternoon, Rameshwari (daughter of the
appellant/accused) has come to drink water and then she
cried and found her mother hanging, then she told
Rameshwari to inform her father and thereafter her
father Karan Prasad / appellant herein and Dhansai
Ratre who were working in the house of Bhat Maharaj
came to their house and saw her dead body hanging. As
such, the prosecution has failed to establish that on
the date and time of offence, only the appellant and
the deceased were staying in the appellant's house,
rather it has been established on record by the defence
and that too with the help of prosecution witness
Smt.Shail Bai (PW5) (mother of the deceased) that
apart from the appellant, several other members i.e.
father, mother, brother Gaukaran, brother's wife
Sulakshana, two sisters and two daughters all were
staying in the house in question where death of the
deceased has occurred. As such, in case in hand,
Section 106 of the Evidence Act has wrongly been
invoked and applied in by the trial Court.
24. Furthermore, the appellant has taken the plea of alibi
as contained in Section 11 of the Evidence Act that he
was not present in the house on the date of offence. In
order to prove the same, he has been examined four
defence witnesses namely Janakram (DW1), Sulakshana
(DW2), Dhansai (DW3) and Rameshari (DW4). It is the
case of the appellant herein that on the date of
offence he was working in the house of Bhat Maharaj
along with his father Mangtu and involved in the work
of threshing paddy. Janakram (Aam Mukhtir of Bhat
Maharaj) has been examined as DW1. He has clearly
stated in para3 of his statement that Mangtu (father
of the appellant) and his son Karan / appellant herein
both were working in the house of Bhat Maharaj and
involved in threshing of paddy on that day, at that
time, the appellant's daughter Rameshwari came and
informed, which he could not hear properly. Sulakshana
(DW2) has also stated that on the date of offence, the
appellant, his father, his mother Smt.Shail Bai (PW5)
all were in barn (kothar) of Bhat Maharaj. In her
crossexamination, she has refuted the adverse
questions asked from her. Dhansai (DW3) has also
stated the same lines and the appellant's daughter
Rameshwari (DW4) has stated the same lines. Rameshwari
(DW4) has been subjected to crossexamine on behalf of
the prosecution. She has clearly stated that on the
date of offence, her father has gone to barn (kothar)
of Bhat Maharaj for threshing paddy and further
suggestion given on behalf of the prosecution that her
father has left barn for a period of one hour, but she
has maintained her version that her father has
throughout in barn of Bhat Maharaj for the purpose of
threshing paddy. As such, the prosecution has failed to
prove the plea of last seen together and further failed
to prove that on the date and time of offence the
appellant and the deceased only were present in the
house of the deceased, whereas the defence has proved
the fact that on the date of offence, the appellant
herein was in barn of Bhat Maharaj for the purpose of
threshing paddy as adhiyadar. Furthermore, even it is
assumed as argued that theory of last seen together has
been established, but the appellant has not been
afforded an opportunity to explain those adverse
circumstances of last seen together while examining him
in statement under Section 313 CrPC.
25. The Supreme Court in the matter of Raj Kumar Singh
alias Raju alias Batya v. State of Rajasthan 8 while
highlighting the object and purpose of examining the
8 AIR 2013 SC 3150
accused person under Section 313 CrPC has held as
under:
"25. In a criminal trial, the purpose of
examining the accused person under Section 313
Cr.P.C., is to meet the requirement of the
principles of natural justice i.e. audi alteram
partem. This means that the accused may be
asked to furnish some explanation as regards
the incriminating circumstances associated with
him, and the court must take note of such
explanation. In a case of circumstantial
evidence, the same is essential to decide
whether or not the chain of circumstances is
complete. No matter how weak the evidence of
the prosecution may be, it is the duty of the
court to examine the accused, and to seek his
explanation as regards the incriminating
material that has surfaced against him. The
circumstances which are not put to the accused
in his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.,
cannot be used against him and have to be
excluded from consideration."
26. The Supreme Court in the matter of Vikramjit Singh
(supra) has held that the circumstances which according
to the prosecution lead to proof of the guilt against
the accused must be put to him in his examination under
Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure.
27. In the instant case, admittedly, the trial Court has
held the theory of last seen together as incriminating
piece of evidence against the appellant herein, but
surprisingly under Section 313 CrPC though as many 33
questions had been put to the accused, but no such
question qua the alleged incriminating circumstance of
his last seen together with the deceased has been put
to the accused asking him to furnish explanation with
that regard, yet on the basis of his last seen together
with the deceased, guilt of the appellant has been
recorded by which he has sufficiently suffered
prejudice in not affording an opportunity to explain
the circumstances as he has specifically taken the plea
of alibi by examining defence witnesses which have been
discussed hereinabove.
28. As a upshot of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the
considered opinion that though the prosecution has
succeeded in proving the death of deceased Baijantibala
to be homicidal in nature, but further failed to
establish the plea of last seen together as
incriminating piece of evidence and also failed to
prove that it is only and only the appellant who has
committed murder of the deceased by strangulation.
Accordingly, we set aside the impugned judgment dated
9.4.2014 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.13/2013. The appellant is
acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 and 201 of
the IPC. He is in jail. He be released forthwith if not
required in any other case.
29. The criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated
hereinabove.
Sd/ Sd/
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
B/
