Chattisgarh High Court
State Of Chhattisgarh vs Tejram Patel on 4 May, 2022
1
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
ACQA No. 123 of 2010
State of Chhattisgarh Through the District
Magistrate, District Raigarh (C.G.)
Appellant
Versus
Tejram Patel, aged about 47 years, S/o Jagmohan
Patel, R/o. Kelo Vihar, Chakradhar nagar,
Raigarh, Tah. & District Raigarh (C.G.)
Respondents
For Appellant/State : Ms. Madhunisha Singh, Dy. A.G.
For Respondent : Mr. Anuroop Panda, Adv.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Judgment on Board
(04/05/2022)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This acquittal appeal has been preferred by the
Petitioner/State against the impugned judgment of
acquittal dated 30.07.2008, whereby the
respondent herein has been acquitted from the
charges punishable under Sections 302 & 201 of
the IPC by the III Additional Sessions Judge
(FTC), Raigarh (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.
135/2006.
2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on
13.09.2006, at about 2:30 PM, the respondent
herein caused the death of deceased Rameshwar
Patel near Kajoo Badi, Kanmura, Police Station
Kharsiya, and with an intention to escape himself
from the legal punishment of murder, chopped off
the hand of deceased on which name of the
deceased was tattooed and as such, concealed the
evidence of criminal case. It is admitted fact on
record that deceased Rameshwar Patel and the
respondent herein were relatives and their
residential premises are adjoining to each other
and there has been subsisting land dispute
between them on the date of incident. (By order
dated 05.02.2007, coaccused Jagmohan & Sriram
were discharged from the offence under Sections
302, 201 & 120B of IPC on the ground that there
was no material available against them regarding
the said offence)
3. Further case of the prosecution is that Kanhaiya
Singh Mahant (PW1) and Shyam Sagar (PW2) were
being informed by Sarpanch Upendra Narayan Sidar
that the dead body of a person is lying near the
Kajoo Badi, Village Kanmura. Thereafter, Kanhaiya
Singh Mahant (PW1) along with Bhogilal and Amar
Singh went to the spot where they noticed the
dead body of the deceased wearing Dhoti & Banyan
and his shirt was lying therein, and accordingly,
Kanhaiya Singh Mahant (PW1) made a report at
Police Station Kharsiya, pursuant to which merg
intimation (Ex.P/1) was registered under Section
174 of Cr.P.C. and the case was undertaken for
investigation. During the course of
investigation, dead body of deceased was
identified to be of Rameshwar Patel resident of
Tarapur, by his son Tirath Kumar Patel (PW5) and
other persons. Since there was subsisting dispute
between the deceased and respondent herein, FIR
No. 221/2006 was registered against the
accused/respondent under Section 302 & 201 of the
IPC. After due investigation, the respondent was
chargesheeted for the offence punishable under
Section 302 & 201 of IPC, which was registered and
committed the case to the Court of Sessions,
Raigarh (C.G.) for hearing and disposal in
accordance with law. The respondent abjured his
guilt and entered into defence.
4. In order to bring home the guilt of the
accused/respondent, prosecution has examined as
many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 17 documents.
Statement of the respondent herein was also
recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. wherein he
denied guilt. However, the defence also exhibited
D/1 to D/3 on record in his defence.
5. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the
oral and documentary evidence available on record,
acquitted the respondent from the aforesaid charges
by recording the following findings:
(i) That the death of the deceased Rameshwar
Patel was homicidal in nature.
(ii) That there is no direct and
indirect/circumstantial evidence available
on record to connect the respondent herein
with the crime in question.
(iii) That the theory of last seen together of
respondent with deceased has not been
established as per statement of Tirath
Kumar Patel (PW5), son of the deceased.
(iv) That the motive of offence with regard to
the land dispute between the respondent and
the deceased & threatening by the
respondent to the deceased is also not
established.
(v) That Tirath Kumar Patel (PW5), Runguram
Sarthi (PW6), Milapram Chouhan (PW8),
Panchram Sidar (PW9), Dolnarayan Patel
(PW11) and Tehsildar A.K. Uraon (PW17)
have not supported the case of the
prosecution.
6. Ms. Madhunisha Singh, learned Deputy Advocate
General would submit that though there is no
direct evidence available on record but there is
motive on the part of respondent herein to kill
the deceased on account of land dispute, which is
duly established and furthermore, the conduct of
the respondent herein, as per the statements of
Tirath Kumar Patel (PW5) Runguram Sarthi (PW6)
and Pancharam Sidar (PW9), established that it
is the only respondent who caused the death of
the deceased Rameshwar Patel, as such, it is a
fit case where the judgment of acquittal deserves
to be setaside.
7. Mr. Anuroop Panda, learned counsel for the
respondent would submit that learned trial Court
has rightly held that the motive of the
respondent to kill the deceased has not been
established and, on the basis of alleged conduct
of the respondent herein, no conviction can be
recorded under Section 302 of IPC and, therefore,
the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties,
considered their rival submissions and perused
the material available on record.
9. It is not in dispute that the death of deceased
Rameshwar Patel was homicidal in nature. Now, the
question is whether the learned trial Court has
justified in holding that the death of the
deceased was not caused by the respondent
herein ?
10. Learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral
and documentary evidence on record, clearly
recorded its finding in para 43 that there is no
direct evidence available on record and further
it was the finding of trial Court that there is
also no indirect/circumstantial evidence
available on record and held in para 43 as
under:
ÞmijksDr foospuk ,oa fu"d"kZ ds vk/kkj ij U;k;ky; ;g ikrk gS fd
vfHk;kstu i{k ds }kjk vkjksih ds fo#} fopkj.kh; iz'u dzekad&1 ,oa 2
ds vijk/k dks lansg ls ijs izekf.kr ugha djk;k x;k gS vkSj bl laca/k esa
izdj.k esa vfHk;kstu i{k dh vksj ls izR;{k lk{; is'k ugha fd;k x;k gS
vkSj vizR;{k lk{; ls Hkh izdj.k ifjfLFkfrtU; lk{; ij vk/kkfjr gksus ds
dkj.k ?kVuk ds iwoZ vFkok i'pkr e`rd ds lkFk vfHk;qDr dks ns[ks tkus
ds laca/k esa ,oa mlds ys tkus ds laca/k esa dksbZ lk{; ugha gS] cfYd blds
foijhr e`rd dks vafre ckj nks O;fDr;ksa ds }kjk eksVjlk;fdy esa ys
tkuk crk;k x;k gS] ftlds laca/k esa Hkh mDr fnukad dks e`rd ds okil
ugha ykSVus ij e`rd ds iq= }kjk fjiksVZ ugha fy[kk;k x;k Fkk vkSj fjiksVZ
ugha fy[kkus ds laca/k esa muds }kjk O;Dr fd;s x;s dFku ,oa
mPpkf/kdkfj;ksa dks fd;s x;s f'kdk;r ds laca/k esa Hkh dksbZ nLrkost is'k
ugha fd;k x;k gSA mijksDrkuqlkj vfHk;kstu i{k vkjksih ds fo#}
fopkj.kh; iz'u dz 1 ,oa 2 ds vijk/k dks lansg ls ijs izekf.kr djus esa
lQy ugha jgs gSaAß
11. From the perusal of the finding so recorded, it
is quite vivid that the direct evidence of death
of deceased Rameshwar Patel caused by the
respondent herein is not available on record and
it has also been recorded that no circumstantial
evidence is available on record on the basis of
which guilt of the accused/respondent can be
established. So far as the theory of last seen
together is concerned, the trial Court has held
that theory of last seen together has not been
established. However, careful perusal of
statement of Tirath Kumar Patel (PW5), who is
the son of the deceased, would show that he has
clearly stated that on the date on incident i.e.
on 13.09.2006, two persons came to his residence
and referring to the conversation that has taken
place with his father, took his father on their
motorcycle and, on the next day, when his father
did not return home, he searched his father at
different places and also inquired from his
relatives, and on 18.09.2006, the dead body of
his father was recovered. The missing report was
sought to be registered but it was declined to be
recorded by Police Station, Kotra Road. It has
even not been stated by son of the deceased that
on 13.09.2006, it is the respondent herein who
has taken his father on his motorcycle on the
pretext of taking tractor of the deceased on hire
and, as such, it has rightly been held by trial
Court that theory of last seen together has not
been established and we hereby affirm the said
finding of the learned Court below.
12. The next contention raised by learned counsel for
the State/appellant is that motive of respondent
to kill the deceased is established as on the
date of incident, some land dispute was
subsisting between the respondent and deceased as
they were relatives to each other. Having relied
upon the statement of the son of the deceased
Tirath Kumar Patel (PW5), in para 4, that there
was subsisting dispute between his father
Rameshwar Patel and the respondent herein and the
respondent herein has implicated his father in
SC/ST Police Station also, which the trial Court
has not accepted and proceeded to acquit the
respondent herein. Though there is statement of
Tirath Kumar Patel (PW5) to this effect, but in
absence of documentary evidence, in our
considered opinion, that trial Court has rightly
held that no such motive of the land dispute has
been proved on record by the prosecution.
13. It has lastly been contended by learned State
counsel that looking to the conduct of the
respondent herein that he has assisted Dr. R. K.
Singh (PW7) in conducting the post mortem and
sweeper Syam Sagar (PW2), therefore, the offence
under Section 201 of IPC is also established. It
has already been held that in view of the finding
arrived at herein, we have held that prosecution
has failed to bring home the offence under
Section 302 of IPC and in view of the nature of
evidence available, we are not inclined to hold
that respondent is guilty of 302 of IPC.
14. The Supreme Court in the case of Babu Vs. State of
Kerala, (2010) 9 SCC 189 has laid down the
principle to be followed in appeal against the
acquittal under Section 378 of the Cr.P.C. and it
has been held that Appellate Court should not
ordinarily set aside acquittal in a case where two
views are possible, though the views of Appellate
Court may be the more probable one and held in para
12 as under:
"..12. This Court time and again has laid down
the guidelines for the High Court to
interfere with the judgment and order of
acquittal passed by the trial court. The
appellate court should not ordinarily set
aside a judgment of acquittal in a case
where two views are possible, though the
view of the appellate court may be the more
probable one. While dealing with a judgment
of acquittal, the appellate court has to
consider the entire evidence on record, so
as to arrive at a finding as to whether the
views of trial court were perverse or
otherwise unsustainable. The appellate court
is entitled to consider whether in arriving
at a finding of fact, the trial court had
failed to take into consideration admissible
evidence and/or had taken into consideration
the evidence brought on record contrary to
law. Similarly, wrong placing of burden of
proof may also be a subject matter of
scrutiny by the appellate court."
15. Thereafter, recently in Anwar Ali & Another Vs.
State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166 Supreme
Court has reviewed its earlier decisions including
Babu (supra) reiterating the principles laid down
therein.
16. Now, reverting to the facts of the case in light of
judgment Babu (supra) and Anwar (supra) rendered by
the Supreme Court delineating the scope of
interference in appeal against acquittal and
evidence available on recored and finding arrived
at herein, we are unable to interfere with the
finding of judgment of acquittal recorded by
learned trial Court as it has justified in
acquitting the respondent herein from the aforesaid
charges and as such, the acquittal appeal deserves
to be dismissed and is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rajani Dubey)
Judge Judge
V/-
