Chattisgarh High Court
Mannu Ram Kashyap vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 11 January, 2023
Cr.A.No.1187/2013
Page 1 of 5
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Criminal Appeal No.1187 of 2013
{Arising out of judgment dated 20-9-2013 in Sessions Trial No.118/2012
of the Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur}
Mannu Ram Kashyap, S/o Kartik Ram Kashyap, Aged about 38 years,
Caste Bhatara, Occupation Agriculturalist, R/o Village Seoni Amaguda
Para, Thana Bhanpuri, Distt. Bastar (C.G.)
(In Jail)
---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Bhanpuri, Distt. Bastar
(C.G.)
---- Respondent
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant: Mrs. Tanya, Advocate.
For Respondent/State: Mr. Sudeep Verma, Deputy Govt. Advocate.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and
Hon'ble Shri Rakesh Mohan Pandey, JJ.
Judgment On Board
(11/01/2023)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against
the impugned judgment and order dated 20-9-2013 passed by the
Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial
No.118/2012, by which the appellant herein has been convicted
under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life & pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/-.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19-7-2012 at 11.00 p.m.,
the appellant asked for food from his wife Budhwari Bai which she
did not serve pursuant to which after a dispute, the appellant
Cr.A.No.1187/2013
assaulted her by a sharp-edged axe on her neck by which she
suffered two injuries and died. Thereafter, morgue intimation was
recorded vide Ex.P-7 purusant to which first information report (FIR)
was registered vide Ex.P-8. After panchnama, dead body was
subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. D. Rajan
(PW-6) vide postmortem report Ex.P-9 in which cause of death was
stated to be due to haemorrhage due to injury on neck. Pursuant to
the information given by the appellant, axe was seized and it was
sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory, but
the FSL report was not brought on record. Query report Ex.P-10
was obtained from Dr. D. Rajan (PW-6) in which it has been stated
that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have
been caused by the said axe.
3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of
the CrPC.. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed
against the appellant before the jurisdictional criminal court and the
case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and for
hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
4. The trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for offence
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and proceeded on trial.
The appellant abjured guilt and entered into defence stating that he
has not committed the offence and he has been falsely implicated.
5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as
many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents Exhibits P-1 to
P-19. No witness has been examined on behalf of the defence and
no document has been exhibited. Statement of the appellant was
Cr.A.No.1187/2013
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he abjured the
guilt and pleaded innocence.
6. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral
and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and
sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the opening
paragraph of this judgment against which this appeal under Section
374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by him calling in question
the impugned judgment.
7. Mrs. Tanya, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would
submit that the appellant has not committed any offence and he has
been falsely implicated, there is no direct or circumstantial evidence
to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt and therefore
conviction of the appellant is liable to be set aside and the appeal
deserves to be allowed by acquitting the appellant of the charge
levelled against him.
8. Mr. Sudeep Verma, learned State counsel, would support the
impugned judgment and would submit that the prosecution has
been able to bring home the offence against the appellant and the
trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant and therefore
conviction cannot be competently questioned by the appellant
herein and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the
record with utmost circumspection.
10. The first question as to whether the death of the deceased was
Cr.A.No.1187/2013
homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in
affirmative relying upon the statement of Dr. D. Rajan (PW-6)
proved by his postmortem report Ex.P-9 holding the death of the
deceased to be homicidal in nature, which is a finding of fact based
on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor
contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding.
11. Now, whether the appellant is the author of the crime as held by the
trial Court, is the next question.
12. Ku. Phoolbati (PW-10) is the daughter of the deceased who was
staying with her father & mother on the date of incident, but she has
not supported the case of the prosecution. According to her, it is
her father i.e. the appellant herein and Kartik (PW-4) - grandfather,
who informed her that her mother has been killed by some one
else. Similar statement has been made by Ku. Basanti (PW-11) -
another daughter of the deceased and the appellant. As such, both
the witnesses could have stated about the actual incident if they
could have seen the incident, but they have not supported the case
of the prosecution.
13. Kartik (PW-4) - father of the appellant, has clearly stated that
though he has not seen the incident by which the appellant has
killed his wife, but he was informed by Ku. Phoolbati (PW-10) & Ku.
Basanti (PW-11) that it is the appellant who has murdered
Budhwari Bai, however, since Ku. Phoolbati (PW-10) & Ku. Basanti
(PW-11) have not supported the case of the prosecution and they
have not seen the incident, therefore, the statement of Kartik (PW-
4) also cannot be believed to hold that it is the appellant who has
Cr.A.No.1187/2013
committed the murder of deceased Budhwari Bai. As such, there is
no ocular evidence available on record.
14. Now, axe has been recovered though not on the basis of
memorandum statement but on being produced by the appellant
and it was sent to FSL, however, the FSL report has not been
brought on record whether it was stained with human blood or not.
In that view of the matter, in light of the decision of the Supreme
Court in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and
another1, in absence of proof of human blood on the recovered
article, it cannot be held that the recovery is of any use to the
prosecution and there is no such evidence on record. As such, the
prosecution has failed to prove by ocular or circumstantial evidence
that it is the appellant who is the author of the crime and
accordingly, we extend him the benefit of doubt.
15. Consequently, we set aside the conviction so recorded and the
sentences so awarded by the trial Court to the appellant vide the
impugned judgment dated 20-9-2013. The appellant is acquitted of
the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. He is in jail. He be
released forthwith, if his detention is not required in any other
offence.
16. The appeal stands allowed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Rakesh Mohan Pandey)
Judge Judge
Soma
1 (2019) 7 SCC 781
