Chattisgarh High Court
Smt. Vishakha Ratre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025
1
Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2025.04.29
18:16:08
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
ACQA No. 52 of 2017
Judgment Reserved on 23.04.2025
Judgment Delivered on 29.04.2025
• Smt. Vishakha Ratre, Widow of Late Paras Ram Ratre, aged 28 Years,
Occupation House Wife, R/o Village Jalgarh, Police Station Sariya,
Tehsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
...Appellant/Victim
versus
1. State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Raigarh, District
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh.
2. Raju Ratre, S/o Budhu Ratre, aged about 21 Years,
3. Styanand Alias Kekru Ratre, S/o Fakir Ratre, aged about 20 Years,
Both respondent Nos. 2 & 3 are R/o Village Jalgarh, Police Station
Sariya, Tehsil Baramkela, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh., District :
Raigarh, Chhattisgarh
... Respondents
For Appellant : Mr. S.N. Nande and Mr. Ashish Pandey,
Advocates.
For Respondent No.1 : Mr. Ruhul Ameen, Panel Lawyer.
For Respondent Nos. 2 & 3 : Mr. Shashwat Mishra, Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
C A V Judgment
Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.
1. This acquittal appeal preferred by the Appellant/victim arises out of the
judgment dated 30.09.2016 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge,
Sarangarh, District Raigarh, C.G. in Sessions Trial No.33/2015, whereby
the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2
& 3 herein of the charge under Section 302 read with 34 of Indian Penal
Code (for short 'IPC') on the basis of benefit of doubt.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.09.2015, PW-1 Jeetram
Ratre lodged an oral report at Police Station Sariya stating therein that
on 02.09.2015, after having dinner, his brother- Parasram Ratre
(hereinafter called as 'deceased') along with his family members went to
sleep and on the next morning at around 5:00 am, his mother/PW-5
Sushila Ratre, based on the information given by PW-3 Vishakha Ratre,
told him about the deceased being left the house at 9:00 pm and did not
return. After that, he started searching the deceased and at 5:30 am, he
came to know from (PW-7) Hemkumar Ratre that one dead body was
lying near Dabri pond, upon which, he along with PW-7 Hemkumar went
over there and saw the dead body of deceased-Parasram Ratre and
found several grievous injuries over the dead body of deceased which
were caused by a sharp edged weapon. On the basis of oral report
given by PW-1 Jeetram Ratre, FIR (Ex.P-1) was registered against the
unknown person. After that, merg intimation vide Ex.P-3 was recorded
and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body of
the deceased was sent for postmortem examination where PW-8
Dr. Rajendra Prasad Patel conducted the postmortem examination and
gave his report vide Ex.P-16. According to him (PW-8) cause of death of
deceased was asphyxia due to lacerated wound, fracture of trachea and
fracture of left carotid artery and left jugular vein and mode of death of
deceased was homicidal in nature.
3. During investigation, accused persons were taken into custody vide
Exs.P-12 & P-13. Vide Ex.P-8, memorandum statement of accused-
Styanand Alias Kekru Ratre was recorded, pursuant to which, one iron
Kattha, blood like stained clothes and one micromax mobile phone were
siezed vide Ex.P-9. However, no memorandum statement of accused-
Raju Ratre was recorded, but vide Ex.P-10, his half T-shirt was seized.
Vide Ex.P-11, underwear of deceased- Parasram Ratre was seized.
Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per
FSL report vide Ex.P-21, human blood has been found on the articles 'A
(piece of concrete), D (handkerchief), E (Kattha) & I (underwear of
deceased)'.
4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded and the learned trial Court
framed charge against the accused persons/respondents No.2 & 3 for
the offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC. The accused
persons/respondents No.2 & 3 abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.
5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many
as 11 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 21 documents
connecting the respondents No.2 & 3 / accused persons to the crime in
question. However, in their defence, respondents No.2 & 3 /accused
persons have examined none, but exhibited two documents i.e. Exs. D-
1 and D-2.
6. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the
evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused
persons/respondents No. 2 & 3 herein of said charge leveled against
them.
7. Learned counsel for the Appellant/victim would submit that the trial Court
has erred in acquitting the accused persons/respondents No.2 & 3
herein of said charge by recording perverse findings. He would further
submit that PW-3 Vishakha Ratre, wife of the deceased, has specifically
stated that on the date of incident, accused persons called the deceased
over mobile phone and at their behest, deceased left the house and it is
the accused persons who committed the murder of the deceased, but
the trial Court did not consider her statement and acquitted the accused
persons/respondents No.2 & 3, which is per se illegal and contrary to
law. He would also submit that pursuant to the memorandum statement
of accused- Styanand Alias Kekru, one iron Kattha was seized wherein
human blood has been found as per FSL report. He would also submit
that if human blood found on the seized Kattha is not matched with that
of deceased, even then from the other evidence available on record, it is
proved that the accused persons are the authors of the crime in
question. He would also submit that in this case, no proper investigation
has been conducted by the Investigating Officer (PW-10 S.R. Rana) to
connect the accused persons with the alleged crime. Thus, the
impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality,
therefore, the same is liable to be set aside. Reliance has been placed
upon the decisions of Supreme Court in the matters of Gura Singh vs
State of Rajasthan reported in (2001) 2 SCC 205 and Jagroop Singh vs
State of Punjab reported in (2012) 11 SCC 768.
8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the accused
persons/respondents No.2 & 3 would support the impugned judgment
and submit that there is no iota of evidence available on record to show
that at the time of incident, deceased was seen lastly in the company of
the accused persons. He would further submit that there are material
contradictions and omissions in the statement of PW-3 Vishakha Ratre
and her statement does not corroborate with other prosecution
witnesses and that, there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record
to show the complicity of the respondent Nos.2 & 3 in the crime in
question. Therefore, the appeal filed by the appellant/victim be
dismissed. Reliance has been place upon the decision of Supreme
Court in the matter of Sujit Biswas vs State of Assam reported in (2013)
12 SCC 406.
9. Counsel for the respondent No.1/State would support the contentions
made by learned counsel for the appellant.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
11. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of
Kerala reported in (2022) 8 SCC 440 has considered the scope of
interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-
25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by
invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to
consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a
possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been
analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to
the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused.
Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in
reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal.
Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does
not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double
presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be
disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal
parameters."
12. Now, the question is whether the trial Court is justified in acquitting the
accused persons/respondent Nos.2 & 3 of the aforesaid offences?
13. Case of the prosecution is not based on direct evidence, but it is based
on circumstantial evidence. The five golden principles to constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have
been narrated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1 , in which it was
observed in paragraph 153 as under :-
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following
conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be
said to be fully established :
(1)the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be
drawn should be fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be'
established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
distinction between 'may be proved' and "must be or should be
proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v.
State of Maharashtra2 where the following observations were
made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]
Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must
be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and
the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and
divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2)the facts so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not
be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is
guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and
tendency,
(4)they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to
be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any
reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of
the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must
have been done by the accused."
14. In this regard, statement of PW-3 Vishakha Ratre, wife of the deceased
is significant. She has stated in her deposition that on the date of incident
i.e. 02.09.2015, after having dinner, she along with deceased and
children was sleeping in the house and at same time, her husband /
deceased received a phone call and on being asked, he told her that he
received call from accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 & 3 and thereafter,
her husband / deceased left the home. She has further stated that on the
next morning at 5 'O' clock, she informed her mother-in-law (PW-5) about
her husband / deceased leaving the house at 9:00 pm and did not return,
2 (1973) 2 SCC 793
then she (PW-5) informed her younger son (PW-1) Jeetram Ratre, but
this witness (PW-3) has not stated to PW-5 Sushila Ratre that accused
persons called the deceased over his mobile phone and he went to meet
them. Furthermore, PW-1 Jeetram Ratre has also stated that her mother
(PW-5) did not inform her that at 9:00 pm, after receiving phone call from
accused- Raju Ratre, deceased had gone to meet him. That apart,
contents of FIR (Ex.P-1) do not show that the deceased received any
phone call from the accused persons. Thus, from perusal of above
evidence, it is quite vivid that there are material inconsistencies in the
statements of PW-3 Vishakha Ratre, PW-5 Sushila Ratre and PW-1
Jeetram Ratre and their evidence does not corroborate with each other
and contents of FIR (Ex.P-1). Moreover, in cross-examination, PW-3
Vishakha Ratre herself admitted that on the date of incident, deceased
did not inform her as to where he was going. This apart, there is no
cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that on the date of
incident, accused persons called the deceased over his mobile phone
and he went to meet them and also there is nothing on record to show
that deceased was seen lastly in the company of the accused persons.
The last seen theory is a significant circumstance in cases based on
circumstantial evidence, but it must be supported by credible and reliable
evidence. However, in this case, no witness has testified to have seen the
deceased with the accused persons when he left his home at 9:30 pm.
15. Besides above evidence, if the statement of PW-3 Vishakha Ratre is
considered that while leaving the house, her husband/deceased took the
mobile bearing No.963048xxxx along with him, then in that view of the
matter, it is necessary for the prosecution to prove the said mobile
number belonged to the deceased, but the prosecution has neither seized
the mobile set of the deceased nor its SIM card and in this regard, not
even explanation has been given by the prosecution as to why the mobile
set of the deceased and its SIM card have not been seized, whereas a
duty was cast upon the prosecution to seize the mobile set and its SIM
card. Moreover, PW-11 Surendra Singh Porte, Constable No.625
admitted that on the instructions of the Officer In-charge, the work related
to call details is done and further admitted that Officer In-charge did not
give him any such instruction to submit call details. It is also admitted by
him that no certificate has been prepared with his signature or with the
signature of Department Official with respect to take out call details. He
further admitted that there is no endorsement or mention about call
details prepared by him nor he is able to state as to whose name the
mobile number mentioned in Ex.P-18 belonged to. It is also admitted by
him that in Ex.P-18, there is no mention of which mobile number was
used to call from which location. He also admitted that there is no date
and signature of the employee who mentioned in call details (Ex.P-18) by
ink pen in parts 4 & 2. He also admitted that whatever call details
submitted by him, can be extracted from any computer. He also admitted
that Additional Superintendent of Police, Raigarh did not give him any
instruction with respect to submission of call details.
This apart, PW-10 S.R. Rana, Investigating Officer, although
admitted that vide Ex.P-9, he seized one micro-max mobile phone, but he
did not investigate about the registration and user of said mobile phone. It
is also admitted by him that by whom and on which date, the call details
were obtained by him, has not been mentioned in this case. It is also
admitted by him that call details submitted by him do not have the
signature and seal of any Authorized Company Officer or Employee. He
also admitted that no document was submitted by him to show that call
details were issued by the Crime Branch and also did not investigate
about the call details took place between deceased and accused persons
during period from 25.08.2015 to 03.09.2015. It is also admitted by him
that he has not inquired into the matter whether the mobile number
(834910xxxx) of the accused- Styanand mentioned in Ex.P-18 was used
for conversation with deceased on 02.09.2015 at 20:52 hours.
16. A perusal of above evidence would show that although it appears that a
conversation has taken place from the said mobile numbers, but in this
case, indisputably call details are not proved nor it is proved that said
mobile number (963048xxxx) belongs to the deceased and it is also not
proved that the SIM card or mobile set of the said number has been
seized from the accused persons from the place of incident. It is also
clear from the evidence that PW-10 S.R. Rana, Investigating Officer, did
not investigate about the registration and user of said mobile number nor
has inquired about the call details between deceased and accused
persons properly. In this way, the prosecution has not been able to prove
that on the date of incident, the deceased was called by the accused
persons over mobile phone to meet them. Even in FIR (Ex.P-1) the fact
that deceased was called by the accused persons over mobile is not
mentioned. Had PW-1 Jeetram Ratre known the fact that the deceased
received phone call from the accused persons and deceased went to
meet them, then definitely the same would have been mentioned in the
FIR (Ex.P-1).
17. This apart, pursuant to the memorandum statement of accused-
Styanand @ Kekru Ratre, iron Kattha and blood stained clothes have
been seized and as per FSL report, human blood has been found on the
seized articles, but it has not been proved by the prosecution nor any
document has been brought on record by it to show that the human blood
found on the seized articles is matched with the blood group of deceased.
This apart, PW-10 S.R. Rana, I.O. also admitted in his cross-examination
that in FSL report (Ex.P-21), no result has been mentioned about the
presence or absence of deceased's blood group on the articles sent for
chemical examination nor there has been mention about the blood group
of accused persons. It is pertinent to mention her that mere presence of
human blood, without confirmation that it belongs to the deceased,
cannot be considered as incriminating circumstance. Furthermore, PW-2
Mahesh Ram Ratre, witness to memorandum (Ex.P-8) and seizure
(Ex.P-9) admitted that all the documents have been prepared by the
police at police station and on their instruction, he made his signature
over the documents at police station, which also makes the seizure
proceedings doubtful. This apart, another witness to memorandum and
seizure namely Lochan Malach has also not been examined by the
prosecution for the reasons best known to it. If the case of the
prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire case of the
prosecution was made on the basis of mere suspicion, but, suspicion,
however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof.
18. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of Sujit Biswas (supra)
has held in para 13 which reads as under:-
"13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the
place of proof and there is a large difference between
something that "may be" proved, and something that "will
be proved". In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how
strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of
proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance
between `may be' and `must be' is quite large, and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal
case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures
or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large
distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, must
be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable
evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused
is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule
must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the
distance between `may be' true and `must be' true, the
court must maintain the vital distance between mere
conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the
touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a
complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features
of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the
evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that
miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and
circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of
doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a
reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely
probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason
and common sense as held in by the Supreme Court in the
matter of Sujit Biswas (supra).
19. In the matter of Kali Ram vs State of H.P. 3, the Supreme Court has held
in para 25 which reads as under:-
"25.Another golden thread which runs through the web of
the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two
views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case,
one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his
innocence, the view which is favorable to the accused
should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in
cases where the guilt of the accused is sought to be
established by circumstantial evidence."
20. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by
the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the
prosecution, came to the conclusion that there is no cogent and clinching
evidence on record to show that accused persons are the perpetrators of
the crime in question and further held that the prosecution has failed to
prove that there was any motive of the accused persons to commit
murder of deceased and that there was any previous enmity between
them, as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondent Nos.2 & 3 of
3 (1973) 2 SCC 808
the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has
failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Having gone through
the judgments relied upon by learned counsel for the appellant and the
principles of law laid down therein, in the given facts and circumstances
of the present case, the aforesaid judgments, being distinguishable on
facts, are of no help to the counsel for the appellant.
21. After considering the material available on record as well as the
elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court and also keeping
in view the law laid down by the Supreme Court in aforesaid matters, we
are of considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the five
golden principles to constitute the 'panchsheel' of the proof of a case
based on circumstantial evidence, as laid down by their Lordships of the
Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) and
the judgment impugned acquitting the accused persons / respondent
Nos. 2 & 3 herein of the said charge is just and proper and does not call
for any interference.
22. Accordingly, this appeal by the appellant/victim against the acquittal of
the accused persons / respondent Nos. 2 & 3 herein of the aforesaid
charge is hereby dismissed.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Radhakishan Agrawal)
Judge Judge
Akhilesh
