,'YI""'_ ^ *' fe. ^•:'"3k. i :t't-:i-^j <^./ '•1a^B::issgi^ )U-i •'• HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha & Hon'ble Shri Radhe Shvam Sharma, 4^. Criminal Appeal No^335/1995 APPELLA.NT Vs. Reseondent Kaval aged 19 years, Son of Budhwari, Resident of Village Kothar, Police Station Piparia, Tehsil Kawardha, District Rajnandgaon (MP) State of Madhya Pradesh AND Crimina! Appeal No. 336/1995 APPELLANT Vs. Sukhnandan aged 23 years, Son of Budhwari, Resident of Village Kothar, Police Station Piparia, Tehsil Kawardha, District Rajnandgaon (MP) Respondent State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeais under Section 374(2) ofthe Cr.P.C.1 Present: Shri Alok Bakshi, counsel for the appellants. Shri Ashish Shukla, Govt. Advocate forthe State. ORAL JUDGMENT (11.05.2011) The followiiig judgmsnt of the Court was passed by Sunil Kumar S^nha,J. These appeals are ciireeted against the judgment dated 29th October, / 1994 passed in'S'essiQns Trial No. 143/93 by the Additional Sessions Judge, ^^. Khairag/Camp Kawardha. By the impugned judgment, the appellants havs been convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. •psiy SEM eiSus) pies 34} uo SU!B}S pooiq eqt o^ Buiieiejtjodej ou '}OE^U| < •uoiieuiiuexe JQJ )uss osie se/A siBus} sq} IBI)} /noqs Q) pjoosj ou SEM SJSLK ' Ajoiejoqe"] soueios oisuajoj 0} uojiEUiLuexe |eoiu]SL|o joj luss SJSM '^ ! . - saioiye jeyp qSnoqi 'pszias sem ^iBiJS) pue eggi.'^o'SZ uo psp-iossj SEM / N (Sl/d-A'3) PV 33U8PIA3 JO ^.2 uoitoss jspun 4U3iu3sl}3 tfjnpuejoiusiu siii DU5 /ipQ}Sn& 0}UI U8^S+ 3S |BAB>i 4UE||8dde 'UOitB5i+38AUj J9l|}jnj uf •£ • i./d-xg si yodej ujsyou ^sod "s-in}eu ui iBptoiaioii SBA^ 4»eeppue ssunfui sAoqe i0 lunoooe uo e6EL|jjouJ9ii leiuaioejiui, 01 enp ^OOL|S SSM yiesp ,o ssneo yeiQ psuido uosSms Asdoiny 841 'ssoei.d tiiSis Otui psjnpBJi suoq iBtriiooo pue ||n>|S p ssnssi} snosueinoqns ui punoj eje/w s)o|o -pooiq 'uoiteuiujexs |euj9}U! uo 'spuno p9)ejsoe| pue pesjoui ejsM ssunfu! 941 •psseeosp 941 jo Apoq 34} uo seunfui snouss 8]di}iniu psoiiou "H '(l-AAd) eujjeys 'X'X 'JQ ^q p8}onpuoo SBM uoiieuiuuexs Lusyouu isod •i./d-xg uoiiisinbsj epiA EI<PJEMB>| '|e}idsoH lUsuiujaAoo 0} aievoiu +30d JOJ +U9S SEM p9S8903p QIQ JO ApOq pB8Q •p9SE30Sp 31)} JO Apoq pSSp syi uo (o i,/d-X3) tssnbui psjedejd pue seyoued 94} o} (s/d-xg) soj+ou 9A5S 'souejjnsoo p eoeid 34} psqoesj jaoiyo 6u!ie6!}saAU| •y|j sq} ui pssnooe ss psiueu SBM euo ON '(9/d-x3) vodsj UOBEIUJOIUI isjy 3ii+ ps6po| oym KsgAyo^ sSeiiiA 941 pauujojui sja5e||jA "SBEIIIA Q\Q w Qoe\d usdo ue IB punoj ss/in pesesosp sq} ^o Apoq peap '£66l'WZS"O 'ssnoLj UAAO siq ui Suipisaj s5 pssEsoep ai<i pue A|9tejed9s 6uip!S3j psyEts siue||3dde sqi 'iuspiou! Sljt 0+ JOUd S41UOLU n\9j ueqio»86e||!A ui jsy-tsBo} 6uipisaj ej9M pesesoep eqi pus stueiisdde aqi J9!|J53 •3)UB|i3dde 54} p jsyiej puej6 leujaieai sem jsquiv psseaoea •sjsLjiojq |B9J SJE s}UB||9dde siji -:j3pun se sje 'peie^s Aiieuq 'spei SLJI •c /" •pssesoep-sqvo jspjniu peuiLumoo s)UEi|sdd5 sq} )Eq} pSAOjd }OU SEAft }1 '3n|EA 308J J134} IB U3>iBl SJB S30UB}3UUnQJiO 8MI il° *! U3A3 leijt psnBje JSMvnj sj-i 'pesesosp SLI} j& QWSS sq', 01 pssoons pjnOf'A AeLjl 3,5-qt pe^ aquo tunoose uo pssesoap 944 .(O jepjniu iiiuyibo 0} aAipiu BQO^S psif Aeift tB4} pies eq IOUUEO }; 'sjojajs^i 'pssesosp SL|) 1,0 sjpsssoohs jejn^eu }QU sje/n Stueiiedde eq} 'aAne osie 9jam s^ueijedde 34} p jsq^ DUe JBljplU l3}U5||3ddB SLj} JO JSljiBJ pUBj5 |EUJ9{5uJ SEAA pSSBSOSp Sljt 151)} panSjE siUE||8dde sy) JQJ Ouuesdds |esunoo psujeei 'iysijBg >j0iv uijs '9 •)uspioui e^} }Q SLUJI ey} }noqe jo (B 'suodeeM 5uiAEL) 'sousjjnooo .ic 905|d sij} spjemoi SujoS uess SJSM s}UB||sdde sij} (s) pue IpssEBoep 3ij} jo ssnoq sqt JB9U US3S 9JBM S}Ue||9ddB Sl)} iqBju 94} ui 'tuspiou! 941 ejojsg (q) 'Ayedojd ssq Suisodsip ssm ai< uay/n psseeoep SL|} q'liAA Addey 400 SJSM Asiji 'ejojejsiij. 'pesEsosp e'L|i p sjosSsoons syi SJ3 SlUB||oddB 31)1 83UIS (e) •jequuv pssesoep .10 JSpjnUi ^O UOISSIUJUJOO JOJ S}UB|]3dd3 84} p33U3}U3S pUB p8piAUOO pue uo peiiaj sSpnp suoisses psiuesi SL)} 'yo!^ uo 'ssoue^sujnojio Sl|} 3JE SU! 0||OJ •30U9PIA9 |eilU5(SLUn3J!0 uo psseq SBM uoj+nossojd siji .40 33SO 9q} pue tuepioui sqi 04 sssutjMeAs ou SEAA sjsqi'Aipsuiuipv -5 •pauojiuaLUBJoje se s}UE||sddE SMI-PSOUSIUSS pue pspinuoo pue leui s'q) pspnpuoo oqM 'E4pjBMe>| diueo/Sejieqx s6pnr suoissss |euoi}ippv Aq J3JSU5J} UO P9AIS09J S5M }! SJSynA LUOJ.I 'ynOQ SUOiSS9S peujsouoo 54} 0} -'s.ieuj 94} psniuiuioo 'ujn} ui oy/n 'eypjeMex 'sseio isjij 'siejisiSei^ lepipni-* p pnoo 84} ui p3|ij SBM issys sSjeyo 'uo!4B6i}s3AU! Suiioidiuoo jsyv 7 «i»3!irw:i!S Ipeysiiqe+se aq ,ABUJ, . . }QU pue ,pinoi|3, jo jsniu, psujeouoo seousisujnojio 9Ui •peysjiqBise Ajinj eq pinoqs UAAEJP eq 01 si t|inS jo uoisniouoo si(i qojqm IJUQJJ saoueisiunojio 9i)i (i,) :sje Asyi 'psijSiiqBtss A||ni aq isniu 'souspiAe |siluE}siunojio uo psseq sq pinoo uojpiAyoo ejo^eq ruepsoejd suoitipuoo s'qi }nq aouapiAS lenuEisuunoji.o uo Arsios psseq sq uso uoipi^upo )EL)I iqnop ou si ej34»}Eq»umop piEj ynoo siusjdns sqi 'frSl.S 08 ZSOZ yiV ^itUtise),! pyg nusiuer jo BIB?S 'SA sj3iiio-pue-Bqpoa sejlB-jea qpog U| ui. ,,-^oojd 10 8oe|d 341 SS)|B( uoiojdsns ys3\ souspiAS sqt eauiyuos 0} ue^e^ SJEO sqi ?q pinoys J3ieej6 3i|i 'siuuo sy't snoyes BJOIU uoipiAuoo ^o siSEq 341 IUJGJ ueo ynoo sq't jo uoueuBipUi Ajojeuj pu pue ssoueisiunojio psqsiiqetss A||B69| ysi^ jepuituej ou spssu u 'pasnooe eq} P 30UBOOUUI 9l|l 41.1M (Uaisisuoo jejisq SL|} joi punoj6 siqeuosesj Aue sAeej o^ pu se St8|diuoo os sq }sniu souspins SIQ p uieqo sqi pue pssnooe SL|^O ijinS eijitdeoxe sjssqiodALjjsiitoAuEAq psuieidxs 8uisq w sjqedBO sq iou pjnoi|s ssoueisiunojio ssoqi -pesnooe 341 jo iiinS sq} 'io sissijiodAq siji q}i A|UO }UStSjsuoo PUE ajnicu eAjsnjouoo e .}o sq pinoqs psqsiiqBise os ssoueisiunojio sqi |je IELI} os|e inq paLjSiiqeiss A||nj sq o} A|UO 1QU 3ABL) U EJp aq 0» Sl IjinS ? UOISn|OUOO 8L)l qoiyM LUOJI ssoueisiunojio s-q) 'souspiAS |E!}ueisuinojio uo psseq ssso e u|,, p|3ij ynoo euisjdns s^zg OOS £i^SSl.) 'issusa »s®Mjo SiStS -•sA-saiasSByo AOiueueqd u| g •3SEO SUOISS9S 9q+ JO SpJOOSJ 34} pssmsd osie sneq pue LiiSusi IE ssived eqi jo^ jesunoo psujesi pjesy SABM 8/v\ •9 '}jnOQ SUOJ3S33 sijt Aq psssed tusiu6pnf 941 payoddns pue s}usiun6je essqi pesoddo sists s4t 10 jiBijsq uo 6uyB3dde [esunoo PSUJBSJ puev jsy^o 9^4 UQ •^ (2) S'aiiS!. ieiifia..: :'3:!!':iii6'.is!S8p* (3) the facts so estabtished should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be exp'ainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they should exc!ude every possibte hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidenc.e so complete as not to ieave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show Shat in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 11. In DharindhaLVs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others and other connected matters.(2010i 7 SCC 759 the Supreme Court hetd that it is not aSways neeessa"/ f"r the pross&ution to establish a definite motive for the commissiQn of the crime-: tt will always be relatabte to the facts and circumstances of a given case. It will not be correct to say as an absolute r proposition nf !aw, that the existence of a strong or definite motive is a sine qua non to holding an accused guilty of a criminal offence. It is not correct to say that absence of motive essentially results in the acquittal of a" accused if he is otherwise foynd to be guilty. In Babu Lodhl V. State c-i' UP,(188?) 2 SCC 352 it was said that insofar as the adequacy of motive is concerned, it is not a matter which can be accurately weighed on the scale ; of a balance. ., / 12. !n the instarit case, motiye suggested was that the appellants were ''•*.- the recipients of the property of the deceased, therefore, they were not 1 happy with the conduct of the deceased while he was selling his property. it comes in the evidence that the deceased had sold his iand, therefore, the appellants were unhappyand they were opposing the sale of the property. ?;»l:!-a-e; The appellants were the maternal grand sons of the deceased. !t comes in the eyidence that daughter (mother of the appellants) and son-in-law of ihe deceased were alive. In the life time of the daughter and son-in-law of the deceased, the appellants would' hardly succeed to the property of the deceased. !n the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the view that the motive suggested by the prosecution for commissiQn of murder of the deceased by the appe!!ants was not sufficient and it was h^ incriminating against the appellants. 13. The next circumstance is that the appellants were seen.near the house of the deceased. The appellants are the maternal grand sons of the deceased. As we have already stated, earlier the appellants were residing with the deceased in the sam^ house and on!y since last few months^thsy were not residing with the' deceased. !n the above factua! scenario, if the appellants were seen near the house of the deceased, it was hardly an incriminating circumstance to draw inference that the appellants were culprits and they actually participated in the commission of murder ofv^i decessed. 14. Another circumstance on which reliance is placed is that one of th.e witness Santanath (PW-5) has deposed that he had seen the appellsnts gqing towards the house of the deceased in the fatefut night having axe ana kudali in their haads. In fact Santanath (PW-5), in the cross-examinatior] , deposed as an eyewitness and stgted that he saw that firstly Sukhnandsr! assaulted the deceased by axe (kudali) and thereafter toval also assauited him by kudali. We note that the above facts were not stated by him in his case diary statement. He was not the eyewitness according to the prosecutjQn. In.fact he was the witness of the circumstance thst he hsd ;:ft^i&.»a 8w>i!is?> seen the appeNants going towards the place of occurrence, however, '" hls court evidence, he cteimed himself to be an eyewitness and made the above statements. In the above facts and circumstances, we are of the view that he was not a reliable witness and the tearned sessions Judge hss erred in relying up on his testimony, even for the purpose to be'ieve thst he had seen the appellants going towards the place of incident having axe etc. in their hands. 15. So far as the seizure of axs at.the instance of appellant Kava! is concemed, the learned sessions Judge has not relied on the saiu »0^/^-- circumstance as the said article was/sent to the FSL for examination. •t- » 16. On due appreciation of the entire evidence avai'able on record, v/& are of the view that the abovecircumstances were not consistent on!y ".sth the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellants. The circumstances w&re expiainable. They were not of conclusive nature. Further, they do i-iCt. exc'ude every possibie hypothesis except the one to be proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubts. We are unable to sustain the conviction ofthe appellants onthe above set ofcircumstantial evidence. 17. For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are aiiowed. The cQp.yiction and sentences awarded to the appe'lants under Section 302 of the IPC are set -aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges ftarned againsl: them. It is stated ttiat the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are -.. / 3irJ cancellecf and sureties stand discharged. Sd/- ' ': Sunil KumarSinha Judge Sd/- R.S. SIiarma Judge ^