^. -^^T^T HIGH COURT OFCHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR D.B.: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Criminal Aopeal No. 128 of 1994 Sanni @ Satyanarayan Vs. • State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- ,,inarSinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA ^^/^^-^- ~ ~^5 Sd/- ChiefJustice -*». Post for Judgment : ^/OS,/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge t.-'^' g t^ HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR aiB'""' D.B.: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. SB HON'BLE^SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. CriminaLApaealJto.J.28^»f1994 APPELLANT RESPONDENT Sanni @ Satyanarayan, S/o Sukhram Bhagat, Caste- Uraon, Aged 21 years, R/o Ranpur, P.S. Jashpurnagar, District Raigarh, M.P. (Now District Jashpur, C.G.) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) Through Police Station Jashpurnagar APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 121 OF THECODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE Appearance : Mr. Abhay Tiwari,Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (2.02.2011) Following judgment -of the Court was delivered by Stinil Kumar Sinha, J: "^. (1) This /fa.ppeal is directed against the judgment dated 13th of August, 1993 passed fak. Sessions Trial No. 110/92 by the . Additional . Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and / sentenced to-undergo imprisonment for life. . :^ i ^s. i \UJ Cnmisal App_eal No, 128 of 1994 (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased- Jaibeer and the appellant were friends. They were residents oi-village Ranpur. The case of the prosecution is that on 9.3.92, they came to visit the house of Thuinyaram (PW-7) ih village F'urnanagar. Thuinyaram (PW- 7) was their brofher-in-law (Ji/a) in village relations. Thuinyaram (PW-7), his wife Pati Bai (PW-10) took the appellant to visit the hous.e of Nankuram (PW-2). The deceased remained in the house of Thuinyaram. Thuinyaram, his wife and the appellant consumed liquor in the house of Nankuram (PW-2). Thereafter the appeUant alone left the house of Nankuram saying that he is going for urination. When he did not return for a long ti.me, Thuinyaram and his wife returned to their house and found that the deceased was lying dead in their house. There were many injuries on his body. Thuinyaram. (PW-7) lodged the Pirst Information Report (Ex.-P/12). In the said report, he raised suspicion against the appellant. The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/6) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post- mortem to Civil Hosptital, Jashpum'agar, where the post- mortem exammation was conducted by Dr. S.K. Shrivastava (PW-12). He found many incised wounds on the body of the deceased and opined that the deceased died of haemorrhage and shock due to incised wounds. The death was homicidal in nature. The post-mortem report is Ex.-P/16. In further invest^gation, the appellant was taken into custody on * 10.3.92 and his memorandum statement u/s 27 of the •^s. Evidence Act (Ex.-P/7) was recorded and a tangia was seized at fhe .instance of the appeUant vide seizure memo Ex.-P/S. Cloths of the appellant were also seized vide seizure rnemo Ex.-P/9. .The seized articles were sent for their chemical , • :examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.j, Sagar, Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1994 from where, a report (Ex.-P/lS) was received. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on the tangia and the cloths of the appellant. However, no report relating to the origin and the group of the blood etc. was filed by the prosecution. (3) Admittedly, there were no eye-witnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on the circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge mainly relied on two circumstances. Fu-st, the appellant absconded from the house of Nankuram (PW-2) and he was not traceable till he was taken into custody for recording his memorandum statement; and second, blood stained tangia was seized at the instance of the appellant. (4) Mr. Abhay Tiwari, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that even if the above circumstances are held to be proved, they may raise strong suspicion against the appellant, but the suspicion cannot take the place of proof. He also argued that the prosecution has not provedoyeven proposed^the 'motive' for commission of murder of the deceased by the appeUant which was important in the facts and circumstances ofthe case. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer appe'aring on behalfofthe State, opposed these arguments arid supported the judgmetrt passed by the Sessions Court. 1 • . ' "--: (6) We have heard the leamed counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. Baa;S18;if swm Criminal Aooeal No. 128 of 1994 (7) In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have to be fully established and all the circumstances so established should be of jconclusive nature and tendency. They must point only towacds the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should not be capable of being explained and the chain of the circumstantial evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. This is what the Supreme Court said in many cases. Therefore, we ought to be satisfied that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies leave no option but to hold that the crime imputed to the appellant has been established beyond a'reasonable doubt. (8) The first circumstance is relating to the conduct of the appellant. It comes in the evidence of Thuinyaram (PW-7) and Pati Bai (PW-10) that the appellant accompanied them to the house of Nankuram. (PW-2), where they consumed liquor and thereafter the appellant left the house of Nankuram (PW-2) saying that he is going for urination and he did not return back. In Thimma -Vs- The State of Mysore, AIR 1971 SC 1871. the Supreme Court held tha^ /liough the conduct of accused in absconding immediately after the osfrurrence of the offence is relevant evidence,'as indicating to some extent his guilty mind, it is not cpnclusive of that fact because even innocent person when suspected may be tempted to such conduct to avoid arrest. ia;3!() ^ Criminal Aooeal No. 128 of 1994 Further in Rashubir Sinah -Vs- The State of U.P; AIR 1971 SC 2156, the Supreme Court held that the act of absconding, even if proved, is normally considered a some-what weak link in the chain of circumstances utilized for establishing the guilt of an accused person. In case .on hand, we do not find any evidence even t6 indicate that the appellant returned to the house of Thuinyaram (PW-7) from the house of Nankuram (PW-2). The prosecution has examined one Belo @ Belwati (PW-8) who simply deposed that she had seen a person going away from the place of occurrence along with a bag. It has not been established as to what was the time when she saw the said person. Whether by that time the incident hsid already taken place or incident had not at all taken place. Moreover; she did not identify that, in fact, he was the appellant whom she saw going along with bag. There may be many reasons for the appellant for going from the house of Nankuram (PW-2) or Thuinyaram (PW-7), but on the above conduct of the appeUant, it cannot be held that he committed murder of the deceased and thereafter he absconded from the place of occurrence. (9) So far as sei2n-ire of blood stained tangia is concerned, that •itself would/hot be an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. The tangia wassaseized from the room where the dead body was lying. It does not appear th'at it was in hidden condition. On appreciatioil of the evidence, it appears that it was simply visible to all. Therefore, it cannot be said that the seizure of tangia -\ CrimiaalAouealNo. 128 of 1994 was made at the instance of the appellant. Even otherwise also, when the origin and the group of blood found on the tangia or the cloths were not proved, they would hardly be the incriminating circumstances against -the appellant in the facts and circumstances of the case. (10) We note that the prosecution has not at all even proposed any 'motive' for the appellant to commit murder of the deceased. The settled principle of law is that when there is sufficient direct evidence regarding the commission of the offence, the question of motive will not loom large in the mind of the court. However, in cases which are entirely or mainly based upon and rest on circumstantial evidence, motive can have greater relevancy or significance. (Please see - Prem. Kum.ar and Another -Vs- State ofBihar, 11995) 3 SCC 228 and Babu Lodhi and Others -Vs- State ofU.P., (1987) 2 SCC 352}. In the present case, there were no eye-witnesses and the case of fhe prosecution was entirely based on eircumstairtial evidence. Therefore, the motive would have significance. The prosecution has even not suggested any motive, which was fatal for 'the prosecution in the present facts and circumstances ofthe case. ./ (11) For fhe foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the «*. oonviction of the appellant. The prosecution has utterly failed to proye guilt ofc the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts. The learned .Sessions Judge fell into error while convicting the i.appellant u/s 302 IPC on the above sets of circumstantial ^ /^^. f! i^~- \ &. '\ Criminal Appeal No. 128 of 1994 vatti ^<^*feF;; evidence, which were not sufficient to hold him guilty of the said offence. M'»:9 (12) Therefore, we allow this appeal and set-aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 302 IPC. The appeUant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appellant was taken into custody on 10.3.92 and was released on bail on 24.1.2003. Presently he is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. Sd/- ChiefJustice Sd/- SunilKumarSinha Judge •*>».