HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR ^ ^'m ""^1 D.B.: HON»BLESHRI R^JEBV GUPTA, C.J. & HON*BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Criminal Apoeal No. 314 of 1993 Vedrani alias Vedu & Others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) & (And connected Criminal Appeal No. 486 of 1993) JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON*BLE SHRI JUSTICB RAJEBV GUPTA ^ ^^^.^^ Sd/- Chief Justice Post for Judgment : /^J 01/2011 Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha judge BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.06 11:49:09 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: HON*BLB SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON»BLESHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA. J. Criminal Aooeal No. 314 of 1993 APPELLANTS RESPONDBNT 1 Vedram alias Vedu son of Dulari Satnami, aged 27 years 2 Jhanglu son of Asharam Satnami, aged 24 years 3 Prabhudayal son of Dulari Satnami, aged 37 years 4 Sukh Chand son of Dulari Satnami, aged 32 years 5 Ramu son of Lalu Satnami, aged 30 years All cultivators and residents of village Gogiya, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara, Disti^ct Raipur Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) And Criminal Aooeal No. 486 of 1993 APPELLANTS 1. Mohan alias Dherha son of Maharaji Satnami, aged 30 years 2. Kejram, son Pila Satnami, aged 24 years 3. Gangu alias Jantu, son of Amar Singh Satnami, aged 29 years 4 Ram Khilawan, son of Phool Singh Satnami, aged 24 years 5 Shankar, son of Kapru Satnami, aged 27 years Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 \^ RESPONDENT 6 Chovarara, son of Adhari Satiiami, aged 30 years 7 Pheru, son of Maharajee Satnami, aged 32 years 8 Pila, son of Amar Singh Satnami, aged 39 years (Dead-Name deleted) 9 Phuhuwa, son of Amar Singh Satnami, aged 29 years All residents of village Gogiya, Police Station . Bhatapara (Gramin), Tahsil Bhatapara, District Raipur, M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) Versus The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) APPEALS UNDER SECTION 374 (2t OF THB CODE OF CmMINAL PROCEDURE Appearance : ^ Mr. Ashok Swarnakar, Advocate for the appellants. Mr. Jaineel Akhtar Lohani, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT (4.01.2011) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Sunil Kumar Sinha, J: (1) These appeals have been directed against the judgment dated 22nd of Febmaiy, 1993 passed in Sessions Trial No. 294/90 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazaar, District Raipur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted u/ss 148 8& 302/149 IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 3 years and imprisonment for life with direction to run the sentences concurrently. Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 (2) Appellant- Pila died during the pendency of the appeal. Therefore, his name has been deleted from the cause-title of Cr.A. No. 486/1993 and the appeal filed ori behalf of appellant-Pila stands abated. (3) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- 15 accused persons were tried for the offence punishable u/ss 148 Ss 302/149 IPC. The caseof the prosecution is that on 20.4.90 at about 0.30 hours, the accused persons formed an unlawful assembly, participated in rioting with deadly weapons and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly, committed murder of deceased- Babudas Kotwar. In the intervening night of 19th & 20th April, 1990, a marriage ceremony was being performed in the house ofFaguvaram in village Gogiya. The accused persons were present in the marriage ceremony. House of Shishram (PW-1) is situated by the side of the house of Faguvaram. Somebody spelt stones on the house of Shishram. One stone hit the child of Shishram, on which, Rajkumari (PW-4 - wife of Shishram) came out from the house and started abusing on this account. By the way, Babudas Kotwar (since deceased) also reached there. They saw that all the 15 accused persons were sitting on a Choura (platform) in front of the house of Faguvaram. Babudas Kotwar asked the accused persons as to why they are harassing like this? On this, the accused persons denied to throw stones on the house of Shishram. Babudas Kotwar insisted them to tell the name who threw the stone, and threatened that if the name is not told, he will lodge the report in police station. The accused persons opposed the above act of deceased- Babudas Kotwar. Thereafter Babudas went to his house, wom his kotwari-dress, came back to the house of Shishram (PW-1) and took him to lodge the report. Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 The allegations are that when they reached to the outer area of the village, all the 15 accused persons came there. Jesiu-am was armed with barchi and other accused persons .f.»:. • - ••^' were armed with lathis. They assaulfed the deceased by said weapons. The deceasedreceived multiple injuries and succumbed to those injuries. Shishram immediately rushed to the police station and lodge the First Information Repot (Ex.-P/l) at about 2.15 hours. The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.-P/19) on the body of the ». deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for post- ^ inortem. to Cominunily Health Centre, Bhatapara, where the post-mortem examinationwas conducted by Dr. A.D. Purena (PW-5). He found various lacerated wounds on the body of the deceased. On intemal examination, he found that the brain was ruptured; there was a fracture on the 6th right rib; there was a laceration of 10 cm x 4 cm x 2 cm on the liver; and there was also a fracture on the radius bone of right hand. He opined that the cause of death was syncope due to injury to the brain and it was homicidal in nature. The post- mortem report is Ex.-P/2. During the course of investigation, various articles, including ?at/iis & barchi, were seized at the instances of the appellants and were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, from where, a report (Ex.-P/53) was received. According to the F.S.L. report blood stains were found on barchi & lafhi said to be seized from the possession of accused Jesuram and Ram Khilawan. However, no report relating to the origin and the group of the blood stains could be filed. The case of the prosecution is based on the eye- witness account of Shishram (PW-1), Anant Kumar (PW-2) and Chatur Singh (PW-3). The leamed Sessions Judge relied on the testimonies of these witnesses and held that all the Criminal Apoeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 accused persons were members of the unlawful assembly; they participated in rioting with deadly weapons; and in furtherance of the common object of the said assembly committed miirder of deceased- Babudas Kotwar in the above manner. Therefore, all were convicted and sentenced as aforementioned. Out of 15 accused persons, 14 are before us, whereas accused Jesuram filed a separate appeal bearing Criminal Appeal No. 140/1994, which was dismissed as abated on 20.10.2010 on account of death of sole appellant- Jesuram. (4) Mr. Ashok Swamakar, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that Shishram (PW-1) is the brother-in- law (sala) of the deceased and Chatur Singh (PW-3) is father-in- law of the deceased, therefore, they are interested witnesses. Their conduct would show that they were not reliable witnesses and looking to the history of existing party-bandi in the village, the appellants have been falsely implicated by them. About Anant Kumar (PW-2), he argued that he appears to be a got-up witiiess and his version is quite unnatural. Apart from the above, he also argued that there are many material discrepancies in the evidence of this witness and there is discrepancy in the evidence of above eye-witnesses and medical evidence. Therefore, the conviction based on the testimonies of these witaaesses cannot be sustained. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, leamed Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 (6) We have heard the leamed counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the sessions case. ^. . . ' (7) So far as arguments relating to relative/interested witnesses are concemed, in Harbans Kaur and another -Vs- State of Har^ana, 2005 AIR SCW 2074, the Supreme Court held that there is no proposition in law that relatives are to be treated as untruthful witnesses. On the contrary, reason has to be shown when a plea of partiality is raised to show that the witnesses had reason to shield the actual culprit and falsely implicate the accused. (8) In Namdeo -Vs- State of Maharcishtra. 2007 AIR SCW 1835, the Supreme Court held that a witness who is a relative of deceased or victim of the crime cannot be characterized as Interested'. The term 'interested' postulates that the witness has soine direct or indirect 'interest' in having the accused somehow or other convicted due to animus or for some other oblique motive. The Supreme Court also observed that a close relative cannot be characterized as an 'interested' witness. He is a 'natural' witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the 'sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject his evidence. On the contrary close relative of the deceased would Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one. (9) In Sonelat-Vs- State of M.P., 2008 A[R SCW 7988, the Supreme Court again said that merely because the eye witnesses are family members their evidence cannot be per-se discarded. Relationship is not a factor to affect credibility of a witness. It is more often than not that a relation would not conceal actual culprit and make allegations against an innocent person. Foundation has to be laid if plea of false implication is made. Ir such cases, the Court has to adopt a careful approach and analyse evidence to find out whether it is cogent and credible. (10) In Dhamidhar -Vs- State of Uttar Pradesh and Others & other connected anveals. (2010) 7 SCC 759, the Supreme Court further reiterated that there is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before court. The Supremi Court held that a close relative of deceased does not, per-se, become an interested witiiess. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before court only with that intention and not to further cause ofjustice. However, version of interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same. When their statements find corroboration by other witnesses, expert evidence and circumstances of case clearly depict completion of chain of Criminal Aopeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 evidence pointing out guilt of accused, then statements of so- called "interested witnesses" can be relied upon by court. ^' (11) Therefore, this argument cannot find favour that the testimonies of relative witnesses cannot be relied on, only on the ground that they were the relatives of the deceased. However their evidence is to be scrutinized with due care and caution and if their evidence is found credible in appreciation, the conviction can well be based on their such testimonies. (12) Shishram (PW-1) is brother-in-law (sala] of deceased- Babudas. His house is situated near the house of Babudas. Babudas was the Kotwar of village since last 15 years. Shishram (PW-1) deposed that when stones were thrown on his house, his wife Rajkumari (PW-4) went out from the house and started abusing on that account. According to him some hot exchanges took place between accused Jesuram, Pila 85 Vedram @ Vedu on the one hand and Rajkumari (PW-4) on the other hand. They were also abusing Rajkumari and were saying to send hun (Shishram- PW-1) out. It is at this stage Babudas Kotwar came there. Some hot exchanges took place between deceased- Babudas and the accused persons and thereafter the deceased said him to lodge report. After this he accompanied the deceased and they started for going to police station Bhatapara, When they reached near the tank, which is in the outer area of the village, he stopped for urination and deceased- Babudas went to a distance of 30-40 steps ahead. It is at this time, all the accused persons came there, fr Criminal Aopeals No.314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 stopped the deceased and assaulted him by lathis, stones & barchi. According to him accused Jesuram was holding the barchi and other accused persons were holding lathis. In the cross- examination, it was asked as to whether 50-60 lathi blows hit on the person of the deceased, on which, he answered that multiple lathi blows hit the deceased. The deceased was assaiilted by stones also and Jesuram assaulted the deceased by barchi. He further admitted that repeated blows were given by lathi, barchi & stones. He hidden himself in the bushes present near the place of occurrence and he was frightened. Though he witiiessed the incident for half an hour, but he did not raise hue and cry. Even he did not try to protect the deceased. He mentioned in his evidence that he did not see Anant Kumar (PW-2) coming towards the place of occurrence because he was hidden in the bushes. However he added that he heard that Jesu and Pila were sa}dng somebody as to why you have come to die? He cannot say that to whoni they were saying like that. We further note that even after witnessing such an incident, Shishram (PW-1) did not tory to take the deceased to the village. Even he did not go to village to call other persons for help. On the confa-ary he left the dead body on the road and went to the police station. The evidence of Shishram (PW-1) is not corroborated by the niedical evidence, inasmuch as no incised wound or pierced wound (caused by fcarchi) were foimd on the body of the deceased. Shishram has given specific evidence thaf repeated barchi blows hit on the body of the deceased. This 10 Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 appears to be material discrepancy in the evidence of Shishram (PW-1) and the medical evidence of Dr. A.D. Purena (PW-5). (13) Chatur Singh (PW-3) is father'-ih-law of deceased- Babudas. He was permanently residing with Babudas. He deposed that on ^v':t. the fateful night at about 10.00 p.m. Babudas wore kotwari-dress and went for patrolling in the village. After about one hour, the accused persons came from towards their house and they also went towards the same side where deceased-Babudas had gone. He also followe.d them. After sometime, he heard the cries of deceased-Babudas and saw that the accused persons were assaulting him by bolder, stones & lathis. Accused- Jesu was armed with barchi. He saw the incident from a distance of 50 feet. According to him Babudas died on the place of occurrence. He went back to his house and slept in the night. He admitted in the cross-examination that there is party-bandi in village Gogiya. Accused persons are the members of one party and he is member of the other party which belongs to Kashiram. According to him, the accused persons left the place of occurrence after the assault was over. Even after the accused persons left the place of occurrence, he did not go to see Babudas. He did not make any hue and cry at the time of occurrence. Even he did not disclose the incident in the village in the night. Accordmg to his evidence, he was fully dependant on deceased- Babudas and was permanently residing with him since long back. The above conduct of this witness makes his evidence highly suspicious. The Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 father-in-law would never leave injured/dead son-in-law on the road for whole night and will never go and sleep in his house without hue and cry and without making any complaint to the villagers. If the accused persons had left the place of occurrence as stated by him, he would have gone to see the deceased and would have tried to rescue him. According to the prosecution, Babudas, after hot exchanges with the accused persons, had retumed to his house and after wearing kotwari-dress he left the vUlage for going to police station, whereas according to Chatur Singh (PW-3), he was ah-eady wearing kotwari-dress and he had gone in the village for patrolling. Why he will follow the Kotwar when he is going for patrolling in the night. Besides the above Rajkumari (PW-4) admitted in her cross-examination that Chatur ft/ciS Singh (PW-3),not present in the village on the date of incident as he had, gone to village Sonbarsha. All this make the evidence of PW-3 - Chatur Singh highly suspicious. Shishrani (PW-1) and Chatur Singh (PW-3) are close relatives of the deceased. Th< history is that there was a party-bandi in the village. There are material discrepancies in the evidence of Shishram (PW-1), Chatur Singh (PW-3) and the medical evidence of Dr. A.D. Purena (PW-5). The evidence of Shishram (PW-1) and Chatur Singh (PW-3) are also contradictory on many points. On a close scrutiny of the evidence of above two relative witnesses, we are of the opinion that it was not safe to rely on their testimonies and the leamed Sessions Judge erred in law in relying on their testimonies for resting the conviction of the appellants. 12 Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 (14) Anant Kumar (PW-2) deposed that "On the fateful night at about 11-12 when he came out from his house for urination, he heard some noise of beating by lathis and stones. He went towards the side of noise and saw that all the 15 accused persons were assaulting deceased- Babudas- Kotwar. Jesuram was carrying barchi and other accused persons were carrying lathis and stones. He went to the accused persons and asked them as to why they are assaiilting the Kotwar? On this, accused- Jesuram, PUa, Punva and Vedram abused him and said him to go away. Thereafter he went and slept in his house. In the morning, he again went to the place of the occurrence and saw that Kotwar- Babudas was lying in dead condition. There were many pierced wounds on his body which were caused by barchi. There were many injuries of lathis. The testicles of Babudas were removed and they were put in his hands". Anant Kuinar (PW-2) has been examined as an independent witness. His testimony appears to be highly doubtful. According to medical evidence we do not find that the testicles of the deceased were removed. We also do not find any injury on the body of the deceased which could have been caused by barchi. According to Anant Kumar (PW-2), he had talked with the accused persons as he protested that whythey are assaulting the Kotwar, whereas Shishram (PW-1) never deposed that he saw Anant Kumar (PW-2) at the place of occurrence and he also saw him talked with the accused persons. Moreover, even after seeing such an incident, Anant Kumar (PW-2) simply went to his house and slept in the night. On appreciation of his entire Criminal Appeals No. 314 of 1993 & 486 of 1993 evidence in light of medical evidence and evidence of Shishrani (PW-1), we do not find his evidence to be trustworthy. (15) On a close scrutiny of the evidence of two relative witiiesses i.e. Shishram (PW-1 - brother-in-law of the deceased), Chatur Singh (PW-3 - father-in-law of the deceased) and Anant Kumar (PW-2), who has been examined as an independent witness, we find that their testimonies are not reliable and the conviction based on their such testiinonies cannot be sustained. I. is an admitted position that there was a. party-bandi in the village and both the groups belong to different parties, therefore, a possibility offalse implication cannot be fully ruled out in the matter. (16) For the foregoing reasons, the appeals are allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants u/ss 148 & 302/149 IPC are set-aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges fraraed against them.It is stated that the appellants are on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. Sd/- Chief Justice Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge vatti