APPELLANT: HIGHCOURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR Acquittal Appeal No.13 of 2011 Likhan Singh Paikra, S/o Chhatar Singh Paikra, aged about 36 years, R/o Village and Post Mitthu Nawagaron, Tahsil Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.)' RESPONDENTS: Versus 1. Kailash Singti, aged about 40 years S/o Bodhan Singh ^aikra, R/o Village Mitthu, Nawagaon, Chowki Belgahna, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) 2. State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Chowki Belgahna, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (C.G.) {Acquittal appeal under Section 372 of Code of Criminal Procedure} Present: Mr. P.P. Sahu with Mr. Aditya Kumar, counsel forthe appellant. Mr. Vinod Shrivastava, Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent No.2. Dfvision Bench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma and Hon'ble WIr.-R.C.Jhanwar.JJ * ORAL JUDGMENT (5-4-2011) . T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. By this appeal under proviso to Section 372 of the CrPC, the appellanV complainant has challenged legality and proprietyof the judgment of acquittal dated 18-8-2010 passed by the 5 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.72/2010, whereby learned Additional Sessibns Judge has acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 6f the charge under Sections 302 & 201 ofthe IPC. 2. This acquittal appeal has been filed after 228 days of its limitation. 3. Heard on I.A.No.1 for condonation of delay in filing the acquittal appeal; 4. On due consideration, we are satisfied that the appellant has been able to explain the delay in filing the appeal. Consequently, I.A.No.1 is allowed. Delay in filing the appeal is hereby condoned. 5. Also heard on admission. x-^^h^ ^y' x 6. Perused the judgment of acquittal and record of the trial Court. 7. As per case of the prosecution, respondent No.1 has committed homicidal death amounting to murder of Chatar Singh on 25-9-2009 between 6 and 7 p.m. and the incident has been witnessed by Jailal (PW-2) - nephew of ChatarSingh, but he has not lodged FIR or has not informed the police. The police has recorded the statement of Jailal (PW-2) for the first time on 16-1-2010 vide Ex.P-5 and his evidence under Section 164 of the CrPC has been recordedon 22-1-2010 vide Ex. P-6. finally charge sheet was filed before the competent court. After providing oppori:unity of hearing to the parties, learned Additional Sessions Judge has disbelieved the evidence of Jailal (PW-2) and acquitted the accused/respondent No.1 herein videjudgment dated 18-8- 2010 passed in S.T.No.72/2010. 8. Learned counsel for the appellantsubmits that evidence of Jailal (PW-2) is trustworthy and inspires confidence. Jailal (PW-2) is natural witness, he was under pressure and threat and, therefore, he has not stated the fact to the police or to any other person, his evidence cannot be discarded only on the ground that his statement has been recorded after lapse of three months. ^ 9.0n the otherhand, learned State counsel opposed the appeal. 10.1n the present case, oral and documentary evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is sufficient for drawing inference that Chatar Singh has been killed by some person and death of Chatar Singh was homicidal in nature. In order to connect the accused with the crime in question the prosecution has examined Jailal. (PW-2). As per his evidence, he has witnessed the incident, but subsequently he has been threatened by the accused and, therefore, he has not informed the police or any person and finally his statement was recorded by the police on 16-1-2010 after lapse of more than three months. In para 8-of his cross- examination he has specifically admittedlhat at the time of incident there was; darkness and nothing was visible, but he was in position to identify the deceased, who had gone from his house for ease and the appellant. As per para 8 of his cross-examination, after the incident he immediately rushed to his house. Evidence of this witness, without going into its evidentiary value and reliability, reveals that the accused/respondent No.1 has notseen this witness at the place of ihcident or the accused t:^ ^ ^f has not noticed that this witness or any other personis also present on the spot. In these circumstances, there was no occasion or propriety for the accused to threat this witness, even if it is believed that the accused has threatened this witness and, therefore, this witness has not informed about the incident to any person, it would be difficult for the police to point out to this witness that he has seen the incident in absence of any other circumstances that too after lapse of more than three months. 11.1n order to prove the guilt of charge of murder against the accused/ respondent No.1, the prosecution was under obligation to prove the fact that the accused has committed homicidal death of the deceased and burden is heavy upon the prosecution. Evidence of Jailal (PW-2) is full of contradictions and omissions and is unnatural. ,lt is self-contradietory, it does not inspire confidence and is not trustworthy. The trial Court has rightly disbelieved the evidence of this witness. On close scrutiny of evidence of this witness, we are unable to disagree with the view taken by the trial Court. 12.Consequently, we do not find any ground for interference in the judgment impugned. The appeal deserves to be dismissed and it is hereby dismi^sed, at the admission stage itself. — ss^'- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- R.L. Jhanwar Judge