1<S t HJGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR D.B.: HON'BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON'BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. APPELLANT CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.802/1994 Laldevram S/o Punairam Caste Uraon, Age 21 years, R/o Hajari Toli Badakaronja Hal Mukam Jakba Thana Jashpurnagar (M.P.) (Now C.G.) RESPONDENT Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh), Through Police Station Jashpurnagar CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374(2) OF THE CODE OF CRIIWINAL PROCEDURE Appearance: Mr. Abhay Tiwari Advocate for the appellant. Mr. Sudhir Bajpayee, Dy. Government Advocate for the State. JUDGMENT (Z*2..03.2011) The following judgment of the Court was delivered by Syml Kumar Sinha, J. ] i iilA (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 18.04.1994 passed in S.T. No.75/93 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpurnagar. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 & 201 I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and R.l. for 1 year. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under: Deceased - Fulmani was missing since 31.05.1992. On 02.06.1992, the villagers found one sari and lungi from a well belonging to Bajranath. Thereafter, the dead body of deceased - Fulmani was found in another well. The prosecution came with the case that deceased - Fulmani and the appellant, developed svmsi n )ii»sis'«t CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.802/1994 illicit relations. The appellant was aggrieved, because the marriage of Fulmani was settled with some other person. Therefore, the appellant committed murder of the deceased and threw her dead body inside the well. The matter was reported to Police by Shankarram (PW-1), brother of the deceased, on which, a First Information Report (Ex.-P/1) was registered. The Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notice to the Panchas and prepared inquest (Ex.P/2) on the body of the deceased. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to Primary Health Centre, Jashpurnagar. The postmortem examination was conducted by a team of two Doctors including Dr. (Smt.) Lata Goyal (PW-12). They found multiple lacerated wounds on various parts of the body including skull. On internal examination, they found sub-dural haemorrhage and opined that the deceased died on account of antimortem injuries sustained by her and the death was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex.-P/11. In further investigation, the appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex.P/3) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and some stones were seized at the instance of the appellant vide seizure memo -Ex.P/4. Theseized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (F.S.L.), from where; a report (Ex.-P/17) was received. According to F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on various articles including the lungi seized from the well of Bajranath along with the sar; of the deceased. (3) Admittedly, there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The learned Sessions Judge held that the appellant was in love with the deceased; he was unhappy, because, he wanted to marry the deceased, but the marriage of the deceased was settled with some other person; the appellant had threatened the family members of the deceased; lungi of the appellant was found in the well of Bajranath / \ CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.802/1994 along with the sari of the deceased; there were blood stains on the above lungi of the deceased; two witnesses namely Lojhoram (PW-9) and Dubraj (PW-10) had seen the accused washing the blood stains near the well; therefore, the above circumstances were sufficient to hold that the appellant committed murder of the deceased and he was liable for punishment under the aforementioned Sections of IPC. (4)' Mr. Abhay Tiwari, leamed counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, argued that the circumstances set-forth by the prosecution were not fully proved. He also argued that even if the above circumstances are held to be proved, they do not point towards the guilt of the appellant, therefore, the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained. (5) On the other hand, Mr. Sudhir Bajpayee, learned Dy. Government Advocate appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported thejudgment passed by the Sessions Court. (6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Sessions Case. (7) In acase 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 conclusive nature and tendency. They must point only towards 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. That is what the CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.802/1994 ^ 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 reasonable doubt. (8) The Sessions Court has held that the lung\ of the appellant was found in the well of Bajranath along with the sari of the deceased, therefore, it was a incriminating circumstance against the appellant. We find that there is no evidence to hold that the lungi, which was found in the well along with the sari of the deceased, was belonging to the appellant. There is no identification of the said lung\ during the courseof investigation. Even the said lungi was not produced as an article before the Court. Therefore, the seizure of the said /ung/ from the well cannot be attributed to the appellant. Moreover, lungi is a common article, which almost every villager use to wear. In absence of any proof that the lungi was belonging to the appellant, nothing can be presumed from its mere seizure along with the sari of the deceased from the well of Bajranath. (9) Though the prosecution came with the case that the appellant was threatening the family members of the deceased to kill the deceased, but we do not find sufficient evidence to this effect. It was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts that the appellant used to threaten the family members of the deceased. The above piece of evidence, therefore, was also not incriminating the appellant. (10) As far as evidence of Lojhoram (PW-9) and Dubraj (PW-10) is concerned, Lojhoram (PW-9) deposed in examination-in-chief that on Monday, in the morning hours, when, he went near the well of Dinbandhu, he saw the appellant washing the blood stains near the i .1] •r!^lii! ; i: CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.802/1994 well. He had seen the bloodstains. In cross-examination, he admitted that he could not see as to who was the boy washing the bloodstains. According to his evidence, the identity of the person washing the bloodstains was not established. He also admitted in the cross- examination that the villagers used to wash fleshes of pigs near the said well. Dubraj (PW-10) deposed that he was also accompanying Lojhoram (PW-9), when he had gone to the well. They had seen a boy washing the blood stains. He identified the appellant in the Court.In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not tell the whereabouts of the boy to Police. They had not seen the boy earlier tp the said date. He further admitted that on the preceding night of the said day, heavy rains have taken place. On appreciation of the evidence ofthese two witnesses, it was not estabtished that they had seen the appellant near the well on the said day. Moreover, it was a well where the villagers usually used to wash fleshes of pigs. Therefore, this circumstance was also not proved and it cannot be said to be incriminating against the appellant. (11) On due appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, we are of the view that none of the circumstances were fully established. The alleged circumstances were not of conclusive nature and tendency and they do not point towards the guilt of the appellant. This is not a case in which the chain of circumstantial evidence was so complete and has not left any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the appellant. (12) In the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellant on the above set of circumstantial evidence. ^ ^ ^ w '^ CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.802/1994 (13) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellant under Sections 302 & 201 IPC are set-aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. The appellant was arrested on 08.06.1992 and was released on bail on 16.12.1998. Presently, he is on bail. His bail bonds Sd/- Chief Justice shyna are cancelled and surety stands dischargecL Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge L-— ^ ^ L. '^