HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH.BILASPUR ^ff' APPELLANTS: (In Jail) RESPONDENT: Criminal Appeal No.147 of 1993 1. Hinchha Ram S/o Arjun Lodhi aged about 35years. 2. Suresh S/o Kanhaiya Lodhi aged about 20 years. 3. Narottam Kumar S/o Bahore Singh Lodhi aged about 17 years. All the resident of Gram Bidbida Police Station Pathariya Distt. Bilaspur (M.P.) (now C.G.) Versus The State of M.P. (now C.G.) through police station Pathariya Distt. Bilaspur. {Criminal appeal under SeGtion 374 (2) ofthe Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973} Present: Mr. V.C. Ottalwar with Mr. Ajay Mishra, counsel for the appellant. Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Govt. Advocate for the State/respondent. DivisionBench: - Hon'ble Mr. T.P. Sharma^& Hon'ble Mr. N.K. Aaarwal. JJ ORAL JUDGMENT (22-2-2010) T.P. Sharma, J: - 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction & order of sentence dated 17-2-1993 passed by the 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Link Court Mungeli, in Sessions Trial No.16/91, whereby & whereunder learned Additional Sessions Judge after holding the appellants guilty for commission of culpable homicide amounting to murder of Hridayram, convicted the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life. 2. Conviction is impugned on the ground that without any iota of evidence, especially evidence to connect the appellants with the crime in question, BIBHUTI PRASAD Digitally signed by BIBHUTI PRASAD Date: 2025.02.06 13:09:09 +0530 •^&^. the trial Court has convicted & sentenced the appellants as aforementioned and thereby committed illegality. 3. According to the case of the prosecution, the appellants were having enmity with Hridayram (since deceased). On 22-10-1989 the dead body of Hridayram was found in some nala. Mehtarin Bai (PW-2) - Kotwar lodged report vide Ex.P-4 and merg was also recorded vide Ex.P-21. The Investigating Officer left for the scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-16, inquest over the dead body of Hridayram was prepared vide Ex.P-17. Dead body of Hridayram was sent for autopsy to Government hlospital, Patharia vide Ex.P-1 and autopsy was conducted by Dr. Suresh Jain (PW-1) vide Ex.P-2 who found following injuries: - (1) Incised wound over right side of neck, ear was found cut, size 2" x Y2"x3". (2) Incised wound over left side of neck, ear was found cut and separated, size 3"x 1" x 1 1/4". (3) Incised wound over left side of face, size 2" x 1/i" x 1/2". (4) Incised wound over upper part of head, size 1" x 1^" x1/4". (5) Incised wound over right parietal region obliquely placed, size 1 1/2" X V2" X 1/4". (6) Incised wound over back side of head. (7) Incised wound over thigh, size 2" x %" x 1/4". (8) Incised wound over abdomen, intestine, omentum came out, size 3"x 1" x 2 y/ on left and 3" x 1"x 1" on right. (9) Incised wound over right side of abdomen, size 3" x 1/4" x 1/4". (lo)lncised wound over right side of abdomen, size 2" x VA" x 1/4". (ii)lncised wound over left side ofabdomen, size 1" x %" x 1/4". (i2)lncised wound over scrotum, size 1" x 1/2" x skin deep. (i3)Abrasion over right side of back of 3" x 1" area. (i4)Bruise over right elbowjoint of 3" x 2" area. (15)Dlna bone was fractured. (i6)Abdominal aortas were cut. (17)Membrane of intestine was cut. ^ Injuries were ante-mortem and mode of death was shock. @ 4. During the course of investigation, the appellants were taken into custody. Appellant Hinchha Ram made discloser statement of axe vide Ex. P-6 and the same was recovered at the instance of Hinchha Ram vide Ex. P-7. Appellant Narottam made discloser statement of stick vide Ex. P-8 and the same was recovered at the instance of Narottam vide Ex. P-9. Appellant Suresh made discloser statement of broken bottle vide Ex. P-10 and the same was recovered at the instance of Suresh vide Ex.P-11. Blood stained clothes of Hinchha Ram, Suresh & Narottam were seized vide Exs.P-12, 13 & 14. After cutting nails of appellant Hinchha Ram, same were seized vide Ex.P-15. Blood stained & plain soil, broken piece of bottle and one old plastic shoe were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-18. One plastic shoe, broken piece of bottle, bloodstained and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-19. Clothes of the deceased after autopsy were recovered vide Ex. P-20. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination and presence of blood over axe, broken piece of bottle and clothes of the deceased were confirmed vide Ex.P-22. Presence of human blood was also confirmed over the aforesaid articles vide Ex. P-23. 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bilaspur, from where learned 4 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, Link Court Mungeli, received the case on transfer for trial. 6. In order to prove the guilt of the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses. The accused were examined I ^"^, ^r^^ ^ i-0 underSection 313 ofthe Cr.P.C. in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and false implication. 7. After appreciating the evidence available on record, learned Additional Sessions Judge convicted & sentenced the appellants in the aforesaid manner. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the judgment impugned and record ofthe trialCourt. 9. Mr. V.C. Ottalwar, learned counsel for the appetlants, vehemently argued that the case is based on circumstantial evidence of possession of incriminating articles, blood stained clothes and presence of human blood on weapons and clothes ofthe appellants. Learned counsel baldly argued that if the appellants admit conscious possession of weapons & clothes stained with human blood, same would not be sufficient for drawing inference that the appellants have committee the murder of Hridayram. It may be the case that they have committed the murder of any other person and in absence of any connecting evidence, conviction & sentences imposed upon the appellants would not be legally possible. 10.0n the other hand, Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Deputy Govt. Advocate appearing on behalf of the State/respondent, opposed the appeal and submitted that the circumstances proved against the appellants are sufficient for drawing inference that the appellants were the persons who have committed the aforesaid offence. 11.1n order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behatf of the parties, we have examined the evidence available on record. 12.1n the present case, homicidal death of Hridayram as a result of ante- mortem fatal injuries has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants, otherwise established by the evidence of Dr. Suresh Jain @ (PW-1) & autopsy report Ex.P-2 which reveal that about twenty injuries were found over the body ofthe deceased, the deceased died as a result offatal injuries sustained by him and death was homicidal in nature. 13.As regards complicity ofthe appellants in the crime in question, the case is based on circumstantial evidence of conscious possession of weapons of offence and clothes of the appellant stained with human blood. A.R. Bairagi (PW-7) has deposed in his evidence that he has taken the appellants into custody and interrogated them, they have made discloser statementsof axe, bottle & stick vide Exs.P-6, P-8 & P-10 and axe, stick & broken bottle have been recovered from them vide Exs.P-7, P-9 & P- 11. Clothes of the appellants were also seized vide Exs.P-12, 13 & P- 14, same were sent for chemical examination and presence of blood & human blood was confirmed over the said articles vide F.S.L. report Ex.P-22 & Serologist report Ex.P-23. The evidence ofA.R. Bairagi (PW- 7) is corroborated by the evidence of Jagatram Sahu (PW-3). 14.1f the evidence of both these witnesses are relied upon, it may be inferred that the appellants were in possession of blood stained clothes stained with human blood, axe, stick & broken piece of bottle stained with human blood. But possession of these articles itself is not sufficient to connect the appellants with the crime in question. This is not the case where the weapons have been identified by the witnesses that at the time of commission of offence somebody has used these weapons or at the time of causing death they were wearing these clothes. In absence of any evidence to connect these articles with the crime in question, it is difficult to hold that only on the basis of possession of aforesaid articles or recovery of articles at the instance of the appellants, the appellants are the persons who have committed the culpable homicide amounting to murder of Hridayram. Suspicion howsoever grave cannot take the Soma place ofevidence. In the present case, the prosecution has not adduced sufficient evidence to connect the appellants with the crime in question. 15-Learned Additional Sessions Judge has convicted & sentenced the appellants only on the ground of recovery of incriminating articles which was not sufficient for drawing inference of commission of murder against the appellants. On close scrutiny of the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution, we are of the view that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is not sufficient for drawing inference against the appellants that the appellants havecommitted the murder of Hridayram. 16.Consequently, the appeal is allowed. Conviction & sentence of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the I.P.C. are hereby set-aside and they are acquitted of the said charge. The appellants are^n bail, they need not surrender to their bail bonds. Sd/- T.P. Sharma Judge Sd/- N.K. Agarwal Judge