% HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hon'ble Shri Raieev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil Kuniar Sinha, J. Criminal Aopeal No. 1085 of 1989 Sampat Singh Vs. State ofMadhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA i^sy Post for Judgment :/^/07/|2010 Sd/- y^/oTTaoio HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH. BILASPUR CORAM: Hpn'ble ShnJRajeev Gupta, C.J. & Hon'ble Shri Sunil KuniarSinha, J. A^ APPELLANT RESPONDENT Criminal Appeal No. 1085 of 1989 Sampat Singh S/o Sonsaya Kawar, aged 30 years, Agriculturist, R/o Singrauli, Police Station Janakpur, District Surguja (M.P.) (Now C.G.) Versus State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State of Chhattisgarh) (Criminal Appeal under Section 374 (2) ofThe Codeof Criminal Procedure, 1973) Appearance: Ms. Sudha Agrawal, Advocate for the appellant. Mr. J.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyer for the State. JUDGMENT ( ff.07.2010} Following judgment of the Courf was delivered by Sunil Kuniar Sinha, J. (1) Appellant- Sampat Singh stands convicted u/s 302 IPC and senfenced to undergo imprisonment for life, by the Additional Sessions Judge, Shadol (Camp Vyohari) in Sessions Trial No. 16/89 on 23r<1 ofOctober, 1989. (2) The facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Deceased-Ramkaran was the brother of Harilal (PW-1). On 31.10.88 at about 7.30 a.m., fhe deceased was working in his field. Harilal (PW-1) was also working in his field near the field offhe deceased which was at a distance of 100-125 yards. He heard the cries of deceased, reached to his field and saw that the deceased was being assaulted by a tangia. Criminal Appeal No. 1085 of 1989 :i-^ f -:i^ •s' Aecording to the First Information Report (Ex.-P/l), promptly lodged by Harilal at about 11.55 a.m. on the same day, it was Dauwa (PW-9) who has coramitted the murder of the deeeased. Harilal categorically mentioned in the F.I.R. that he saw that his brother was lying on the field and Dauwa was assaulting his brother by lathi. During the course of investigation, statement of Dauwa (Ex.-D/2) was recorded. He clainied to be the eye-witness of the incident and stated that, in fact, the deceased was assaulted by appellant- Sampat Singh. The police after corapletion of investigation exonerated Dauwa (PW-9) and filed the charge- sheet against appellant Sampat Singh. The case of the prosecution was based on the testimonies of 2 eye-witnesses namely Harilal (PW-1) and Dauwa (PW-9). The learned Sessions Judge believed the testiraonies of these eye- witnesses and held that it was the appellant who committed the murder of deceased-Ramkaran on 31.10.88. ^^ 1~->' (3) Ms. Sudha Agrawal, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, has not disputed the homicidal death of the deceased. She argued that the version of both the eye-witnesses were i.inreliable; the initial case of prosecution was that the deceased was assaulted by Dauwa (PW-9); however, for the reasons best known to the prosecution, Dauwa was exonerated and on the strength of evidence of Dauwa (PW-9), the appellant has been convicted. (4) On the other hand, Mr. J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court. ^: i4:' Criminal Appeal No. 1085 of 1989 'Sa.--- (5) We have heard the learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records ofthe sessions case. (6) Harildl (PW-1) is the real brother of the deceased. He deposed that "On the fateful day, at about 7.00 a.m., he was working in his Eeld. His brother Ramkaran (since deceased) was also working in his field which was situated at a distance of 125 yards from his field. After hearing commotion, when he reached to the field of Ramkaran, he saw that one person was assaulting his brother by a tangia. He could not identify the assailant. When he made hue and cry, the assailant ran away towards the village . Harilal was declared hostile by the Public Prosecutor. In the cross- examination, he admitted that while lodging the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/l), he had mentioned the name of Dauwa Kanwar. However, he coulcl not explain the discrepancies in his court evidence and the F.I.R. promptly lodged by him in which Dauwa (PW-9) was named as assailant of his brother. Therefore, he does not appear to be reliable and his evidence was ofno use for the prosecution. (7) Dauwa (PW-9) deposed that "On the fateful day, he had gone towards the field of Ramkaran for grazing his cattles. Moliaya came to him. He had a talked with Moliaya. He saw that appellant Sampant and Ramkaran were scuffling and Sampat was assaulting Ramkaran. Since the relations between the two were inimical, therefore, he returned to his house along with his cattles. On the way, he met Moliaya, Narvada SE Bavan. He told them that Sainpat was assaulting Ramkaran". In the cross-examination, he f€~^i ff.^>~~. l^1& '^,?'^spe;':' ^5 ^ Criminal Appeal No. 1085 of 1989 was asked as to whether he had mentioned this fact in his 161 statement (Ex.-D/2) that he told the above villagers that "wq^ •<WWUI c^ T[N ^?T ?". He stated that he had told this, but how it is not written in the statement, he can not tell the reasons for the same. In fact, it has been written in his 161 statement that when he was asked as to what is going on, he stated "WT cCTR, EfR i[ T^ te I". Therefore, the fact that he disclosed iramediately to the villagers that the deceased was assaulted by Sampat was an omission in his 161 statement as he did not disclose the villagers in the above fashion that "W^ -<wvw cpr^TR ^gr f " which does not find place in his 161 statement. In appreciation of evidence of this witness, we hold that the above omission in his 161 statement was fatal and on overall conduct of this witness his sole testimony was not reliable. (8) The First Information Report (F.I.R.) contains the first hand information in relation to a crime. It is an important document. It becomes more important when lodged by an eye-witness. In the present case, as stated above, the F.I.R. was lodged by the real brother of the deceased, who saw the incident after going to the field of the deceased. That means he saw the incident from a very short distance and there was no reason with him to falsely implicate some other person in a heinous crime like murder by taking his name in the F.I.R. by concealing the name of actual culprit. Admittedly the appellant was also the resident of same village, therefore, there was no question of mistaken identity also. €""-!- » K «t:" :v'sf: -5a-; Criminal Aroeal No. 1085 of 1989 <p (9) On appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, particularly the evidence of above 2 eye-witnesses and the contents of the F.I.R. (Ex.-P/l), the stoiy set-forth by the prosecution appears to be doubteFul and the conviction of the appellant cannot be sustained as it was not proved beyond all reasonable doubts that it was the appellant who conimitted murder of the deceased. In our considered view, in the facts ancl circurastances offhe case, the appellant was entitled to get benefit of doubt. (10) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 302 IPC are set-aside. He is acquitted of the charges framed against him. It is stafed that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged. Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 9° Vitill