G \ HON’ @2) HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CORAM: Hon’ble ShriRa'eev Gu ta C.J. & Hon’ble Shri Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. G Crini'inal Aggeal No. 312 of 1994 Sukhdev and others Vs. The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now ’State of Chhattisgarh) JUDGMENT 7 For consideration Sd/- Sunil Kumar Sinha Judge 77 T ” L L 3LE SHRI JUSTICE RAJEEV GUPTA cn'xdi W‘tc? ‘ t . a V ' /- /JJ ,./ Post for Judgment : j Io4/2o11 / »/ 1/; 'L/ / _ sol— _ Kumar smha Judge / \Vr HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR i D.B.: HON’BLE SHRI RAJEEV GUPTA, C.J. & HON’BLE SHRI SUNIL KUMAR SINHA, J. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.312 of 1994 CRIMINAL APPEAL UNDER SECTION 374 OF THE CODE OF CRIMINAL PROCEDURE A V _A_gpearance Mr. Yogeshwar : Sharma, Advocate for the appeiiants Mr. J.A. Lohani, Panel Lawyer for the State. ~ - JUDGMENT e ( 1. .o4.2o11) Following judgment of the Sunil Kumar Sinha, J. e1 Court was delivered by (1) This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 4‘“ of March, 19.94 passed in’ S.T. No.3§§/90 by the Third Additional Judge to the Court of Sessions Judge, Bilaspur. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted under Section 302/34 IPC (in two counts) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life (in two counts) with further direction to run the sentences concurrently. h i APPELLANTs 1 Sukhdev son of Nanhe ‘ r Soara aged about 48 years 2 Mohanlal son of Jhari Soara, aged about 45 years (dead) x (Name deleted) 2 Santosh Son of Balde Soara V V4; aged about 24 years 3 Malookchand son of g ‘ Sukhdev Soara age'd about ‘ 2O years ’ AII residents of village Sakrali, P.S. Dabhr’a District Bilaspur Versus RESPONDENT The State of Madhya Pradesh (Now State ‘ of Chhattisgarh) 2 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.312 of 1994 Mg (2) Appellant No.2—Mohanlal died during the pendency of the appeal, therefore, his name has been deleted from the cause title of the appeal and the appeal filed on behalf of appellant No.2 stood abated on ' 23.06.2010. ‘ (3) .The facts, briefly stated, are as under : There are two deceased persons namely Jagdeo and Hari. Hari was son of Jagdeo. The case of the prosecution is that on ‘ 06.09.90, at about 4:00 p.m., the deceased persons had gone for ‘ harvesting Urad of their tield. They did not return in the night. In the next morning, a search was made and dead bodies of the deceased persons were found in their field. They had sustained . multiple injuries. The First Information report (EXP/1) was lodged by Village Kptar Ghurau (PW-1). Admittedly, there were 'no eyewitnesses to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The circumstances which were 1 pressed into motion by the prosecution were that the appellants were seen going towards the field of the deceased persons on 06.09.90, in the evening, just after the deceased persons had gone to their held; and blood stained Lathi, Kharda and Tangia were seized at the instance of the appellants. The learned Sessions Judge held that they were sufficient circumstances against the appellants to hold them guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 IPC (in two counts) G (4) Mr. Yogeshwar Sharma, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellants, argued that the above circumstances were not fully established. Even if they were held to be established, they were not sufficient to hold the appellants guilty of the aforesaid offence, therefore, ”the conviction based on th‘eabove circumstances cannot be sustained. 9 (5) 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. t. l ¥ CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.312 of 1994 (6) We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length and have also perused the records of the Sessions Case. (7) ‘ Admittedly, there were no eyewitnesses in this case and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. (8) i In Dhananioz Chhatteriee —Vs- State of W.B, (19942 2 SCC 22 the Supreme Court held “ln a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not C, .onlyi t‘o‘ be fully established but also that all the circumstances so t, ; established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the .guilt of the accused. Those circumstances should not be dapable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. lt needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely indignation of the court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care taken to scrutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof.” (9) r In Bodh Rai alias Bodha and others —vs- State of Jammu and Kashmir AIR 2002 SC 3164, the Supreme Court laid down that there is no doubt that conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence but the conditions precedent before conviction could be based on circumstantial evidence, rffust be fully established. They are: é‘ G 1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned ‘must' or ‘should’ and not ‘may’ be established; \ l 4 CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.312 of 1994 2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they shouid not be expiainabie on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; 3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature a and tendency; 4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis l except the one to be proved; and there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the $5) accused and must show that in all human H. ‘ probability the act must have been done by the accused. £ . (1 0) "Ramla Bai (PW—2), wife of deceased — Jagdeo, deposed that on the fateful day, in the evening, the accused persons had gone towards their field, after the deceased persons had left for the field. She deposed that she cannot tell as to where the accused persons had gone. However, she further uttered that the accused persons had gone towards their field, where, her husband and son had already gone. Ganeshram (PW-3) is / another son of deceased-Jagdeo. He also deposed in similar fashion. He deposed that he had seen the accused persons going towards Tikra (their field), They were carrying Lathi, Kharda (agricultura equipment) and Tangia. He admitted in the cross—examination that while going towards Tikra, there are tields of other persons also. (11) We note that Lathi, Tangia and Kharda are common articles, which _ are normally carried by thej\villagers in the village and nothing can be attributed to the accused persons only on the ground that they were carrying those articles while goingl towards Tikra. lt also comes in v evidence that there were many other fields towards Tikra. Merely on the t fact that the accused persons had gone towards Tikra at about 4-4:35 : \(J ék p.m, it cannot be presumed that either they had gone to. the tieid of the deceased persons or they had attacked the deceased persons and caused the injuries sustained by them. (1 2) ‘ We further note that the above articles were seized at the instance of thie accused persons by recording their memorandum statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and were sent for their chemical examination. The FSL report is EXP/29. According to the FSL report, bloodstajns were found on the above articles, but there is no report relating to the origin or group of bloodstains found on the articles allegediyaseized from the possession of the accused persons at their instance. Therefore: the solitary circumstanceof said recovery of blood stainjed agricultural articles, in absence of proof of grigin and group of blood, would hardly be incriminating in this matter when there were no other circumstances suggesting the involvement of the accused persons in crime in question. (13) In a case 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 onlyjtowards 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 forethe belief consistent with the innocenceof the accused. That is what the Supreme Court said in many cases including the two cases supra. (14) in light of the above facts and circumstances of the case, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the appellants on the above set of circumstantial evidence. CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.312 6f 1994 Q Q} i 6 CRIMINAL APPEAL N0.312 of 1994 (15) For the foregoing reasons, the appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the appellants under Section 302/34 IPC are set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charges framed against G them. ‘ l / \ 2 l sd/- c g v § Sd/- Chief Justice r ' A“; VSunil Kumar Sinha H * ' L ‘ Judge /.: r/ -L /