By means of this appeal, the accused appellant has assailed the correctness of the judgment and order of the High Court dated 06.04.2015 passed by a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2010 titled Statrughan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, whereby the conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code and the sentence to undergo life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/- passed by the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Dist.Raipur in Sessions Trial No.41 of 2009 has been affirmed. The appellant is in jail and has already undergone almost 15 years incarceration.
Section 313 Cr.P.C
30. In the examination under section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure3, the entire evidence against the appellant was put to him which he has denied. He however, stated that he was doing his duty as Chowkidar in the Forest Department and on account of personal enmity he had been falsely implicated. He also states that he wants to examine Forest Range Officer Mr. Sinha and one Mr. Rajendra Thakur. However, no evidence was led on behalf of the defence.
31. The first question to be considered is as to whether any of the eye-witnesses had actually seen the occurrence of the appellant assaulting the deceased. The answer is ‘no’.
32. Following are the reasons for the above conclusion:
a) According to the informant (PW-1), he was the first person to arrive at the site along with his wife upon hearing the cry for help from the deceased that Shatrughan was assaulting him with a tabbal. When he reached the site he saw that the deceased was lying on the road and the appellant was moving towards his house on a cycle along with tabbal. This is the FIR version.
b) In his deposition PW 1 states that when he rushed to the place of occurrence, he saw the accused running away and the tabbal was lying there. The deceased had fallen unconscious and there was deep cut on his neck with blood flowing from the injury. Upon his call, the other neighbours and his daughter all came out from their houses.
c) PW-14 who has stated that PW-1 only informed him that Jagat (deceased) had been assaulted and had been taken to the hospital. PW-1 did not inform PW-14 that it was the appellant who had assaulted. PW-14 states that it was later on that Lakhan and Laxman who informed about the appellant assaulting the deceased. The other eye-witnesses whose testimonies have already been narrated above have not stated that they saw the appellant assaulting the deceased.
d) PW-2 is the wife of PW-1, PW-3 is the widow of the deceased, PW-4 is daughter of PW-1, are the other witnesses who reached the place of occurrence. None of them have stated that they have seen the appellant assaulting the deceased.
e) Thus, the only evidence is of PW-1 stating that the appellant was running away from the place of occurrence when he reached there. He has himself stated that the deceased was already unconscious as such was not in a condition to speak.
f) There is one more aspect to be considered as to whether the cry given by the deceased could have been made as stated. Normally in villages nobody takes the name of elders and especially their uncles. PW 1 Vijay Kumar is the uncle (father’s brother) of the deceased. Under normal course the deceased would have called kaka only and would not take his name to say that ‘kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan is assaulting me with a tabbal’.
g) In the First Information Report it is stated that when PW 1 came out he saw Shatrughan running towards his house on a cycle along with tabbal but in the deposition before the Trial Court it is stated that when he reached the place of occurrence the appellant was running and the tabbal was lying there and then he states that the deceased had only shouted that the appellant is assaulting him.
h) Another aspect to be considered is whether after receiving the said injury the deceased could have shouted and if he had shouted before being assaulted then the situation would have been different. It would have been a one to one and he could have resisted the assault. The fact is there is only one injury on the neck.
Material contradictions
33. In view of the above, the prosecution story as set out does not appear to be a probable story and the supporting evidence led during trial of the witnesses of fact also does not inspire confidence. Rather there are material contradictions.
35. From the above narration of the evidence and analysis, it is evident that the testimony of PW 1 was not reliable and could not have formed the basis of conviction. Apparently, he was influenced by Sarpanch Khemraj whose active participation in the proceedings subsequent to the incident cannot be ruled out. The medical evidence did not support the prosecution case as the weapon of assault could not have caused injury on the deceased as noticed in the post-mortem report. There was no motive as to why the appellant would commit the murder of an acquaintance and a friend for no reason. The defence version that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and could have tripped and fallen on a sharp object resulting into the ante-mortem injury reported in the post-mortem was quite possible. The same is clearly borne out from the record. The explanation for delayed lodging of the FIR is not satisfactory.
36. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution had failed to establish the charge.
37. For all the reasons explained above, the appellant would be entitled to acquittal. The appeal is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence of the appellant are set aside. He is acquitted of all 35 the charges. The appellant is in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. 38. Pending applications are disposed of.\
Appeal Acquitted.
Party
SHATRUGHAN vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH – CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.437 OF 2016 – JULY 20, 2023.
https://main.sci.gov.in/supremecourt/2015/15420/15420_2015_12_1501_45213_Judgement_20-Jul-2023.pdf
Shatrughan vs. The State of Chhattisgarh
