Ranjit Singh v. The State Of M.P.

NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 3174 of 1999 Ranjit Singh, S/o Mohan Singh Rajput, aged about 24 years, R/o Gatawa Talab, shanti Para, Bhilai-Hl, Distt. Durg

Versus

ad ( PS B The State Of Madhya Phr Now State Chhattisgarh) through "

, - Réspondent - P er P.Sam Kos 1/1 2/2015 1.

The present app preferred against the judgment ea_ n conviction dated 16.9.1999 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, '

Durg in Sessions Trial No.34/1 999 whereby the Appellant has been found guilty for an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for'life with fine Rs.2,000 default stipulations.

2.

The case prosecution that on 7.791998 atr around 1.45 pm, the accused went to the station Bhilai-lll have made a confession of killing his elder brother lnderjeet by strangulation using his towel.

Based on the confessional statement of the accused, the First Information Report. Exhibit P-5 was registered, wherein it was stated that in the morning of 7.7.1998, after having tea with the deceased along with two neighbours, Chabi Kumar, PW-1 and Mukes'hsEVV-6, who later ' \,,\

on left the house, the presentAppelIant is said to have used his towel and strangulated death.

The reason mentioned was that the deceased was unemployed and used to sell the household articles to make money for his personal use. The deceased was also regularly fighting with the Appellant, claiming for a share in the retiral benefits received after their father had retired used "W ith his wife.

The suspect the'Appellant of havmg an illrcrt re'la'tlonsh i b t Ody of the deceased was later on sent for pos l.

all around neck passing overjust '

thyroid cartilage 12"

x 1/2" and lN d ii re mark while glistening Ill.

s ns posterior aspect on the right The cause of death'w'as'éo'pin'ed to be asphyxia as a result of ante mortem strangulation.

3.

The matter was put trial before 5th Additional Sessions Judge and the prosecution in all'examined 11 witnesses and on the basis evidence which on record, Trial Court held Appellant guilty of having committed the murder of his elder brother and sentenced him as mentioned in the preceding paragraphs leading to the filing of the present appeal.

4.

Learned Counsel challenging conviction, submitted entire finding Trial Court based on statement made the Appellant-accused at time /

lodging First Information Report recovery towel thereafter pond.

According Learned Counsel confession totally inadmissible as extent admissibility from the confessional statement would be only that what permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The admission to the extent of his confession of committing murder of the deceased would not therwise has to be proved i on in the instant exclusively by the prosecution and which the pros has failed.

"'5.

It was further a lso would e y nNise the recover of the prosecution for the reason not in any manner streng that the towel allegedly ering the deceased was recovered d an open place pond.

There no test m identification parade eff e fact that the towel belonged to e, the Appellant himself.

m6.

Further, Learned Counsel for the Appellant also submitted that the evidence which has come Von record also do not in any manner support the case of the prosecution to establish the Appellant alone of being the assailant.

It also contended Learned Counsel only because body recovered from the house where the deceased and the Appellant were staying together, would not by itself lead to infer that it was the Appellant alone who could have killed provision Section Evidence Act would not aid prosecution.

That prosecution, ought have proved their case independently establishing the fact that all the circumstances which have

in the course of the investigation and- during evidence lead to the only conclusion it alone who killed deceased.

He further submitted that even otherwise, statement made the Appellant cannot be used against him as same would be hit by Article 23 of the Constitution of India which says that no person shall be compelled to be a witness against him. for the State-'referring to '

o t rmation Report, strongly contended case where 'l'

t station and has given '

party to the has thrown the towel which was used killing his brothL fact body was recovered from the ho lant where the deceased was also u, l o, f staying lead us to the the Appellant himself committing the said offence.

He furt ded that the time gap between Chabi n Kumar, PW-1 and Mukesh PW-6 having left the house with the Appellant and the deceased after having tea in the morning hour and the time of incident, there no possibility of some third person coming into house committing offence.

In addition immediately after offence having been committed, the Appellant reported the matter to the authorities thus, case been fully proved prosecution from the conduct of the Appellant himself thus calling for no interference of the judgment under challenge. 8.

- .

From the perusal of the record and also the evidence which has been led by the prosecution and also, on going through the findings ofthe '

Court below, it is clear that the Court below had only relied upon the First f,

Information Report which lodged on statement made by the Appetlant himself.

In addition, the Court below also relied upon the statement ofthe investigating officer B.B.S Rajput, PW-8, who has proved the First Information Report and the other documents.

The Court below did not have any other piece of evidence to substantiate the case of the prosecution.

A perusal of the inquest report showing the picture pla there more than one c entrance to the-said house and that only because body was ver d from within the house of the Appellant wh o e s also staying, it V c committed it could lead suspicion but o suspicion alone cannot oof for holding the Appellant to be r guilty of the said act, een proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evide tant case, the prosecution has failed.

9.

It is settled position'of law that suspicion howsoever strong, cannot take place of a proof to be'a base for conviction In the instant case also, except for the confessional statement that to made before is an inadmissible piece of evidence 'under Section 27 ofthe Evidence Act and beyond which there is no other evidence on the part of the prosecution to lead us to the conclusion that it was the Appellant who has committed the offence. Accordingly this Court is of the opinion that the finding so arrived Trial Court not in accordance with law therefore not sustainable and is based on inadmissible piece of evidence to convict the Appellant only on the basis of suspicion.

10.

The impugned order accordingly is -set éside and the Appéllant stands acquitted charges leveled against-him.

The Appeal stands allowed subject conditions enumerated under Section 437-A Cr.P.C.

"

\ \ Sd/- Sd/- p. 3am Koshy Priya Chief Justice Judge / l