Ram Chanran @ Charan And ANR. v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.408 of 2003
1. Ramcharan alias Charan, S/o Sukhiram Sahu, aged about 30 years, R/o Village Salheghori, P.S. Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.)
2. Ramesh Kumar Sahu, S/o Raghuvar Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o Village Salheghori, P.S. Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Appellants
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Lormi, Distt. Bilaspur (C.G.) ---- Respondent For Appellants:
Mr. B.M.K. Bajpai and Mr. Sunil Verma, Advocates.
For State/Respondent:
Mrs. Madhunisha Singh, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble the Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Judgment On Board Per Deepak Gupta, Chief Justice 08/08/2016
1. This appeal by the accused is directed against the judgment dated 30-1-2003 delivered by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Mungeli, in Sessions Trial No.370/2001, whereby he convicted both the accused of having committed offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 and 201 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced them to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.5,000/- each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one year, and to undergo RI for seven years and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/-
each, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for two months, respectively.
2. The prosecution story is that on 12-7-2001, Goukaran (deceased) left his home after taking dinner. He did not return. His body was found on the morning of 15th July, 2001 and on the same day, the Dehati Nalishi Ex.P-29 was prepared. Thereafter, merg intimation Ex.P-27 and spot map Ex.P-28 were prepared and on the basis of these documents, FIR Ex.P-29A was recorded. The Dehati Nalishi was lodged at the instance of Sevakram (PW-3) and FIR was lodged on the basis of this Dehati Nalishi. In these documents, it is mentioned that on the night intervening 12th & 13th July, 2001, it was raining heavily and therefore the thatched roof of the hut of the deceased, where he used to reside with his parents and wife, was leaking and the father heard the groaning sounds of the deceased coming from the house of Ramcharan.
However, since he is old and cannot see, he did not make any efforts to get up and trace his son. In the morning, Hemvati Bai (PW-5) - wife of Goukaran also reported that Goukaran had not returned during the night. It is also stated that when Baburam (PW-1) - father of the deceased and Narmadiya Bai (PW-2) - mother of the deceased went out looking for the deceased, wife of accused Ramesh was standing in the street beside their house and she informed that her husband has come back early in the morning and they should ask him if he has seen Goukaran.
Narmadiya Bai (PW-2) went to Ramesh who told them that he was in the house of Ram Prasad and was watching TV. They then went to the house of Ram Prasad. He informed them that neither Ramesh nor Goukaran had come to his house to watch TV. Then they again went back to the house of Ramesh and this time Ramesh told them that he was watching TV in the house of Geeta Mandal. Then they went to the house of Geeta Mandal and enquired about their son Goukaran whereupon Geeta Mandal informed them that neither Ramesh nor Goukaran has come to his house to watch TV as he did not have TV and therefore the question of watching TV in his house did not arise.
3. After recording of FIR, investigation was conducted and after completion of investigation, charge sheet under Section 173 of the CrPC was filed against the accused as they were alleged to have murdered deceased Goukaran and also disposed of his body to conceal the evidence of his murder. After trial, they have been convicted and hence this appeal.
4. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the impugned judgment and also the record of the trial Court.
5. This is a case based totally on circumstantial evidence. There is no eyewitness to the case and two main circumstances relied upon by the learned trial Court while convicting the accused are one that the father of the deceased heard the cries of his son Goukaran coming from the house of Ramcharan and two that
Ramesh Kumar gave a totally wrong and false explanation as to where he and the deceased were at night.
6. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has to prove all the circumstances and then has to link the circumstances to form a chain which leads to only one conclusion that is the guilt of the accused. If there is any chance of the accused having not committed the offence or there be any chance of any other person committing such an offence then the accused has to be given benefit of doubt.
7. As far as the present case is concerned, one glaring fact is that deceased Goukaran left the house in the evening of 12th July, 2001. Admittedly, on 13th July, 2001, in the morning, he had not returned. Now, if the story of the father of the deceased is to be believed that he had heard the groaning sounds of his son coming from the house of Ramcharan, the first reaction would have been to inform the widow of the deceased - wife of Goukaran Hemvati Bai (PW-5) that he had heard such noises. The other reaction would have been to inform the Kotwar and other villagers about this aspect. There is no evidence in this regard. In fact, the evidence led by Baburam (PW-1), Narmadiya Bai (PW-2) and Hemvati Bai (PW-5) who are parents and wife of the deceased, is that they kept searching for the deceased in different villages including Village Chilfi where sister of the deceased was married. This is not natural human conduct. If in fact, Baburam (PW-1) had heard groaning sounds of his son and
shouts of "bachao bacha" coming from the house of Ramcharan, he would have raised a hue and cry next morning. Even if it is believed that at night they could not go out, next morning, they would have complained to the daughter-in-law, the villagers and also to the police. This story that Baburam (PW-1) heard his son crying for help cannot also be believed because when Hemvati Bai (PW-5), the widow, stepped into the witness box she had not stated that her father-in-law told that he heard the cries at night. Therefore, we are not willing to accept this part of the prosecution story.
8. The second main circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that accused Ramesh Kumar gave a totally false explanation as to where he was on the night when Goukaran was murdered. It is alleged that accused Ramesh Kumar first stated that he was in the house of Ram Prasad and when parents of the deceased went to the house of Ram Prasad, they were informed that neither Ramesh Kumar nor Goukaran come to his house, they went back and again asked accused Ramesh Kumar and this time, he named Geeta Mandal who informed that in fact, he did not have TV and therefore the question of the accused and the deceased coming to his house to watch TV did not arise. For the reasons best known to the prosecution, neither Geeta Mandal nor Ram Prasad have been examined. Even the wife of Ramesh Kumar who is alleged to have first told the parents of the deceased that her husband Ramesh had come back late in the
morning, has not been examined. This Court could have accepted that wife of the accused may not have been examined because she may not give evidence against her husband, but non-examination of Ram Prasad and Geeta Mandal adversely affects the prosecution case and adverse inference will have to be drawn that they have not been examined because if they had been examined, they would not have supported the prosecution story. As already pointed out, it is impossible to believe the story that on the night intervening 12th & 13th July, 2001, father of the deceased heard the cries of sound coming from the house of accused No.1 Ramcharan but despite that, he did not care to lodge any FIR with the police till 15th July, 2001 when the dead body of the deceased was found.
This clearly indicates that the story was created only after the body was found and therefore since the prosecution has failed to give any explanation much less any reasonable explanation for delay in lodging the FIR, the delay in this particular case also casts a serious doubt on the prosecution story. There is virtually no other evidence against the accused. We, therefore, have no hesitation in setting aside the judgment of the trial Court.
9. Consequently, the impugned judgment dated 30-1-2003 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.370/2001 is hereby set aside.
10.The criminal appeal is allowed and the appellants are acquitted of the charges alleged against them. They are on bail. They
need not surrender. However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437A of the CrPC.
Sd/- Sd/- (Deepak Gupta) (Sanjay K. Agrawal) Chief Justice Judge Soma/KVR