Charitar Kodaku v. State Of Chhattisgarh
NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR CRA No. 449 OF 2006 Charitar son of Bipat, aged 45 years, occupation Agricuiture, R/o. Village lndrapur (Khori), Distt. Sarguja (CG) ---- Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station Ramanujganj, Distt. Sarguja (CG) ---- Respondent For appellant :
Shri Vivek Shrivasta'va, Advocate For Respondent :
Shri Vivek Sharma, Govt. Advocate.
DB:
HON'BLE SHRI PRITINKER DIWAKER AND HON'BLE SHRI CHANDRAJHUSHAN BAJPAILJJ ORAL JUDGMENT Dar Prifinknr Diwaker .l 4-1 0-2016 1.
This appeai arises out of the impugned judgment of conviction order sentence'dated 18-4-2006 passed 1st Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Ramanujganj, Sarguja S.T.
No. 313/2005 convicting the appeiiant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.
100/-, default of payment of fine to further undergo additional Rl for one month.
2.
ln the present case, name of the deceased Kalo Bai, wife of the appellant.
lt is alleged that on 28-4-2005, the appellant and left the jungle collecting Mahua thereafter they did not return went missing since that day. On 30-4-2005 in the morning hours, dead body of the deceased was found in the jungle and the same was seen by one sohar Kodaku who informed same to Hari.
However till 4-5-2005 the dead body remained lying there and}
ultimately the same was brought to police station in the skeleton form on 4-5-2005 villagers.
Merg intimation was recorded on 4-5-2005 and thereafter FIR Ex.
P-2 was registered u...
against the appellant on the same day on the suspicion shown by villagers as left along with jungle, he who might have killed deceased. inquest on the dead body was prepared vide Ex. P-7.
The body was sent for post mortem which was conducted on 4-52005 vide P-13 by P.W.
Dr;
Sudhir Kumar Sinha and as the;body was in the skeleton form, no definite opinion about the mode type of'death could be given by the doctor nor the doctor has that the death was homicidal nature. After filing of charge sheet. whiler'framing of charge, trial Court framed charge against under Section IPC.
.
So as to hold the appellant guilty, prosecution has examined witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.
in which he denied the charges levelled against him, pleaded innocence and false implication the crime in question. By the impugned judgment, the trial Court convicted sentenced accused/appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. Hence this appeal.
.
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that :
The present is a case of no evidence but yet the appellant has been Convicted solely on basis his conduct because he went missing from 28-4-2005.
It has been argued that even if the conduct of the appellant was doubtful, merely on that basis the appellant could not have been
convicted.
The trial Court utterly failed to prove death deceased to be homicidal.
Even memorandum of the accused has not been recorded by the prosecution and the seizure of axe vide EX.
P-6 has been made police station no connection with commission of murder of the deceased.
On the other hand, while supporting the impugned judgment, has been argued by learned counsel for the State that conviction of the appellant is in accordance with law and there-is'no infirmity in the same.
Hari uncle appellant.
He accused-appellant andthe deceased gone to jungle collecting Mahua and villager Dugan saw the dead body of the lying jungle.
He further after receiving the said information, he along with said Dugan went to jungle identified body after returning, gave information to the villagers who started guarding the body. He has further stated that the information was given to police and then merg intimation EX.
P-1 was lodged.
He also a witness of FIR Ex.
P-2, spot map Ex.
P-3, seizure of axe and soil EX. P-6, inquest Ex. P-7. He has not made any allegation against the appellant and he saw the accused-appellant after the incident for the first time in the Court.
P.W. 2 Rajnath also saw the dead body of a lady in jungle and identified the same. He is also a witness of seizure P-6 and inquest P-7.
Chitaman saw dead body deceased and identified the same. He is also a witness of inquest
P-7.
P.W. 4 Heeraman and 5 Basdhet have also made almost similar statements as made by P.W. 3 Chitaman. P.W. 6 D.C. Tiwari is the investigating officer and he has supported the prosecution case.
8.8.
Amlesh conducted identification the weapon axe was identified accused.
PtW.
Ramashankar prepared spot map Ex.
P-'i2. P.W. 9 Vishwanath is a witness of inquest Ex.
P-7.
1O Bhoiaram is a witness of identification of axe vide Ex. P-11. P.W.
1'2 Dr. Sudhir Kumar Sinha has conducted autopsy vide P43 opined no opinioncan be given regarding mode and type ofdeath.
8.
Close scrutiny evidence makes clear there absolutely no evidence against the appellant on which basis he can be convicted. The trial Court has erred law convicting solely on basis his condUct he went missing from 28-4-2005.
Even accepting that the appellant was missing from the village but merely on that basis he could not be convicted for murder of his wife unless some other evidence adduced prosecution unerringly pointing towards his guilty.
9.
ln result, appeal succeeds.
The impugned judgment dated 18-4-2006 set aside. The acquitted charge under Section 302 of the IPC.
10, Since the appellant is reported to be on bail, no further order \ \ required.
,.ii \\\ '
,L vr/ \\ .
TT sml Sd/- '
.
l (PritinkerDiwaker) (Chandra Bhusharkajpai) Judge Judge Pathak