| Citation | AIR 2023 SCC |
| Date of Judgment | JULY 20, 2023 |
| Court | Supreme Court of India |
| Case Type | Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2016 |
| Appellant | Shatrughan |
| Respondent | The state of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Hon’ble Mr. Justice. Vikram Nath, Hon’ble Mr. Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah |
| Referred | Section- 302 of IPC |
FACTS OF THE CASE
- According to the prosecution, Vijay Kumar(PW1) uncle of deceased(Jagat ram) lodged a FIR at 04:30 AM on 20.07.2008 that previous night he was sitting in his house and nephew Jagat returning on cycle meanwhile he heard his nephew’s shouting when his nephew passing front of Chandu’s house “Kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan has assaulted me with a Tabbal” .
- On hearing said cry for help, PW1 with his wife run at lane in front of Chandu’s house and he saw that Jagat was laying on the road and Shatrughan(accused) was moving on cycle with Tabbal and Jagat told him that accused assaulted him and with Tabbal thereafter escaped.
- Jagat was bleeding, so PW1 asked for help in a loud voice and on his call his daughter and other neighbors collected and the deceased’s father(Ajit ram) took his son to for medical help on motorcycle and after some time he returned and informed that Jagat had died.
- The complaint is registered FIR No.215 of 2008 at Police Station Kasdol, District Raipur and IO recorded the statements of informant and witnesses and arrested the accused and also recovered the various things like cycle, weapon, cloths.
- The post mortem has done on 2:00PM on 20.07.2008 in which such injuries are noticed:-
- Deep sharp incised wound on the left side of the neck measuring 5cm in length, 3 cm wide and 3cm deep
- Associated blood vessels were also cut and there was heavy bleeding
- After completing investigation, the chargesheet submitted under section 302 of IPC to the session court and the trail court came to conclusion that appellant has committed the crime and convicted him under section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5000 and said conviction also affirmed by the high court.
ISSUES
- Whether the appellant is punishable under the section 302 of IPC or not?
- Is he really committed that crime or not?
ARGUMENTS
On the behalf of appellant :-
- Ms. Anu Gupta, the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant submitted that the both the court below committed serious error of law by recording conviction.
- They relied upon inadmissible evidence and at the same time ignored the relevant admissible evidence and the prosecution’s story did not match with the medical report and there was no direct evidence of commission of crime and no motive was set up by the prosecution either in FIR and even in statement recorded during investigation and even during trial.
- It was a case of false implication and the appellant deserved acquittal.
On the behalf of the respondent state :-
- Shri Sumeer Sodhi, the learned counsel appearing for the state of Chhattisgarh submitted that the prosecution had proved the commission of crime with strong material.
- The defence could not disturb or shake the evidence of the prosecution witnesses despite availing the opportunity of cross-examination and there is no reason or justification to interfere with concurrent findings entered by both courts below.
- He submitted that the appeal deserved dismissal.
JUDGEMENT
- After hearing from both the parties and going through the material on records and examining the witnesses, the first question arose whether any witnesses actually seen the occurrence of crime and the answer is no.
- In the FIR PW1 said he saw the accused moving on cycle with Tabbal and in his disposition he stated that he saw the accused running away and Tabbal was lying there.
- Even the wife of PW1, daughter of PW1, widow of deceased other witnesses had not seen the appellant committing the crime.
- The defence also made a serious dent on the case of prosecution such as :-
- There is no motive set by the prosecution to why the appellant assault the deceased as all the witnesses who are family members stated that there is no enmity between the appellant and the deceased.
- Defence also suggested that when the deceased was taken to the hospital on the same night Sarpanch Khemraj called the meeting where appellant was forced to confess and appellant stated that he saw the deceased fall on the shape object resulting in injury which proved fatal.
- The defence also had fact during the cross examination that the weapon recovered or produced before him, could not cause the injury because the size of weapon and size of injury did not match.
- Defence also suggested that the deceased had heavily drunk and fallen on any sharp object which caused injury.
- From the above narration of evidence and analysis it is evident that the testimony of PW 1 was not reliable and could not have formed the basis of conviction and apparently he was influenced by the Sarpanch and the medical report also did not support the prosecution case.
- There is no motive that appellant caused the murder and the defence version that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and could have tripped and fallen on a sharp object resulting in the ante-mortem injury reported in the post-mortem was quite possible and the explanation for lodging the FIR is not satisfactory.
- For all the above reasons the appellant would be entitled for acquittal and the appeal is allowed, the conviction and sentence is set aside and acquittal all charges and the appellant is in custody. He shall be released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
REFERENCES
This Article is written by Aman Maurya of Greater Noida College Of Law, Intern at Legal Vidhiya.
