GANGADHAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 9th of June, 1994 passed in Sessions Trial No. 161/92 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti. By the impugned judgment, the appellants have been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment to further undergo R.I. for 1 year.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under:- Two deceased persons namely Koduram and Sarhu were father and son. THEy were residents of village- Chotesipat. In the early morning on 11.1.92, their dead bodies were found in the outer area of the village. Kotwar, Baratram (PW-6), went to their house and told Dhanmat Bai (PW-1 - wife of deceased- Koduram). Dhanmat Bai lodged the First Information Report (Ex.-P/1) on 11.1.92 at about 9.30 a.m. THE Investigating Officer reached to the place of occurrence, gave notices to the Panchas and prepared inquests (Ex.-P/2 & P/3) on the bodies of the deceased persons. THE dead bodies of the deceased persons were sent for their post-mortem to PHC, Malkharoda. THE post-mortem examinations were conducted by Dr. (Smt.) U.J. Alen (PW-11). She noticed multiple injuries on the dead bodies and opined that the causes of death were shock on account of haemorrhage caused by injuries sustained by the deceased persons. THE deaths were homicidal in nature. THE post-mortem reports are Ex.-P/33 & P/34. During the course of further investigation, the appellants were taken into custody and their memorandum statements (Ex.-P/10, P/11, P/12 & P/13) were recorded u/s 27 of the Evidence Act and various articles, including the cloths and tangi were seized at the instances of the appellants. THE seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Sagar, from where, a report (Ex.-P/32) was received. According to the F.S.L. report, blood stains were found on the cloths and tangia seized at the instances of the appellants, but no report relating to their origin or group etc. could be filed. THE prosecution came with the case that the relations between the two families i.e. the family of the appellants and the family of the deceased persons were not cordial on account of a land dispute, therefore, the appellants who are father and sons, committed murder of the deceased persons after 7.00 p.m. on 10.1.92 and the dead bodies were found in the next morning.

(3.) IN Dhananjoy Chhatterjee -Vs- State of W.B, (1994) 2 SCC 22 the Supreme Court held "IN a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn have not only to be fully established but also that all the circumstances so established should be of a conclusive nature and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Those circumstances should not be capable of being explained by any other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused and the chain of the evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. It needs no reminder that legally established circumstances and not merely indignation of the court can form the basis of conviction and the more serious the crime, the greater should be the care taken to scrutinize the evidence lest suspicion takes the place of proof."