GUHARAM AND PRAKASH PATRE Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) THIS appeal is directed against the judgment dated 17th of August, 2011 passed in Session Trial No. 16/2011 by the Additional Session Judge, Bemetara. By the impugned judgment the appellants have been convicted u/ss 302/34 & 201/34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.500/- and R.I. for 5 years and to pay fine of Rs.300/- with a direction to run the sentences concurrently.

(2.) THE facts, briefly stated, are as under:-

(3.) FIRSTLY we shall consider the above 'motive'. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, motive has greater relevancy or significance, however, the motive has to be established like any other circumstance by positive evidence. The case of the prosecution is that the deceased had illicit relations with the sister of appellant- Guharam. Jagmohan (PW-9) and Gopal Prasad Chaturvedi (PW-5) have been examined by the prosecution to prove the above motive. Jagmohan (PW-9) deposed in Para-1 of his evidence that prior to 3rd & 4th December 2010, deceased- Babulal had telephonically informed him that he had developed illicit relations with Tetki Bai and the villagers have seen him with Tetki Bai, therefore, he is frightened of the situation. In Para-7 of his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not told these facts to the police and he is telling all this for the first time before the Court. The deceased was the father-in-law of the sister of Jagmohan (PW-9). Even otherwise also, looking to the relations, it does not appear to be reasonable that the deceased would disclose such things to Jagmohan (PW-9). Gopal Prasad Chaturvedi (PW-5) deposed in Para-6 that he had heard in the village that Tetki Bai was seen along with his father by Bhawanchand. Bhawanchand has also been examined as PW-4. He was village Patel. He deposed in clear words, in Para-2 of his evidence, that he never knew regarding illicit relations of the deceased and Tetki Bai. In fact, he was declared hostile and was cross-examined by the prosecution, but nothing material could be elicited in his cross- examination. Even Gopal Prasad Chaturvedi (PW-5) admitted in Para-15 of his cross-examination that the above facts regarding illicit relations between the deceased and Tetki Bai were not told to the police at the time of recording of his statement. We are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the motive set-forth by the prosecution was not established by positive evidence.