SHUKLA PRASAD Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred against judgment dated 12-02- 2015 passed in Session Trial No.3/2014 by the Additional Sessions Judge Pendra Road, District Bilaspur convicting the appellants for charges under Sec. 147 and Sec. 302 read with Sec. 149 of the IPC and sentencing each of the appellants with R.I. for two years, fine of Rs.200.00 and life imprisonment with fine of Rs.500.00 with default stipulations respectively.

(2.) The prosecution case is this, that on 2/7/2013 in the evening time the dashgatra function of deceased Bokhai was going on. Deceased Gorelal was present there for looking after the arrangements. His son Raju Singh (PW-1) all of sudden saw that the deceased was missing from the function. He enquired about his whereabouts and started looking for him, then he found that deceased Gorelal was lying on the soil and appellant Shukla Prasad (appellant No.1) was seen nearby, who on seeing Raju Singh (PW-1) fled from the sport. Son Sai (PW-2) also came on the spot and he saw 3 to 4 persons running away from the spot. The deceased was found dead. Morgue intimation (Ex.-P/1) was lodged and on the basis of the information given by Raju Singh (PW-1) the FIR (Ex.-P/2) was lodged against the appellant No.1. Police conducted the inquest procedure. According to the postmortem report (Ex.-P/11), Doctor K.K. Dhruw (PW-7) has opined that the neck of the deceased was twisted which resulted in fracture of neck bone and his death. The nature of the death was homicidal. Appellant Shukla Prasad was interrogated who made statement of involvement of other appellants and also about the dupatta that was used in the incident vide his memorandum statement (Ex.-P/4). At the instance of appellant No.1 one dupatta was seized vide Ex.-P/5. Other investigation procedures were carried out including recording of statements of witnesses under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C.

(3.) It is submitted by learned counsel for the appellants that conviction of the appellants is totally erroneous and without there being any evidence of prosecution. According to the charge sheet itself, there was no eye-witness of the incident in which deceased Gorelal was done to death. Learned trial Court has placed reliance on the evidence of Raju Singh (PW-1) who has improved his statement in the Court. The morgue intimation (Ex.-P/1) and FIR (Ex.-P/2) mention that deceased Gorelal was summoned and taken away by appellant No.1 from the place of the function. Later on when Raju Singh (PW-1) started searching for his father, he saw and recognized only appellant No.1, although he has stated about seeing appellant No.1 running away from the spot and 3 to 4 persons also were seen by him running away from the spot. But in the Court statement he has stated about being eyewitness which is clearly an improved statement against his previous statements, the morgue intimation (Ex.-P/1), FIR (Ex.- P/2) and statement under Sec. 161 of the Cr.P.C. (Ex.-D/1). There is no evidence of other circumstances to complete the chain of circumstances. There is only evidence of one circumstance in which the appellant No.1 was seen taking away the deceased from the spot of the function, but consequent to that, there is no other evidence to relate him with commission of the offence. Further, no test identification parade was conducted for the purpose of identifying appellants No.2 to 6, therefore, conviction of these appellants is totally without any basis. Conviction against appellant No.1 cannot be held only on the basis of last seen evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment is not at all sustainable. All the appellants deserve to be acquitted. Hence, it is prayed that this appeal be allowed.