SHAIL KUMAR Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) This appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellant under Sec. 374(2) of Cr.P.C. being aggrieved by the judgment dtd. 11/1/2013 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.145/2011, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sec. 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 186,0 ( in short 'the IPC') and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and to pay of fine of Rs.1,000.00, in default of the payment, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.

(2.) In this case, name of the deceased is Puniram. On 10/7/2011, dead body of Puniram was found lying down in the field of Karikhar, Village Loharbot which was seen by Purushottam Lal (PW-4), who was the Village Kotwar and Sarjuram (PW-1). Morgue intimation (Ex.P-1) was lodged by Sarjuram (PW-1). Inquest proceeding (Ex.P-4) regarding the incident of death was conducted. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted by Dr. J.P. Arya (PW-9) and his report is Ex.P-12 in which he found total 9 injuries out of which one injury was caused on a vital part of the body which is grievous in nature. It was opined by him that cause of death was shock due to injuries over neck and face and nature of death was homicidal. Further case of the prosecution is that allegedly, the appellant has committed the said homicidal death of the deceased and the incident was witnessed by Kejauram (PW-2). After recovery of the dead body, when the police party reached at the spot with a sniffer dog, the said dog identified the appellant in the mob. In this regard, panchnama (Ex.P-21) was prepared. During the course of investigation, on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P-9) of the appellant, one bamboo stick was seized from the spot at his instance. The seized bamboo stick and other articles were sent to the F.S.L. for chemical examination. F.S.L. report is Ex.P-24. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Sec. 16,1 of Cr.P.C. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the concerned Magistrate. After committal of the case, the trial Court framed a charge under Sec. 302 of the IPC. The prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and brought 26, documents on record. In examination under Sec. 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. However, no witness was examined by him in defence. After completion of the trial, the trial Court convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

(3.) Shri MPS Bhatia, learned Counsel appearing for the appellant submits that without there being any sufcient and clinching evidence on record, the trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant. He further submits that conviction of the appellant is only based upon the statement of sole eyewitness Kejauram (PW-2), but his statement is not trustworthy and reliable. He further submits that this witness was initially the prime suspect of the alleged murder of the deceased and to save himself, he has falsely implicated the appellant in this case. Thus, his statement is suspicious and, therefore, conviction of the appellant is not sustainable. It is further argued that another circumstance which has been found by the prosecution is that the sniffer dog identified the appellant in the mob. Only on this basis, conviction is not sustainable and it has no evidentiary value. Reliance has been placed on (2008) 5 SCC 697 (Dinesh Borthakur v. State of Assam).