PRAKASH VERMA Vs. STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

JUDGEMENT

(1.) We have heard the learned counsel for the Appellant and the learned Deputy Advocate General in this appeal against the conviction and sentence imposed on the accused for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code; for short 'the IPC'.

(2.) The allegations against the accusedPrakash, who at the relevant date was around 19 years of age, is that he killed his father Kumar Verma, at about 10 pm on 18.03.2010. The FIR statement was rendered by Mohan Verma (PW15), the son of Kumar Verma through his first wife. AccusedPrakash is the son of Kumar Verma through his second wife, Firan Bai (PW8). Human Bai (PW5) is the daughter of Firan Bai and Kumar Verma. The prosecution built up the case against the accused on the basis of the testimony of the first informant, Mohan Verma (PW15) who testified that he had seen Kumar Verma being beaten up by the accusedPrakash in the night of 18.03.2010, and on the subsequent day while returning from the Talab, he saw that Kumar Verma was dead. This is relied on by the trial Court as the potently incriminating evidence against the accused.

(3.) The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the finding of the Court below and the consequential conviction and sentence are unsustainable in the light of the oral and documentary evidence on record and legitimate inferences which are available on the facts and in the circumstances of the case. He argued that the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt, in any event, on the basis of the material evidence, facts and circumstances. It is also argued that the material evidence tilts in favour of the acquittal of the accused at least for the reason that on preponderance of probabilities, the accused has been able to establish that the defence version set up by him outweighs the allegations of the prosecution. The learned counsel for the Appellant argued that the evidence on record tends to indicate, among other things, that the situation could be one of suicide by the victim, following the mobs chasing him. This argument is buttressed by the evidence to the effect that the victim was under the influence of alcohol at the relevant time, which fact is established through the postmortem report and the Doctor who conducted the postmortem. It is also the version of the other material witnesses that the victimKumar Verma was a habitual consumer of alcohol. Learned counsel for the Appellant argued that there is no reason to disbelieve the version of Human Bai (PW5), daughter of the deceased, though she was declared hostile since her version gains support from the testimony of Madho Das (PW3), a local Kotwar and Kejuram Verma (PW4), who are independent witnesses. Reference was made by the Appellant's counsel to the decisions of the Apex Court including in Narendra Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh; (2004) 10 SCC 699. He argued for the position that when two views are possible in such a case and when there is no continuous chain of events which have been established to point at the guilt of the accused, there could not be any conviction.