Full Judgment Text
2023 INSC 630
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.437 OF 2016
SHATRUGHAN …APPELLANT(S)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF
CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT(S)
J U D G M E N T
VIKRAM NATH, J.
By means of this appeal, the accused appellant
has assailed the correctness of the judgment and
order of the High Court dated 06.04.2015 passed by
a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh
dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2010 titled
Statrughan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, whereby the
1
conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code and
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
SONIA BHASIN
Date: 2023.07.21
10:37:58 IST
Reason:
1
IPC
1
the sentence to undergo life imprisonment along with
fine of Rs.5,000/- passed by the IInd Additional
Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Dist.Raipur in
Sessions Trial No.41 of 2009 has been affirmed. The
appellant is in jail and has already undergone almost
15 years incarceration.
2. According to the prosecution story, Vijay Kumar
(PW1) uncle of the deceased (Jagat Ram) lodged a
First Information Report at 04:30 AM on 20.07.2008
that on the previous night at about 08.00 PM while
he was sitting in his house, his nephew Jagat was
returning on a cycle and he heard his nephew
shouting, while passing in front of the house of one
Chandu “Kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan has
assaulted me with a Tabbal”. The exact statement as
recorded in vernacular is: “ काका विजय व िंह दौड़ो , मेरे को
शत्रुघ्न तब्बल े मार वदया है”।
2
3. On hearing the said cry for help, the informant
along with his wife, ran to the lane in front of the
house of Chandu Lal and saw that his nephew Jagat
was lying on the road and that Shatrughan was
moving on his cycle along with Tabbal towards his
house. His nephew told him that Shatrughan, in
order to murder him, had assaulted with Tabbal on
his neck and thereafter escaped. His nephew was
bleeding. In a loud voice, he called for help to save his
nephew who had been assaulted by Shatrughan. On
his call, his daughter and other residents of the
neighbourhood collected. Father of the deceased, Ajit
Ram took the injured on Motor Cycle of Sitaram for
medical help. After some time, he returned and
informed that Jagat had died. The said complaint was
registered as FIR No.215 of 2008 at Police Station
Kasdol, District Raipur. Investigation was entrusted
3
2
to Investigating Officer (PW-16) who visited the spot,
got the inquest prepared, recorded the statements of
the informants as well as the witnesses, arrested the
appellant and recovered various articles including
the weapon of assault, other clothes containing blood
stains and also recovered the cycle. The post-mortem
was conducted on 20.07.2008 itself at 02.00 PM.
Following ante mortem injuries were noticed:
• Deep sharp incised wound on the left side
of the neck measuring 5cm in length, 3 cm
wide and 3cm deep.
• Associated blood vessels were also cut and
there was heavy bleeding.
4. After completing the investigation, the
chargesheet was submitted under section 302 IPC.
The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The
2
IO
4
Trial Judge framed the charge on 20.07.2008 which
the appellant denied and claimed to be tried. The
prosecution examined 16 witnesses and produced 21
documents. The defence did not examine any witness
nor did it lead any documentary evidence.
5. The Trial Court, after considering the material
on record, came to the conclusion that the
prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt
that it was the appellant who had committed the
crime and accordingly convicted him for culpable
homicide amounting to murder under section 302
IPC and awarded him sentence to undergo life
imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The said
conviction has been affirmed by the High Court.
Hence, this appeal.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties
and perused the original record also.
5
7. According to Ms. Anu Gupta, learned counsel
for the appellant, both the Courts below committed
serious error of law by recording conviction. They
relied upon inadmissible evidence and at the same
time ignored the relevant admissible evidence. The
witnesses of fact were not consistent and did not
inspire confidence. The medical evidence did not
support the prosecution story. There was no direct
evidence of the commission of crime. The case was
based on circumstantial and hearsay evidence. No
motive had been set up by the prosecution either in
the First Information Report or the statements
recorded during the investigation or even in the
evidence led during trial. It was a case of false
implication due to various factors elicited in the
cross-examination. Learned counsel has taken us to
the relevant evidence which shall be shortly
6
discussed. It was thus submitted that the appellant
deserves to be acquitted.
8. On the other hand, Shri Sumeer Sodhi, learned
counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh submitted that
the prosecution had fully proved the commission of
crime by cogent material. The defence could not
disturb or shake the evidence of the prosecution
witnesses despite availing the opportunity of cross-
examination. There is no reason or justification to
interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by
both the Courts below. Mr. Sodhi has also taken us
to the relevant part of the evidence in order to
discredit the arguments and the evidence shown to
us by the learned counsel for the appellant. He thus
submitted that the appeal deserves dismissal.
9. PW-1 is the informant and uncle of the
deceased. He claims to be the first person to arrive at
the scene of the crime. Before discussing his
7
testimony, it would be appropriate to comment on the
site plan prepared by the IO to show the location and
the distance of the place where the incident took
place and the house of the informant. In the site plan,
the place of assault is shown with alphabet “A” which
is in front of the house of Chandu. On the other side
of the lane, a little away and diagonally from the
house of Chandu is the house of Vijay Kumar, the
informant (PW-1) which has been marked by
alphabet “C”. A little further away from the house of
PW-1 is the house of deceased Jagat marked with
alphabet “B”. Alphabet ‘D’ is marked to indicate the
place where the cycle of deceased was lying. The
distance between “A” to “C” is stated to be 14.80
metres (48.56 ft.), the distance between “A” and “B”
is 250 metres (820.21 ft.) and the distance between
“A” to “D” is shown to be 13.30 metres (43.64 ft.).
8
10. With the above picture in mind as depicted by
the site plan, the evidence of the witnesses of fact is
being discussed. It would be relevant to note that
evidence as recorded is in close proximity and within
a reasonable time from the date of occurrence (within
a few months on 11.02.2009). As such the facts
would be still fresh in the minds of the witnesses.
11. PW-1 states that the incident happened about 4
months back at about 08.00PM when Jagat shouted
that Shatrughan has assaulted him. He rushed to the
place of occurrence and saw the accused running
away and the Tabbal was lying there. The deceased
had already fell unconscious by that time with a
deep cut at the neck from which blood was flowing.
Upon his call, Chandu, Firtu, Akshay and his
daughter had all come running. The incident had
actually taken place in front of house of Chandu and
Akshay. The deceased was taken to Dr. Sahu who
9
declared him brought dead and then he went to lodge
the report at the Police Station. He also states that
he does not know why the appellant assaulted his
nephew. He then acknowledges the signature on
First Information Report (Ex. P1). He also
acknowledges his signature on Merg report (Ex. P2).
12. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admits that
after the house of Chandu there is house of one Ram
Singh and after the house of Ram Singh, next is his
house. He further admits that there were some guests
in the house of his brother Ajit Ram i.e. the house of
the deceased. He does not deny the fact that the
guests at his brother’s place were served alcohol
along with food and he does not deny that maybe
the deceased had also consumed alcohol with his
guests. In paragraph 9 of the cross-examination, he
states that Akshay and Firtu had come to the spot on
his calling. Chandu was not there, as he had gone
10
out and he admits that Chandu did not come to the
spot on his calling. He denies the suggestion that
he had come out on the calling of Firtu. He admits
that the deceased was not talking at the time
when he came there as he was already
unconscious. He then admits that the appellant,
along with one Rajendra, had lodged a complaint
against the Sarpanch Khemraj as also the wife of
one Munnu Lal. He admits that he had no dispute
with the appellant nor did the deceased had any
dispute with him. Then, on his own he states that
he did not know that if there was any dispute between
deceased and the appellant. He denies the suggestion
that he had actually not seen the appellant escaping
from the spot as it was a dark night. He then admits
that the Sarpanch had accompanied him to the
Police Station. Then he explains the delay in
reaching the Police Station as, according to him, he
11
first went to Baya Chowki and then from there, he
went to Kasdol Police Station. He denies the
suggestion that he actually did not see the appellant
and had falsely implicated him.
13. PW-2 is Sukhnantin Bai. She is wife of PW-1
Vijay Kumar. She states that on the fateful day at
about 07.30PM when she was at her home, she heard
the voice of her nephew Jagat that Shatrughan has
assaulted him. On hearing the said shout, her
husband Vijay Kumar went out and thereafter she
followed. When she reached the place of
occurrence, her nephew was lying in the lane and
the appellant was not there. She states in her
cross-examination that there was a complaint
against Sarpanch. She also admits that there was
no dispute between the deceased and the
appellant. She also admits that her nephew had
helped Shatrughan and Rajendra in that
12
complaint against the Sarpanch as a result the
Sarpanch had to give a public apology.
14. PW-3 is Kirantin Bai, widow of the deceased.
She only states that her husband was murdered
about 5-6 months ago. Her mother-in-law informed
her that the appellant had assaulted her husband
with a Tabbal. She also states that the deceased was
not in a position to talk when she saw him lying
on the lane and thereafter, he was taken away by the
relatives. No cross-examination has been done from
this witness.
15. PW-4 is Yashoda Kumari, daughter of PW-1,
Vijay Kumar. She stated that she only heard the
deceased shouting that Shatrughan had assaulted.
Upon hearing the same, first her father went out,
then her mother went out and then she came out and
saw that there was an injury on the neck of the
deceased. In the cross-examination, she admits that
13
there was no enmity between the deceased and
the appellant. She also admits that her house is
across the lane about two houses away from the
frontage of Chandu’s house. She admits that there
was no light at the time when she had come out
and it was dark. She also admits the suggestion
that house of Firtu Ram is closest to Chandu Lal’s
house and her house is little away. She also states
that there was no one else at the time when she
came out and she had not seen the appellant.
16. PW-5 is Lakhan Kumar son of Chetan Lal. He is
a witness of the inquest and also of the recovery of
the weapon of the assault and the cycle of the
appellant. He has proved the recovery memos Ex-P3,
Ex-P4, Ex-P5, Ex-P6 and Ex-P7. The cycle of the
deceased was also recovered and the recovery memo
Ex-P8 was also signed by him. The recovery of clothes
vide Ex-P9 was also signed by him and the recovery
14
of plain earth and blood-stained earth vide Ex-P10
was also signed by him. He is also signatory of site
plan Ex-P11 and the arrest memo of the appellant Ex-
P12. In his cross-examination, he states that he is
brother of the deceased. In paragraph 9 of the cross-
examination, he states a meeting of the villagers
was held at night in the village. He then denies the
suggestion that the appellant in that meeting
denied assaulting the deceased and instead had
stated that the deceased had tripped and fallen.
He further denies the fact that the appellant had said
the same thing to Deepak and Narottam. In
paragraph 10, he admits that the Sarpanch was
there in the meeting and he also admits that in
the said meeting, the appellant had said that
while he was passing, he saw the deceased had
fallen on the ‘Pharsa’. He also states that he was not
aware at what time the inquest took place and he also
15
states that the contents of the recovery memos and
inquest were not read out to him.
17. PW-6 is Dr. Sunil Singh who had conducted the
autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on
20.07.2008 at 02.00 PM. He has proved the Post
Mortem report Ex.-P13. In his examination-in-chief,
he states that on 20.07.2008, the Tabbal was sent to
him for inspection. He has mentioned the length and
breadth of the same in his report and that the injury
on the deceased could be possible from the said
weapon and that he had advised that the Tabbal be
sent for Chemical examination. This report he had
proved and is marked as Ex.-P14.
18. He further states that on 21.07.2008, he had
examined the appellant and had noticed some
scratches on his right leg for which he had prepared
an injury report which he proved and marked as Ex.-
P15. He also states that on 20.07.2008, the clothes
16
on the body of the deceased had blood-stains on it
and he had advised that the same be sent for
chemical examination. This report, he also proved
and marked as Ex.-P16.
19. In his cross-examination, he states that the
length of the Tabbal (metal part) was 13.5 cm. He
further states that length of the injury on the
deceased was 5 cm. He further states that it is
correct in case if the said weapon is used for assault,
then the length of the injury would also have been
13.5 cm. He also states that it is correct that from
the weapon recovered, the injury could not have
been caused on the neck of the deceased. He again
admits that the clothes which were seized from the
appellant had some stains like blood but he was not
sure whether it was human blood or not. He also
admits that in the stomach of the deceased
sufficient quantity of alcohol was found and it
17
takes about 18 hours for the alcohol to pass out
from the body. He also states that it is possible
that the deceased could have received the injury
in an accident.
20. PW-7 is witness of inquest and the site plan and
also of the recovery, nothing much turns upon his
statement. He has given a similar kind of statement
as the other witness to recovery and inquest.
21. PW-8 is Ajit Ram, father of the deceased. He
states that when he reached home around 08.00 PM
after carrying out some purchases, his brother Vijay
Kumar (PW-1) informed that his son Jagat had
shouted that the appellant had assaulted him. He
has proved some police papers. He admits that he
had guests at home on that day. He also states that
deceased also used to stay with him. He admits of
consuming alcohol but insofar his son Jagat is
concerned he states that he does not know
18
whether he used to consume alcohol or not. He
also admits that there was no enmity between
deceased and the appellant. He, however, claims
that he had no knowledge of complaint being made
by the appellant against the Sarpanch and his son
Jagat supporting the appellant. He has denied the
suggestion that he was falsely taking the name of
the appellant during the trial as prior to it he had
never taken his name during investigation.
22. PW-9 is Firtu, neighbour of Chandu Lal. He
states that while he was about to have dinner at
around 7-8 PM, he heard some noise from outside
and then there was another call that Jagat had been
murdered and that the appellant has murdered him,
then, he came out. Jagat was lying in the lane with
the injury on his neck and Vijay Kumar told him that
the appellant had committed this crime. He admits
that Jagat, the deceased did not tell him
19
anything. He also states that others like Akshay and
Mannu had also come. Jagat, the deceased was
unconscious and he was taken to the hospital but he
died on the way. He states that Shatrughan, the
appellant while passing through his house had called
him and thereafter, he had heard the voice of Jagat.
He also states that the appellant, while crossing
his house on his cycle, had called him and asked
him as to what was he cooking. He then states that
PW-1 Vijay Kumar has told him that it was the
appellant who had assaulted and that he had
communicated this to IO but he has not mentioned
in the statement under section 161 for which he
cannot tell the reason. He further states that he
never heard Jagat shouting and he had not seen
the appellant. It was only on the call of Vijay
Kumar that he had come out.
20
23. PW-10 is Seepat Bai, wife of Firtu. She only
states that in the night, she heard people shouting
run-run. When she came out, her husband was
already outside and then she was told that the
appellant had assaulted the deceased.
24. PW-11 is Khemraj Singh. He is Sarpanch of the
village. He states that he had accompanied PW-1 to
the outpost and then to the Police Station. He
then denies the suggestion that the appellant had
made a complaint against him and others regarding
mis-appropriation of funds. He further denied the
suggestion that Jagat, the deceased had supported
Shatrughan and Rajendra in the complaint. However,
he admits that on the complaint the Project
Officer and others had come for inquiry. Other
suggestions relating to the complaint and inquiry are
denied by him.
21
25. PW-12 is one Akshay Kumar. He states that on
the date of the incident in the night, he heard lot of
noise and commotion and people shouting run-run,
upon which he came out of the house. He saw PW-1,
his wife and his daughter. At that time, PW-1 told him
that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with
the Tabbal. He further states in the cross-
examination that when he came out, Firtu Ram,
Sarpanch & others had not come there and that he
had not seen the appellant at that place. He states
that he knows that there was no enmity between
the appellant and the deceased. He is the next-door
neighbour of informant PW-1.
26. PW-13 is Chandu. He states that the murder of
Jagat had taken place in front of his house in the lane
and that he had heard that the appellant had
assaulted him.
22
27. PW-14 is Karan Singh who states that about
07.00 PM in the evening on 19.07.2008, he was
changing clothes as he got wet while returning from
work. Vijay Kumar came to his house and told him
that Jagat had fallen down and that Jagat was taken
for treatment. It was after that Lakhan and Laxman
told him that it was the appellant who had assaulted
the deceased. He is witness to the memo (Ex-P18)
prepared for handing over the dead body to the family
of the deceased. In the cross-examination he states
that he had heard that Sarpanch Khemraj had
accompanied the injured to the hospital. Further he
had also gone to the Police Station along with Vijay
Kumar (PW-1) and Sarpanch Khemraj. He further
states that they reached the Police Station at 06.00
AM although police had arrived in the village at 04.00
AM. FIR was registered at 07.00 AM and they
returned to the village in the evening at 04.00 PM.
23
28. PW-15 is one Abhiram Sahu. He had prepared
the site plan and proved it, which was marked as Ex.-
P19.
29. PW-16, Dinu Ram Mandavi, Inspector is the
Investigating Officer. He has stated about the Merg
Report dated 20.07.2008 registered as Merg No.82 of
2008 which he proved as Ex-P2. He further proves
the FIR as Ex.-P1, the site plan, the inquest, and its
intimation as Ex-P3 and Ex-P4. Further, he proves
Ex-P13 is the request for Post Mortem and the
recovery memo of the Tabbal (Ex-P14) also contains
his signatures. He also proves the other Police papers
and further proves the recoveries made during the
investigation. He tried to explain the delay in
registering the FIR and, according to him, the Merg
report having been registered, the criminal
machinery had been put into motion. He has denied
24
the suggestion that in fact in the initial Merg
report, the name of the appellant was not there
and it was only later on that his name had been
added. He further states that he could not find any
reason as to what was the motive for committing
the crime. All other suggestions have been denied by
him.
30. In the examination under section 313 Code of
3
Criminal Procedure , the entire evidence against the
appellant was put to him which he has denied. He
however, stated that he was doing his duty as
Chowkidar in the Forest Department and on account
of personal enmity he had been falsely implicated.
He also states that he wants to examine Forest Range
Officer Mr. Sinha and one Mr. Rajendra Thakur.
However, no evidence was led on behalf of the
defence.
3
CrPC
25
31. The first question to be considered is as to
whether any of the eye-witnesses had actually seen
the occurrence of the appellant assaulting the
deceased. The answer is ‘no’.
32. Following are the reasons for the above
conclusion:
a) According to the informant (PW-1), he was the
first person to arrive at the site along with his
wife upon hearing the cry for help from the
deceased that Shatrughan was assaulting him
with a tabbal . When he reached the site he saw
that the deceased was lying on the road and the
appellant was moving towards his house on a
cycle along with tabbal . This is the FIR version.
b) In his deposition PW 1 states that when he
rushed to the place of occurrence, he saw the
accused running away and the tabbal was lying
26
there. The deceased had fallen unconscious and
there was deep cut on his neck with blood
flowing from the injury. Upon his call, the other
neighbours and his daughter all came out from
their houses.
c) PW-14 who has stated that PW-1 only informed
him that Jagat (deceased) had been assaulted
and had been taken to the hospital. PW-1 did
not inform PW-14 that it was the appellant who
had assaulted. PW-14 states that it was later on
that Lakhan and Laxman who informed about
the appellant assaulting the deceased. The
other eye-witnesses whose testimonies have
already been narrated above have not stated
that they saw the appellant assaulting the
deceased.
d) PW-2 is the wife of PW-1, PW-3 is the widow of
the deceased, PW-4 is daughter of PW-1, are the
27
other witnesses who reached the place of
occurrence. None of them have stated that they
have seen the appellant assaulting the
deceased.
e) Thus, the only evidence is of PW-1 stating that
the appellant was running away from the place
of occurrence when he reached there. He has
himself stated that the deceased was already
unconscious as such was not in a condition to
speak.
f) There is one more aspect to be considered as to
whether the cry given by the deceased could
have been made as stated. Normally in villages
nobody takes the name of elders and especially
their uncles. PW 1 Vijay Kumar is the uncle
(father’s brother) of the deceased. Under normal
course the deceased would have called kaka
only and would not take his name to say that
28
‘kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan is assaulting
काका विजय व िंह दौड़ो मेरे को
me with a tabbal ’ (“ ,
शत्रुघ्न तब्बल े मार वदया है”).
g) In the First Information Report it is stated that
when PW 1 came out he saw Shatrughan
running towards his house on a cycle along with
tabbal but in the deposition before the Trial
Court it is stated that when he reached the place
of occurrence the appellant was running and
the tabbal was lying there and then he states
that the deceased had only shouted that the
appellant is assaulting him.
h) Another aspect to be considered is whether after
receiving the said injury the deceased could
have shouted and if he had shouted before being
assaulted then the situation would have been
different. It would have been a one to one and
29
he could have resisted the assault. The fact is
there is only one injury on the neck.
33. In view of the above, the prosecution story as set
out does not appear to be a probable story and the
supporting evidence led during trial of the witnesses
of fact also does not inspire confidence. Rather there
are material contradictions.
34. On the other hand, the defence has been
successful in making a serious dent in the
prosecution case for the following reasons:
a) The first point is that no motive has been set
up by the prosecution as to why the appellant
would assault the deceased. All the witnesses of
fact who are family members have stated that
there was no enmity between the appellant and
the deceased. Once there is no eye-witness of
the incident the prosecution will have to
establish a motive for the commission of the
30
crime inasmuch as in a case of direct evidence,
motive may not have a major role. If there is no
motive setup or proved and there are direct eye-
witnesses, motive may loose its importance but
in the present case as admittedly no one has
seen the occurrence, the motive has an
important role to play.
b) The defence during the cross-examination has
elicited that the Sarpanch Khemraj had grouse
against the appellant for the reason that the
appellant had made a complaint regarding
misappropriation of government funds and also
of committing major illegality in distribution of
essential commodities. On the said complaint
an enquiry was made where the Sarpanch
Khemraj PW 11 had to tender public apology.
c) Defence has also suggested that in the night
itself after the deceased was taken to the
31
hospital, a meeting was called by the Sarpanch
Khemraj where the appellant was forced to
confess. The said meeting has been admitted by
PW-5. It was suggested that appellant in the
meeting had stated that he had seen the
deceased tripping and falling on the sharp
object resulting into the injury which proved
fatal.
d) It is possible that on account of the influence of
the Sarpanch Khemraj that the appellant has
been falsely implicated.
e) The defence also had elicited during cross-
examination of PW 6 that the weapon of assault
recovered and produced before him could not
have caused the injury in view of the size of the
weapon of assault and the size of the injury
which had no match.
32
f) The defence had also suggested that in fact the
deceased was heavily drunk and had fallen on a
sharp-edged object because of which he had
received the injury. This appears probable for
two reasons: firstly, that PW 6 had stated that
there was sufficient alcohol in the body of the
deceased and secondly that the weapon of
assault produced by the prosecution did not
match with the injury. The injury could have
been caused by the deceased slipping and
falling on a sharp object.
35. From the above narration of the evidence and
analysis, it is evident that the testimony of PW 1 was
not reliable and could not have formed the basis of
conviction. Apparently, he was influenced by
Sarpanch Khemraj whose active participation in the
proceedings subsequent to the incident cannot be
ruled out. The medical evidence did not support the
33
prosecution case as the weapon of assault could not
have caused injury on the deceased as noticed in the
post-mortem report. There was no motive as to why
the appellant would commit the murder of an
acquaintance and a friend for no reason. The defence
version that the deceased was under the influence of
alcohol and could have tripped and fallen on a sharp
object resulting into the ante-mortem injury reported
in the post-mortem was quite possible. The same is
clearly borne out from the record. The explanation for
delayed lodging of the FIR is not satisfactory.
36. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution
had failed to establish the charge.
37. For all the reasons explained above, the
appellant would be entitled to acquittal. The appeal
is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence
of the appellant are set aside. He is acquitted of all
34
the charges. The appellant is in custody. He shall be
released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.
38. Pending applications are disposed of.
….………………………………..J.
(VIKRAM NATH)
……………………………………J.
(AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH)
NEW DELHI
JULY 20, 2023
35