Full Judgment Text
NONREPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1036 OF 2011
AMRIKA BAI … APPELLANT
V ERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH … RESPONDENT
J U D G M E N T
N.V. RAMANA, J.
1. This appeal is directed against judgment dated
26.04.2010, passed by the Division Bench of the High Court
of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 604 of
1993, whereby the appeal preferred by the appellant was
dismissed, and the judgment and order dated 11.06.1993
passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, convicting
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
VISHAL ANAND
Date: 2019.03.30
10:44:20 IST
Reason:
the appellant was confirmed. The appellant was convicted
under Section 302 read with Section 149; and Section 147 of
1
the IPC, and sentenced to imprisonment for life and oneyear
rigorous imprisonment respectively.
2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on the morning
of 12.08.1989, the deceased, Kapil, was taking his cattle for
grazing, at which time his cattle jumped on the door of the
appellant’s house, which led to the appellant abusing the
deceased. Thereafter, on his way back, the deceased
questioned the appellant as to why she abused him earlier in
the morning. At this, the appellant, on the pretext of touching
the feet of the deceased, caught hold of him. Then, the other
accused, armed with deadly weapons, came to the spot and
beat the deceased to death. Pursuant to this an FIR was
registered against the accused on 12.08.1989 and charge
sheet was filed.
3.
Originally, 14 individuals were made accused in the
present case and out of them 10 were convicted by the trial
court. During the pendency of their appeal before the High
Court, accused no.3 Jhangul died, abating his appeal, and
accused nos. 1, 5, 6, 7 and 10 were released on special
reprieve granted to them. With respect to the remaining
2
accused including the present appellant, the appeal was
dismissed by the High Court. The present appeal before us
concerns only accused no. 13, Amrika Bai, who has
sustained conviction as aforementioned.
4.
Heard learned counsel for both the parties.
5. Learned counsel for the appellant contended that the
impugned judgment convicts the appellant without any
credible and clinching evidence, and is thereby illegal. The
counsel further submitted that Section 157 Cr.P.C. was not
complied with and the counterfoil of the FIR was forwarded to
the Magistrate after a delay of 4 days from its registration. He
also submitted that the statements of prosecution witnesses
are unnatural and contradictory, made with the intention to
falsely implicate the appellant.
6. On the other hand, the learned counsel for the
respondentState submitted that the impugned judgment is
well reasoned and does not suffer from any infirmity which
merits interference.
7. The prosecution has relied on the testimonies of Dharmu
(P.W. 7, father of the deceased), Bhagwat Bai (P.W. 8, sister of
3
the deceased) and Babulal (P.W. 9, brotherinlaw of the
deceased) to secure the conviction of the appellant. It is to be
noted that these prosecution witnesses are close relatives of
the deceased and in view of the same, this Court has to
scrutinize their testimony with great care and caution.
8.
In the facts of the present case, the appellant who was
unarmed is implicated in the incident by virtue of the
testimonies of the aforementioned witnesses stating her role
in allegedly catching hold of the deceased to facilitate his
murder. On a close scrutiny of the testimonies of the
aforesaid witnesses, the role of the appellant in the incident is
extremely doubtful.
9. The testimonies of Dharmu (P.W. 7), Bhagwat Bai (P.W. 8)
and Babulal (P.W. 9), on the basis of which the appellant was
implicated in the offence, are highly inconsistent with respect
to the role of the appellant. While P.W. 8 deposed in line with
the prosecution version that the appellant merely held the
deceased as he was being assaulted, P.W. 9, went on to
depose in his crossexamination that the appellant in fact
assaulted the deceased with a lathi . Further, P.W. 7, in his
4
crossexamination, deposed that the appellant brought the
tangia from inside the house and handed it over to Chandra
(accused no. 11, husband of the appellant) while admitting
that his earlier statement, wherein he stated that Chandra
had brought a tangia from inside the house, was incorrect.
He further stated that the appellant did not leave the
deceased till he fell on the ground as a result of the assault.
10. The abovementioned inconsistencies found in the
testimonies of the prosecution witnesses create a doubt
regarding the credibility of their testimonies visàvis the role
of the appellant.
11. Further, this Court fails to fathom a scenario wherein the
appellant single handedly caught hold of the deceased
facilitating his assault, particularly when P.W.8 has
categorically stated in her crossexamination that the
deceased was well built, such that he could have taken down
two to three persons himself.
12. The above observations cast a serious doubt on the
involvement of the appellant in the incident in which the
deceased was beaten to death and she suffered unexplained
5
injuries. Thus, she cannot be termed to be a member of the
unlawful assembly, much less one which was alleged to have
been constituted with the common object of murdering the
deceased. The law is wellsettled on the aspect that mere
presence in an unlawful assembly cannot render a person
liable unless there was a common object, being one of those
set out in Section 141 I.P.C. and she was actuated by that
common object. [
See : Dani Singh v. State of Bihar , (2004)
13 SCC 203 ]
13. Moreover, the fact that the FIR was registered on
12.08.1989 but was forwarded to the Magistrate only on
16.08.1989, after a delay of 4 days, becomes significant in
light of the abovementioned inconsistencies in the story of the
prosecution with respect to the appellant. It appears that the
appellant was roped in as an accused, due to the inimical
relationship between the parties which clearly emanates from
the record.
14.
In conclusion, since the involvement of the appellant as
a member of the unlawful assembly has itself been put to
doubt, the question of her having common object for
6
murdering the deceased under Section 302 read with Section
149 and her using force or violence under Section 147 IPC
does not arise.
15. Taking into consideration the overall evidence, we feel that
it is not safe to convict the appellant in the present case.
16. Thus, in light of the observations hereinabove, the appeal
is allowed and the appellant is acquitted of offences under
Section 302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 IPC.
..............................................J.
(N.V. RAMANA)
..............................................J.
(MOHAN M. SHANTANAGOUDAR)
..............................................J.
(INDIRA BANERJEE)
NEW DELHI;
MARCH 29, 2019.
7