Bhavat Yadav vs State of C.G.

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 11.10.2012 passed in Sessions Trial No. 03/2012 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, Distt.- Rajnandgaon (C.G.). By the impugned judgment, the Appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rupees 300/- with default sentence of R.I. for 2 months. The facts, briefly stated, are as under:--

Durpat Bai (Deceased) was a widow. She was residing separately in Village- Mudiya. Her mother, Kuwariya Bai (PW-1) was also residing in the same village. On 27.11.2011, in the evening, Kuwariya Bai (PW-1) visited the house of the Deceased. She found that the door of the house of the Deceased was locked from outside and the key of the lock was thrown in the courtyard. She opened the lock and went inside the house and saw that her daughter (Deceased) was lying dead having sustained multiple serious injuries. Merg Intimation (Ex-P-2) and Dehati Nalsi (Ex-P-1) were recorded. First Information Report (FIR - Ex-P-16) was also recorded. The offence was registered against unknown person. Inquest (Ex-P-5) was prepared and dead body was sent for postmortem. The postmortem report (Ex-P-15) revealed that it was a homicidal death. On 30.11.2011, the Appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement (Ex-P-9) u/s 27 of the Evidence Act was recorded and a Tangiya was sized at his instance vide seizure memo Ex-P-10. The seized articles were sent for their chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur (FSL) and a report was received. According to the FSL report, blood stains were found on Tangiya seized at the instance of the Appellant.

Admittedly, there was no eye-witness to the incident and the case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. The Sessions Judge relied on two main circumstances which are as follows:--

i. The Appellant had said to the daughter of the Deceased that the Deceased should not demand Rupees 1500/- from him, otherwise, he will kill her; and

ii. A blood stained Tangiya was seized at the instance of the Appellant on his discovery statement (Ex-P-9).

Mr. Samir Singh, counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant, has argued that the above circumstances were not fully established; they were not of conclusive nature and tendency; the circumstances were capable of being explained and the chain of circumstantial evidence was also not complete. He also argued that the motive set-forth by the prosecution was also not established and it was not sufficient to commit an offence like murder.

On the other hand, Mr. Rajendra Tripathi, Panel Lawyer, appearing on behalf of the State, has opposed these arguments and supported the judgment passed by the Sessions Court.

We have heard counsel for the parties.

The Deceased was a widow. She was residing all alone in her house. Her murder was committed in day time on 27.11.2011. Her mother, Kuwariya Bai (PW-1) visited her house in the evening and found her dead in her house. Kuwariya Bai (PW-1) lodged the Merg Intimation and Dehati Nalshi. In both the document, she did not mention the name of the Appellant. Merg Intimation and Dehati Nalshi both were recorded against the unknown person. Even the First Information Report was also registered against the unknown person. Kuwariya Bai (PW-1) admitted in para 8 of her cross-examination that since the Appellant was neighbour of the Deceased and he was not in talking terms with the Deceased, therefore, she had stated her name on account of suspicion alone.

Premin Verma (PW-8) is daughter of the Deceased. Previously she was residing with the Deceased, however, since last two months, she was residing with her maternal uncle. She deposed that the Deceased had given Rupees 1500/- to the Appellant for grazing of her goats and she-goats. The Appellant was not taking her goats/she-goats for grazing. The Deceased was demanding her money and in this connection, the Appellant had said to Premin Verma (PW-8) to tell the Deceased that if she will demand money, he will kill her. This was the ''motive'' set-forth by the Prosecution for commission of murder of the Deceased. The Investigating Officer has deposed that he had recorded the Statement of Premin Verma (PW-8) on 27.11.2011. She had told the above story to the Investigating Officer. But we find that the above story was neither in the FIR nor in the Merg Intimation or Debhati Nalshi.

Premin Verma (PW-8) was residing with Kuwariya Bai (PW-1), therefore, they must have talked with each other after the incident, and if in fact, the things would have happened in the alleged manner, Premin Verma (PW-8) in all probability would have stated these facts to Kuwariya Bai (PW-1), who would have mentioned all these facts in the FIR, Merg Intimation and Dehati Nalshi. Therefore, the said evidence of Premin Verma (PW-8) that the Appellant had stated her a week ago that he will kill the Deceased if she demands Rupees 1500/- from him appears to be unreliable.

No doubt, in cases which are entirely or mainly based upon circumstantial evidence, motive can have greater relevancy or significance, but the motive suggested by the prosecution must be fully established and it must be sufficient for the accused to commit an offence like murder. In the instant case, we have already held that the solitary evidence of Premin Verma (PW-8), for motive, was shaky and even the alleged motive was not sufficient for the Appellant to commit murder of the Deceased. We are of the view that the Sessions Judge fell into error by holding that the above motive set-forth by the prosecution was established and it was sufficient for the Appellant to commit murder of the Deceased.

The other circumstance is the seizure of Tangiya on the discovery statement made by the Appellant on 30.11.2011. The FSL report (Ex-P-19) would show that blood stains were found on Tangiya, but the prosecution has not produced any document to show the origin of the blood stains, as to whether, they were of human blood or not. There is no report to show that the blood group of the said stains was matching with the blood group of the Deceased. Therefore, the circumstance of disclosure statement and seizure from the Appellant was also not incriminating and conviction was not possible on the aforesaid solitary circumstance set-forth by the prosecution.

On due appreciation of entire evidence, we find that the above circumstances were not fully established. The circumstances were not of conclusive nature and tendency and they were capable of being explained and the chain of circumstantial evidence was also not complete.

For the foregoing reasons, we are unable to sustain the conviction of the Appellant on the above set of circumstantial evidence. In the Result, the Appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentences awarded to the Appellant u/s 302 IPC are set-aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. It is stated that the Appellant is in jail since 30.11.2011. He be released forth-with if not required in any other case.