Mukesh Kumar @ Mukku Satnami vs State of M.P.

Sunil Kumar Sinha, J.—This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 21.4.1997 passed in Session Trial No. 317/96 by the Sixth Additional Session Judge, Durg. By the impugned judgment, the appellant has been convicted u/s 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The facts, briefly stated, are as under-Appellant- Mukesh @ Mukku and deceased-Chandrabhushan were residents of same village. On 21.4.1996, a dinner was arranged by Agarahis Satnami (PW-6) in his house. Mother of the deceased, Amrika Bai, was called for preparation of the food. In the evening, the appellant and the deceased both visited the dinner place. The deceased made complaint that the appellant used to tease his sister. On this, the appellant became angry and said that he will see him. Thereafter, the appellant went from that place. Deceased-Chandrabhushan also left the dinner place at about 8.00 p.m. After some time, the dead body of the deceased was found on a public road near the village. The deceased had sustained multiple serious injuries. During the course of investigation, on 29.4.1996, the appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement u/s 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P/3) was recorded and a sickle was seized at his instance vide seizure memo Ex. P/4. Clothes of the appellant were also seized. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), Raipur vide requisition Ex. P/17. According to the FSL report (Ex. P/18), blood stains were found on all the articles, including the sickle (Hasiya). The articles were sent for Serologist examination, but no report, relating to origin or group of the blood stains found over these articles, could be filed.

There was no eye-witness to the incident and case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. Following are the main circumstances, on which, the Session Judge relied and convicted the appellant u/s 302 IPC:-

i. An altercation had taken place between the appellant and the deceased in the house of Agarahis (PW-6);

ii. The appellant was asking for a knife from his brother Rajesh;

iii. The deceased died homicidal death thereafter in the night;

iv. The appellant was absconding for about a week after the incident;

v. On the discovery statement (Ex. P/3), a sickle was seized at the instance of the appellant; and

vi. Blood stains were found on sickle and clothes of the appellant.

We have perused the records of the Sessions Case and have heard Mr. J.A. Lohani, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State, who has supported the judgment passed by the Session Court.

Admittedly, there is no direct evidence in this case and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to the drawn have to be fully established and all the circumstances so established should be of conclusive nature and tendency. They must point only towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances should not be capable of being explained and the chain of the circumstantial evidence must be so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the belief consistent with the innocence of the accused. This is what the Supreme Court said in many cases. Therefore, we ought to be satisfied that the circumstances on which the prosecution relies leave no option but to hold that the crime imputed to the appellant has been established beyond a reasonable doubt.

There is no dispute that the deceased died homicidal death and his dead body was found on a public road near village-Nikum. About the altercation between the appellant and the deceased in the house of Agarahis (PW-6), there is no positive evidence. Agarahis (PW-6) has been declared hostile by the prosecution. In the cross-examination in para 9, Agarahij (PW-6) clearly admitted that he does not know about the quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. Mother of the deceased, Amrika Bai, who could have the best witness of the altercation, was not examined by the prosecution. We find that there is no clinching and reliable evidence to hold that, in fact, an altercation had taken place between the appellant and the deceased in the house of Agarahis (PW-6).

The circumstance of asking for a knife by the appellant from his brother is also not proved, as Rajesh, brother of the appellant has not been examined by the prosecution.

About the memorandum and seizure, we find that the incident took place on 21.4.1996 and the memorandum statement (Ex. P/3) of the appellant was recorded on 29.4.1996. Out of 2 witnesses of memorandum and seizure, namely- Chovaram (PW-1) and Jhaduram (PW-9), Chovaram (PW-1) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of prosecution. The learned Session Judge has found the circumstance of memorandum and seizure to be incriminating, recording a finding that in the FSL report, human blood was found over the articles, including sickle, seized at the instance of the appellant. The above finding is totally perverse. We have gone through the FSL report proved as Ex. P/18. In the FSL report, it is nowhere mentioned that the blood stains found over the above articles were of human blood. In fact, it was simply found that those articles were stained with blood and not with human blood. Though the materials were sent for Serologist and chemical examination, but no report in this regard could be filed. Therefore, the origin and group of blood stains found over these articles were not at all proved. We are of the view that in the above facts and circumstances of the case, the solitary circumstance of memorandum and seizure of sickle and clothes of the appellant would not be sufficient to hold him guilty of the offence of murder.

The appellant was taken into custody on 29.4.1996. The learned Session Judge has held that he was absconding till that date. About abscondance, the Supreme Court held in Sk. Yusuf Vs. State of West Bengal, that" it is a settled legal proposition that in case a person is absconding after commission of offence of which he may not even be the author, such a circumstance alone may not be enough to draw an adverse inference against him as it would go against the doctrine of innocence. It is quite possible that he may be running away merely, being suspected, out of fear of police arrest and harassment. (Vide: Matru alias Girish Chandra Vs. The State of Uttar Pradesh, Paramjeet Singh @ Pamma Vs. State of Uttarakhand, and Rabindra Kumar Pal @ Dara Singh Vs. Republic of India,

On due appreciation of the entire material available on record, we find that the circumstances, from which, the conviction of guilt has been drawn, have not been fully established. The circumstances are not of conclusive nature and tendency. It is not a case, in which, the circumstances are not capable of being explained. The dead body of the deceased was found at an open place on the public road. We are of the view that in the instant case, chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete and the circumstances are not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty or the offence of murder. For the foregoing reasons, we allow this appeal and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant u/s 302 IPC, and direct that the appellant is acquitted of the charges framed against him. It is stated that the appellant is on bail. His bail bonds are cancelled and surety stands discharged.