Shankar @ Maniram vs The State of Madhya Pradesh

This appeal has been filed by the appellant Shankar @ Maniram being aggrieved by the judgment dated 26.04.2007 passed by the 11th

Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court) Bhopal, in S.T. No. 354/2006 whereby the appellant has been found guilty of an offence punishable

under section 302 of the IPC and has been sentenced to Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/-, and in default thereof further rigorous

imprisonment of three months.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that, on 28.09.2006 at around 9:00 - 9:30 in the night when Raisen Bhadoriya (Constable No.2550) (PW-1),

Salim (PW- 14) and Asif (PW-15) who are Traffic Policemen and were on duty at Alpana Square in Bhopal, they heard somebody shouting for

help whereupon they rushed to the place from where the call for help was coming and saw the appellant running away from the spot where the

incident had occurred. According to the prosecution when the aforesaid three witnesses reached the spot and they saw the deceases lying on the

spot with several stabbed injuries on his person, whereafter they took him to the hospital on an autoriksha where the deceased was declared dead

by Dr. Aniti Arora (PW-7). It is alleged that apart from the three eye-witnesses, Raju Thakur (PW-8) who was standing at the spot when the

incident occurred also saw the incident and was shouting that the appellant Shankar had committed the murder of the deceased Munna.

The appellant was arrested on the next day and on his direction the offending dagger was discovered from the road side where he had thrown it

vide seizure memo (Exh. P-8) which was prepared in the presence of seizure witnesses Kunjilal (PW-3) and Latif (PW-4).

The trial Court on the basis of the identification of the appellant as the person who had stabbed the deceased, statements of Raisen Bhadoriya

(PW-1), Salim (PW-14) and Asif (PW-15) and the recovery of the murder weapon on the directions of the appellant as well as the fact that blood

was found on the weapon seized from the appellant as per the FSL report (Exh. P-20), has recorded a finding of guilt against the appellant and has

held the appellant guilty of an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and has sentenced him to life imprisonment as aforesaid.

The learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are several discrepancies and contradictions in the statements of the three alleged eye-

witnesses Raisen Bhadoriya (PW-1), Salim (PW-14) and Asif (PW-15). It is also pointed out that the sole independent eye-witness Raju Thakur

(PW-8) has not supported the prosecution case and has been declared hostile. Learned counsel further submits that the seizure of the offending

dagger from the appellant has also not been proved or established as the seizure witnesses Kunjilal (PW-3) and Latif (PW-4) have not supported

the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.

It is submitted that in the circumstances, as the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt the fact that the appellant had

committed the offence, the finding recorded by the trial Court ignoring the omissions and contradictions in the statements of the eye-witnesses as

well as the fact that the key independent witness have turned hostile, has committed perversity in recording a finding of guilt against the appellant.

Having heard learned counsel for the parties and having carefully perused the statements of Raisen Bhadoriya (PW-1), Salim (PW-14) and Asif

(PW-15) along with the statements of Raju Thakur (PW-8), Kunjilal (PW5 Cr.A. No.1438/2007 3) and Latif (PW-4), it is observed that there

are several contradictions and in consistencies in the statements made by these witnesses.

While Raisen Bhadoriya (PW-1) has stated that he heard the cry of help and rushed to the spot whereupon he saw the appellant running away

from the spot, he has also in the same statement stated that when he reached the spot a crowd had collected on the spot and that they had to part

the crowd to reach the spot whereupon they saw the deceased lying on the ground and that they did not see the appellant committing the crime but

saw him running away. He has clarified that he only saw the back of the appellant and thereafter identified him as Shankar only in view of the

statement of Raju Thakur (PW-8), who was present on the spot and told him that Shankar had committed the crime. Similar statements have been

made by Salim (PW-14) and Asif (PW-15). From a perusal of their statements it is apparent that while on the one hand they have stated that they

saw the appellant committing the offence and thereafter running away from the spot, on the other hand they have stated that when they reached the

spot a crowd was standing all around the deceased who was lying on the ground and that they did not actually see the appellant committing the

crime but only saw his back while he was running away, that too at 9:30 in the night. In their statements these three witnesses have also stated that

they saw the appellant in the police station after his arrest and at that point of time they were told that his name was Shankar. They have also stated

that the appellant was identified as Shankar in view of the statements of Raju Thakur (PW-8) whereas Raju Thakur (PW-8) in his statement has

clearly stated that he did not see the incident and that he did not at any point of time state that Shankar had committed the crime. He has also

stated that he had given a statement only on account of the beating and threat that had been given to him by the police officers and that he had

signed the statement only on account of fear of the police authorities. These witnesses have also clearly stated that they did not know the appellant

prior to the incident and only came to know about him after his arrest when it was told to them that his name was Shankar.

From a perusal of the record it is evident that the seizure of the alleged murder weapon from the appellant has also not been proved by the

prosecution in view of the fact that the two seizure witnesses Kunjilal (PW-3) and Latif (PW-4) have turned hostile and have clearly stated that the

alleged murder weapon was not recovered in their presence and have also stated that the appellant did not disclose the place where the murder

weapon was lying and that the discovery of the weapon was not made on the basis of the statement of the appellant.

In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the statements of the alleged eye-witnesses Raisen

Bhadoriya (PW-1), Salim (PW-14) and Asif (PW-15) contain several contradictions and do not inspire confidence and, therefore, it is not

possible to place absolute reliance upon their statements in respect of identification the appellant as the person who has committed the murder of

the deceased. When this aspect is read along with the fact that the seizure of the murder weapon from the appellant has not been established on

account of the seizure witnesses becoming hostile, it is apparent that it cannot be held that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable

doubt the guilt of the appellant.

We are also of the considered opinion that on the basis of the statements of the aforesaid eye-witnesses a finding of guilt against the appellant

cannot be recorded as the statements are not of such sterling and reliable quality as to inspire confidence. Though the trial Court in paragraph

Nos.14 and 15 of its judgment has relied upon the identification of the appellant made by alleged eyewitness in Court, however while doing so, in

our considered opinion the trial Court has overlooked the fact that these witnesses in their statements have infact stated that they did not actually

see the appellant committing the crime nor did they see him running away from the spot and that they have also clearly stated that subsequent to the

incident they had seen the appellant at the police station whereupon the police authorities had informed them that his name was Shankar. In such

circumstances when the statement of the alleged eyewitnesses is read along with the fact that no test identification parade was conducted then it is

difficult to rely absolutely and totally upon the identification made in Court for the purposes of recording a finding of guilt in the absence of any

other supporting evidence.

We are, therefore, of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and

that the finding recorded by the trial Court in respect to the guilt of the appellant does not find support from the oral and documentary evidence on

record and is, therefore, unsustainable.

The appeal filed by the appellant is accordingly allowed. The judgment dated 26.04.2007 passed by the 11th Additional Sessions Judge (Fast

Track Court) Bhopal, in S.T. No. 354/2006 is set aside and the conviction of appellant Shankar @ Maniram under Section 302 of the IPC is also

set aside. It is stated that the appellant is in jail. He shall accordingly be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any

other case.

A copy of the judgment be sent to the M.P. High Court Legal Service Committee, Jabalpur for necessary information.