State Of Chhattisgarh vs Laldev Kodaku

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J

(1) This acquittal appeal has been filed by the appellant-State under Section 378(1) of Cr.P.C. challenging the order of acquittal dated 05.01.2008, passed by the Court of learned 1st Addl. Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Ramanujganj, District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.347 of 2006, whereby the respondent herein (accused) has been acquitted from the charge under Section 302 of IPC.

(2) Mr. Ashish Tiwari, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the appellant-State submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in acquitting the respondent herein for the offence under Section 302 of IPC by recording finding which is perverse to the record. It is further submitted that pursuant to memorandum statement of the respondent-accused (Ex.P/12) an axe (Tangi), which is used at the time of crime in question, has been seized vide seizure memo (Ex.P/13) on which blood stains are present, which is duly proved by Vishwnath (PW-06) and even the doctor, namely, Dr. Narendra Pratap (PW-10), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased has opined that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, thus, the impugned order of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality, therefore, the same is liable to be set aside.

(3) Mr. F.S. Khare, learned counsel for the respondent submits that the witnesses, namely, Samundri (PW-01), Devsai (PW-02) and Bundhmaniya (PW-03) through have been cited as eye witnesses, but have not supported the case of the prosecution. The alleged memorandum statement of the appellant has not been proved and even the blood stained axe (Tangi), which is alleged to have been recovered pursuant to said memorandum statement, has not been sent for examination to Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) and there is no FSL report available to show that said blood stained axe (Tangi) contains stains/spots of human blood only and, as such, in absence of any direct evidence and FSL report mainly on the basis of alleged memorandum statement and recovery of blood stained axe (Tangi), the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent herein for the charge under Section 302 of IPC, therefore, the present acquittal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

(4) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and perused the material available on record with utmost circumspection.

(5) It is the case of the prosecution that the accused-respondent herein caused death of Ramsurat (deceased) on 23.04.2006 on account of previous enmity, as there was some land dispute between them, which was witnessed by Samundri (PW-01) (wife of the deceased), Devsai (PW-02) and Budhmaniya (PW-03).

(6) A careful perusal of the statement of Samundri (PW-01), wife of the deceased, would show that firstly in her examination-in-chief before the trial Court she has supported the case of the prosecution, but in Para-06 of her cross-examination she has clearly stated that when she reached at the spot (place of incident/occurrence) assault (marpeet) was already committed, at the time of incident she was in her house, she has not heard any noise and her husband (deceased) has not informed her that the accused-respondent herein has assault him. Further, in Para-07 of her cross-examination, she has disclosed that there was some land dispute between the deceased and the accused-respondent herein. Similarly, Devsai (PW-02) in her examination-in-chief before the trial Court has supported the case of the prosecution, but in Para-07 of her cross-examination accepted the fact that he has not seen any free-fight or assault between the deceased and the accused-respondent herein and similar statement has also been made by Budhmaniya (PW-03), as such, there is no direct evidence available to implicate the accused-respondent herein in the crime in question. Further, though pursuant to memorandum statement of the accused-respondent herein a blood stained axe (Tangi) is alleged to have been recovered, but the same has not been sent to FSL for examination and, therefore, it is not clear/sure whether the said blood stained axe (Tangi) contains human blood or not. Hence, the learned trial Court declined to record conviction and proceeded to acquit the accused-respondent herein on the premise that merely on the basis of disclosure/memorandum statement and recovery of blood stained axe (Tangi) it would be unsafe to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC.

(7) In that view of the matter, the learned trial Court has rightly acquitted the respondent herein from the charge under Section 302 of IPC. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in acquitting the respondent herein, which warrants interference of this Court and, as such, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

(8) Accordingly, this acquittal appeal is dismissed without notice to the other side.