State Of Chhattisgarh vs Rakesh Kumar Sahu

Ramesh Sinha, CJ

Heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate for the petitioner/State on I.A. No. 1 of 2023, which is an application for condonation of delay.

After hearing the learned counsel for the petitioner/State and considering the reasons mentioned in the application, we are of the considered opinion that sufficient cause has been shown in the application and accordingly, I.A. No. 1 of 2023 is allowed and delay of 36 days in filing the appeal is condoned.

The State has sought leave to appeal against the impugned judgment of acquittal dated 21.03.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Durg, District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 152/2018 by which, the respondents/accused have been acquitted of the charges punishable under Sections 147, 148 and 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC)and also acquitted respondent No. 1/Rakesh Kumar Sahu from charges punishable under Section 201 of the IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act.

The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 21.04.2018 around 11.00 to 11.30 p.m. in Shastri Nagar under Cantonment Police Station area, the accused/respondents being a member involved in organizing unlawful assembly in furtherance of the common object of the gathering, which was equipped with stones, poles, knives assaulted Sai Shyam alias Guddu with Knife, stick, floor-stone, hand-fist etc. Knowing fully well that it may cause death to him remained in that gathering. Under Section 201 of the IPC, it is also alleged against the accused Rakesh Kumar Sahu that knowing or having reason to believe that Sai Shyam alias Guddu had been murdered, he, with the intention of saving himself from the statutory punishment thereon with an intention to destroy the evidence of blood smeared cloth of the deceased worn at the time of the incident, burn it. Accused Rakesh Kumar Sahu is also an accused under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act for the offence of illegally keeping sharp iron and buttoned knife in his possession in violation of Government’s notification number 6312-6552-2B and used that knife in violation of Section 5 of the Arms Act. Map was prepared by the Patwari. On being found to have committed the crime, respondent/accused/Rakesh Kumar Sahu was duly arrested, after completion of other seizure proceedings and on informing the relatives of the accused. Thereafter, the seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for its examination through the Superintendent of Police. The report of FSL was received. After completing the investigation against the accused/respondents challan was presented, which was later committed for trial. On reading over the offence to the accused/respondents, they abjured the guilt and sought trial, on which 14 witnesses were examined by the prosecution. The statement of the accused/respondents were recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., wherein they expressed ignorance on the incident and stated that the Police authorities took them in their custody from their house and took signatures from them on blank paper and prepared false case against them. The accused/respondents produced not witness in their favour.

The learned trial Court after appreciating the evidence available on record, acquitted the respondents / accused from the offence for which they have been charged with by giving them the benefit of doubt.

Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the petitioner/State submits that the deceased who was the real brother of the injured Kapnu (PW-1) and he has sustained as many as 17 injuries on his person whereas the injured Kapnu (PW-1) has lodged the FIR. The learned trial Court has erred by acquitting the respondents/accused from the offence charged and utterly failed to appreciate the evidence of eyewitnesses, namely, Arjun Kashyap (PW-3), Smt. Renuka Rajput (PW-4) and Suresh Thakur (PW-5) in its right perspective. The learned trial Court also overlooked the opinion given by Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-8), Assistant Professor, Forensic Medicine Department, Mekahara, Raipur (C.G.), wherein she had opinined that all the injuries found in the body of the deceased were of antemortem, external injury number 5, 6, 7 and 11 to 16 were caused by stepbund and sharp objects, all the edges of the stepbund are sharp. External injury No. 14 present on the left side has caused damage to the lung which the Doctor has mentioned in detail in the postmortem report. The cause of death is hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries, which were homicidal in nature. It is further submitted by the learned Government Advocate that blood of the deceased was found on the clothes of the accused/respondents. Hence, the learned trial Court has committed grave injustice in acquitting accused persons. Without considering all these aspects, the trial Court acquitted the respondents/accused by giving them benefit of doubt, which is perverse and contrary to the law and as such, the leave to appeal deserves to be granted.

Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the considered opinion that the present is a fit case where application under Section 378(3) of the CrPC deserves to be allowed. Accordingly, the application for leave to appeal under Section 378(3) of the CrPC is allowed.

Office is directed to register the case under the head of “Acquittal Appeal”.

The CrMP is disposed off accordingly.

The acquittal appeal is also stand admitted.

Let a bailable warrant of a sum of Rs. 5,000/- each be issued against the respondents / accused for their presence before this Court on 27.02.2024.

Paper-book be prepared in accordance with the High Court Rules.

This Court in ACQA No. 5 of 2021 (State of Chhattisgarh vs. Devidayal Patel) on 07.10.2023 has passed an order directing the Registrar (Judicial) to summon the records from the Court below in all the criminal appeals which are filed against acquittal or against conviction before this Court for sending a requisition for summoning of the records from the Court below without waiting for any order from the Court, as it was noticed that the appeals are listed before the Court for admission after a long lapse of time causing delay in preparation of the paper-book and the disposal of the appeal. In the present case also, the CrMP was filed by the State and it is also noticed that the State has a remedy of filing an appeal under Section 378(3) of the Cr.P.C., if the State is aggrieved against the order of the acquittal passed by the trial Court. The Office has not sent the requisition for sending of the Lower Court Records waiting for an order to be passed by the Court in CrMP, which has been filed against the order of acquittal. Hence, in similar situation, the Registry is directed to summon the Lower Court Records wherein CrMP has been filed seeking permission to file an acquittal appeal against the order of the trial Court, the Lower Court Records be also summoned without waiting for any order of the Court so that no undue delay is caused in the disposal of the CrMP filed seeking leave to appeal against the order of acquittal passed by the trial Court.

The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to ensure the compliance of the order.