Sushil Yadav vs Sukhnandan Yadav

Sanjay S. Agrawal, J

This appeal has been preferred by the son of the deceased under proviso to Section 372 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment dated 08.04.2022 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur in Sessions Trial No.170/21, whereby the respondents have been acquitted with regard to the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC.

From perusal of the record, it appears that on 22.02.2021, a Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P.3) was lodged by one Sahoran Yadav before the Police Station Chakarbhata of District Bilaspur, stating, inter alia, that on 21.02.2021, deceased - Ramayan Yadav went to liquor distillery along with one Jivrakhan Yadav to drink alcohol and on the next day morning around 8-9 a.m., he got the information that the dead body of the deceased was lying near the said liquor distillery and someone has caused injury on his head with the aid of heavy solid object. Based upon the said information, an investigation was conducted and thereafter, an FIR (Ex.P.-27) was registered against an unknown person for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Shubham Vaishnav (PW-15), who vide his Post Morterm Report (Ex.P.-24) opined the cause of death to be homicidal in nature occurred on account of severe head injury and, after completion of usual investigation, the charge sheet was submitted before the Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Bilha and, the matter was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where based upon the materials available on record, the respondents have been charge sheeted with regard to the offence as mentioned herein-above.

According to the Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P.-3), lodged by one Sahoran Yadav, it appears that on a previous day of lodging the said report, i.e., 21.02.2021, the deceased, namely, Ramayan Yadav was with one Jivrakhan Yadav (PW-3), however, according to his statement, it appears that though he was with the deceased but because of heavy drink, he slept behind the distillery and when he got up, he did not find the deceased Ramayan Yadav, nor the motorcycle. It appears further from his statement that, in fact, on the next day morning, he came to know from his nephew Chintaram that the deceased was murdered. He has, thus, not supported the prosecution story, though he was with the deceased on the said fateful day.

It is to be seen further that on account of the alleged incident, jacket and full pant with blood stain were recovered from Sukhnandan Yadav, respondent No.1, vide Ex.P.17 on 23.02.2021 based upon his memorandum statement (Ex.P.-14) in presence of two witnesses, namely, Ghanshyam Yadav (PW-7) and Shushil Yadav (PW-8), while jacket, t-shirt and full pant with blood stain were recovered from Raghunath Yadav, respondent No.2, vide seizure memo Ex.P.-18 based upon his memorandum statement (Ex.P.-15). Although, based on the testimony of Shushil Yadav (PW-8), the alleged recovery was found to be proved and the human blood was detected on their clothes as per the FSL report, but in absence of blood group ascertainment, their involvement in the murder of Ramayan Yadav cannot be held to be established. No cogent and reliable evidence has, thus, been led by the prosecution attributing the involvement of respondents for the commission of the alleged crime. We, therefore, do not find any substance warranting any interference in the impugned judgment acquitting the respondents from the commission of the alleged crime.

The appeal being devoid of merit is accordingly dismissed at the admission stage itself.