Ranjeet Singh vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

2023 INSC 636 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. OF 2023 (arising out of SLP (Crl.) No. of 2023) (arising out of Diary No. 25041 of 2021)

RANJEET SINGH ..... APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ..... RESPONDENT(S)

O R D E R

Delay condoned.

Leave granted.

The appellant - Ranjeet Singh has been convicted under Section

302 of the Indian Penal Code, 18601 for committing murder of

Devnath/Deonath (deceased) on 15.01.2010.2 He has been sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life, payment of fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and

in default, to undergo rigorous imprisonment of one year.

We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and examined

the trial court records.

We are not satisfied that the three minors, Anita (PW-13),

Meena (PW-14) and Lali/Lalo (PW-15) were eyewitnesses to the

occurrence. Anita (PW-13) and Meena (PW-14) are sisters. Lali/Lalo

(PW-15) is the grand-daughter of the deceased - Devnath/Deonath.

Signature Not Verified The First Information Report (FIR) No. 02/2010 registered at Digitally signed by

1 For short ‘IPC’.

SWETA BALODI Date: 2023.07.21 17:41:31 IST

2 The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur vide judgment dated 08.11.2017 in Reason:

Criminal Appeal No.279 of 2017 has upheld the conviction and sentence awarded by the Additional Session Judge, F.T.C., Surajpur, District-Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

1 SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 25041 of 2021

Police Station - Ramanujnagar, District - Surguja, Chhattisgarh

(Exhibit P-2), recorded on 15.01.2010 at 14:30 hrs. at the behest

of Vikas Kumar (PW-1), who is the son of the deceased -

Devnath/Deonath, states that the deceased - Devnath/Deonath had

died early in the day between 07:00 a.m. and 08:00 a.m. The

deceased - Devnath/Deonath had gone to Madanpur forest to get wood.

At about 11:00 a.m., Vikas Kumar (PW-1) went to Madanpur forest to

bring back his father Devnath/Deonath, as he had left home without

taking meals, and because of solar eclipse. On reaching the place

of occurrence, Vikas Kumar (PW-1) found that his father

Devnath/Deonath, was lying dead. There were injuries on his head

and face. A blood-stained big stone was lying there. The FIR

(Exhibit P-2) does not name any accused or suspect, and states that

someone had killed the deceased - Devnath/Deonath. It does not

state that Anita (PW-13), Meena (PW-14) and Lali/Lalo (PW-15) had

seen the occurrence.

Vikas Kumar (PW-1), in his deposition, has stated that Babulal

(PW-2), who is the cousin of the deceased - Devnath/Deonath, and

other persons from the village, were called and had seen the dead

body of his father Devnath/Deonath.

Babulal (PW-2) has testified that he, along with Vikas Kumar

(PW-1), and the appellant - Ranjeet Singh, had gone to the Police

Station and lodged the report, pursuant to which the FIR (Exhibit

P-2) was registered.

Babulal (PW-2) is the maternal grandfather of the two minors

Anita (PW-13) and Meena (PW-14), and the ‘Baba’ of Lali/Lalo (PW-

2 SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 25041 of 2021

15). Further, Anita (PW-13) and Meena (PW-14) are the grand-

daughters of Hirmaniya Bai (PW-11).

Hukumsay (PW-10), the father of Lali/Lalo (PW-15), in his

examination-in-chief, has testified that he came to know eight to

nine days after the incident that the appellant - Ranjeet Singh had

killed Devnath/Deonath, on being told by Lali/Lalo (PW-15).

Given the close relationship of Anita (PW-13), Meena (PW-14)

and Lali/Lalo (PW-15) with Vikas Kumar (PW-1), Babulal (PW-2) and

Hirmaniya Bai (PW-11), initial silence for nearly nine days on the

part of alleged eyewitness, as well as Vikas Kumar (PW-1), Babulal

(PW-2) and Hirmaniya Bai (PW-11), and the contents of the FIR

(Exhibit P-2), cast grave doubt on the court deposition by Anita

(PW-13), Meena (PW-14) and Lali/Lalo (PW-15) implicating the

appellant - Ranjeet Singh as the perpetrator who had murdered

Devnath/Deonath.

The appellant - Ranjeet Singh was arrested on 24.01.2010, nine

days after the incident in question and registration of the FIR

(Exhibit P-2).

This apart, we find other discrepancies, as Hirmaniya Bai (PW-

11), the grandmother of the two sisters - Anita (PW-13) and Meena

(PW-14), has testified that she would not allow her grand-

daughters to bring wood from the forest, the stated purpose why the

two eye-witnesses, along with Lali/Lalo (PW-15), had proceeded to

the forest.

Learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent – State

of Chhattisgarh has submitted that the appellant – Ranjeet Singh

3 SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 25041 of 2021

had absconded on 15.01.2010, after he had gone with Vikas Kumar

(PW-1) and Babu Lal (PW-2) to the police station for registration

of the FIR (Exhibit-2). It is stated that the prosecution has been

able to establish motive as the appellant - Ranjeet Singh and the

deceased - Devnath/Deonath had quarreled on one or two occasions

about two to three months before the incident in question.

The appellant - Ranjeet Singh was certainly present in the

village on 15.01.2010. His abscondence is not deposed to by Vikas

Kumar (PW-1). Babulal (PW-2), in his deposition, has claimed that

the police had brought a dog with them, and on hearing this, the

appellant - Ranjeet Singh had fled from there. The dog had sniffed

the blood-stained stone and, thereafter, had proceeded to the house

of the appellant - Ranjeet Singh. Ever since, Babulal (PW-2) had

not seen the appellant - Ranjeet Singh in the village. However, the

Investigating Officer - Jaideo Kosle (PW-16), in his deposition,

while accepting that the appellant - Ranjeet Singh had come with

Vikas Kumar (PW-1) and Babulal (PW2) for recording the merg, did

not state that the appellant - Ranjeet Singh had absconded.

The quarrel(s) between the appellant - Ranjeet Singh and the

deceased - Devnath/Deonath, were minor in nature and had happened

two to three months prior to the incident.

Neither the quarrel(s), as deposed, nor the allegation of

abscondence, regarding which there is some ambiguity and doubt,

would establish the case of murder of Devnath/Deonath against the

appellant - Ranjeet Singh, if we discard the statements of the

alleged eye-witnesses - Anita (PW-13), Meena (PW-14) and Lali/Lalo

4 SLP (Crl.) Diary No. 25041 of 2021

(PW-15).

In view of the aforesaid position, we allow the present appeal

and set aside the appellant – Ranjeet Singh’s conviction under

Section 302 IPC, in the charge-sheet arising out of FIR No. 02/2010

registered at Police Station - Ramanujnagar, District - Surguja,

Chhattisgarh.

The appellant – Ranjeet Singh will be released immediately, if

not required to be detained in jail in any other case.

Record of Proceedings, indicating that the appellant – Ranjeet

Singh has been acquitted, will be sent by the Registry to the

concerned Prison in-charge today itself, for immediate compliance.

Recording the aforesaid, the appeal is allowed.

Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

..................J. (SANJIV KHANNA)

..................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI) NEW DELHI;

JULY 13, 2023.

5