Shatrughan vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.437 OF 2016

SHATRUGHAN …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT(S)

JUDGMENT

VIKRAM NATH, J.

By means of this appeal, the accused appellant

has assailed the correctness of the judgment and

order of the High Court dated 06.04.2015 passed by

a Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh

dismissing the Criminal Appeal No.3 of 2010 titled

Statrughan vs. State of Chhattisgarh, whereby the

conviction under section 302, Indian Penal Code1 and

Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by SONIA BHASIN Date: 2023.07.21 10:37:58 IST 1 Reason: IPC 1 the sentence to undergo life imprisonment along with

fine of Rs.5,000/- passed by the IInd Additional

Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, Dist.Raipur in

Sessions Trial No.41 of 2009 has been affirmed. The

appellant is in jail and has already undergone almost

15 years incarceration.

2. According to the prosecution story, Vijay Kumar

(PW1) uncle of the deceased (Jagat Ram) lodged a

First Information Report at 04:30 AM on 20.07.2008

that on the previous night at about 08.00 PM while

he was sitting in his house, his nephew Jagat was

returning on a cycle and he heard his nephew

shouting, while passing in front of the house of one

Chandu “Kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan has

assaulted me with a Tabbal”. The exact statement as

recorded in vernacular is: “काका विजय व िंह दौड़ो , मेरे को

शत्रुघ्न तब्बल े मार वदया है ”।

2

3. On hearing the said cry for help, the informant

along with his wife, ran to the lane in front of the

house of Chandu Lal and saw that his nephew Jagat

was lying on the road and that Shatrughan was

moving on his cycle along with Tabbal towards his

house. His nephew told him that Shatrughan, in

order to murder him, had assaulted with Tabbal on

his neck and thereafter escaped. His nephew was

bleeding. In a loud voice, he called for help to save his

nephew who had been assaulted by Shatrughan. On

his call, his daughter and other residents of the

neighbourhood collected. Father of the deceased, Ajit

Ram took the injured on Motor Cycle of Sitaram for

medical help. After some time, he returned and

informed that Jagat had died. The said complaint was

registered as FIR No.215 of 2008 at Police Station

Kasdol, District Raipur. Investigation was entrusted

3 to Investigating Officer2 (PW-16) who visited the spot,

got the inquest prepared, recorded the statements of

the informants as well as the witnesses, arrested the

appellant and recovered various articles including

the weapon of assault, other clothes containing blood

stains and also recovered the cycle. The post-mortem

was conducted on 20.07.2008 itself at 02.00 PM.

Following ante mortem injuries were noticed:

• Deep sharp incised wound on the left side

of the neck measuring 5cm in length, 3 cm

wide and 3cm deep.

• Associated blood vessels were also cut and

there was heavy bleeding.

4. After completing the investigation, the

chargesheet was submitted under section 302 IPC.

The case was committed to the Sessions Court. The

2 IO

4 Trial Judge framed the charge on 20.07.2008 which

the appellant denied and claimed to be tried. The

prosecution examined 16 witnesses and produced 21

documents. The defence did not examine any witness

nor did it lead any documentary evidence.

5. The Trial Court, after considering the material

on record, came to the conclusion that the

prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt

that it was the appellant who had committed the

crime and accordingly convicted him for culpable

homicide amounting to murder under section 302

IPC and awarded him sentence to undergo life

imprisonment along with fine of Rs.5,000/-. The said

conviction has been affirmed by the High Court.

Hence, this appeal.

6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties

and perused the original record also.

5

7. According to Ms. Anu Gupta, learned counsel

for the appellant, both the Courts below committed

serious error of law by recording conviction. They

relied upon inadmissible evidence and at the same

time ignored the relevant admissible evidence. The

witnesses of fact were not consistent and did not

inspire confidence. The medical evidence did not

support the prosecution story. There was no direct

evidence of the commission of crime. The case was

based on circumstantial and hearsay evidence. No

motive had been set up by the prosecution either in

the First Information Report or the statements

recorded during the investigation or even in the

evidence led during trial. It was a case of false

implication due to various factors elicited in the

cross-examination. Learned counsel has taken us to

the relevant evidence which shall be shortly

6 discussed. It was thus submitted that the appellant

deserves to be acquitted.

8. On the other hand, Shri Sumeer Sodhi, learned

counsel for the State of Chhattisgarh submitted that

the prosecution had fully proved the commission of

crime by cogent material. The defence could not

disturb or shake the evidence of the prosecution

witnesses despite availing the opportunity of cross-

examination. There is no reason or justification to

interfere with the concurrent findings recorded by

both the Courts below. Mr. Sodhi has also taken us

to the relevant part of the evidence in order to

discredit the arguments and the evidence shown to

us by the learned counsel for the appellant. He thus

submitted that the appeal deserves dismissal.

9. PW-1 is the informant and uncle of the

deceased. He claims to be the first person to arrive at

the scene of the crime. Before discussing his

7 testimony, it would be appropriate to comment on the

site plan prepared by the IO to show the location and

the distance of the place where the incident took

place and the house of the informant. In the site plan,

the place of assault is shown with alphabet “A” which

is in front of the house of Chandu. On the other side

of the lane, a little away and diagonally from the

house of Chandu is the house of Vijay Kumar, the

informant (PW-1) which has been marked by

alphabet “C”. A little further away from the house of

PW-1 is the house of deceased Jagat marked with

alphabet “B”. Alphabet ‘D’ is marked to indicate the

place where the cycle of deceased was lying. The

distance between “A” to “C” is stated to be 14.80

metres (48.56 ft.), the distance between “A” and “B”

is 250 metres (820.21 ft.) and the distance between

“A” to “D” is shown to be 13.30 metres (43.64 ft.).

8

10. With the above picture in mind as depicted by

the site plan, the evidence of the witnesses of fact is

being discussed. It would be relevant to note that

evidence as recorded is in close proximity and within

a reasonable time from the date of occurrence (within

a few months on 11.02.2009). As such the facts

would be still fresh in the minds of the witnesses.

11. PW-1 states that the incident happened about 4

months back at about 08.00PM when Jagat shouted

that Shatrughan has assaulted him. He rushed to the

place of occurrence and saw the accused running

away and the Tabbal was lying there. The deceased

had already fell unconscious by that time with a

deep cut at the neck from which blood was flowing.

Upon his call, Chandu, Firtu, Akshay and his

daughter had all come running. The incident had

actually taken place in front of house of Chandu and

Akshay. The deceased was taken to Dr. Sahu who

9 declared him brought dead and then he went to lodge

the report at the Police Station. He also states that

he does not know why the appellant assaulted his

nephew. He then acknowledges the signature on

First Information Report (Ex. P1). He also

acknowledges his signature on Merg report (Ex. P2).

12. In his cross-examination, PW-1 admits that

after the house of Chandu there is house of one Ram

Singh and after the house of Ram Singh, next is his

house. He further admits that there were some guests

in the house of his brother Ajit Ram i.e. the house of

the deceased. He does not deny the fact that the

guests at his brother’s place were served alcohol

along with food and he does not deny that maybe

the deceased had also consumed alcohol with his

guests. In paragraph 9 of the cross-examination, he

states that Akshay and Firtu had come to the spot on

his calling. Chandu was not there, as he had gone

10 out and he admits that Chandu did not come to the

spot on his calling. He denies the suggestion that

he had come out on the calling of Firtu. He admits

that the deceased was not talking at the time

when he came there as he was already

unconscious. He then admits that the appellant,

along with one Rajendra, had lodged a complaint

against the Sarpanch Khemraj as also the wife of

one Munnu Lal. He admits that he had no dispute

with the appellant nor did the deceased had any

dispute with him. Then, on his own he states that

he did not know that if there was any dispute between

deceased and the appellant. He denies the suggestion

that he had actually not seen the appellant escaping

from the spot as it was a dark night. He then admits

that the Sarpanch had accompanied him to the

Police Station. Then he explains the delay in

reaching the Police Station as, according to him, he

11 first went to Baya Chowki and then from there, he

went to Kasdol Police Station. He denies the

suggestion that he actually did not see the appellant

and had falsely implicated him.

13. PW-2 is Sukhnantin Bai. She is wife of PW-1

Vijay Kumar. She states that on the fateful day at

about 07.30PM when she was at her home, she heard

the voice of her nephew Jagat that Shatrughan has

assaulted him. On hearing the said shout, her

husband Vijay Kumar went out and thereafter she

followed. When she reached the place of

occurrence, her nephew was lying in the lane and

the appellant was not there. She states in her

cross-examination that there was a complaint

against Sarpanch. She also admits that there was

no dispute between the deceased and the

appellant. She also admits that her nephew had

helped Shatrughan and Rajendra in that

12 complaint against the Sarpanch as a result the

Sarpanch had to give a public apology.

14. PW-3 is Kirantin Bai, widow of the deceased.

She only states that her husband was murdered

about 5-6 months ago. Her mother-in-law informed

her that the appellant had assaulted her husband

with a Tabbal. She also states that the deceased was

not in a position to talk when she saw him lying

on the lane and thereafter, he was taken away by the

relatives. No cross-examination has been done from

this witness.

15. PW-4 is Yashoda Kumari, daughter of PW-1,

Vijay Kumar. She stated that she only heard the

deceased shouting that Shatrughan had assaulted.

Upon hearing the same, first her father went out,

then her mother went out and then she came out and

saw that there was an injury on the neck of the

deceased. In the cross-examination, she admits that

13 there was no enmity between the deceased and

the appellant. She also admits that her house is

across the lane about two houses away from the

frontage of Chandu’s house. She admits that there

was no light at the time when she had come out

and it was dark. She also admits the suggestion

that house of Firtu Ram is closest to Chandu Lal’s

house and her house is little away. She also states

that there was no one else at the time when she

came out and she had not seen the appellant.

16. PW-5 is Lakhan Kumar son of Chetan Lal. He is

a witness of the inquest and also of the recovery of

the weapon of the assault and the cycle of the

appellant. He has proved the recovery memos Ex-P3,

Ex-P4, Ex-P5, Ex-P6 and Ex-P7. The cycle of the

deceased was also recovered and the recovery memo

Ex-P8 was also signed by him. The recovery of clothes

vide Ex-P9 was also signed by him and the recovery

14 of plain earth and blood-stained earth vide Ex-P10

was also signed by him. He is also signatory of site

plan Ex-P11 and the arrest memo of the appellant Ex-

P12. In his cross-examination, he states that he is

brother of the deceased. In paragraph 9 of the cross-

examination, he states a meeting of the villagers

was held at night in the village. He then denies the

suggestion that the appellant in that meeting

denied assaulting the deceased and instead had

stated that the deceased had tripped and fallen.

He further denies the fact that the appellant had said

the same thing to Deepak and Narottam. In

paragraph 10, he admits that the Sarpanch was

there in the meeting and he also admits that in

the said meeting, the appellant had said that

while he was passing, he saw the deceased had

fallen on the ‘Pharsa’. He also states that he was not

aware at what time the inquest took place and he also

15 states that the contents of the recovery memos and

inquest were not read out to him.

17. PW-6 is Dr. Sunil Singh who had conducted the

autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on

20.07.2008 at 02.00 PM. He has proved the Post

Mortem report Ex.-P13. In his examination-in-chief,

he states that on 20.07.2008, the Tabbal was sent to

him for inspection. He has mentioned the length and

breadth of the same in his report and that the injury

on the deceased could be possible from the said

weapon and that he had advised that the Tabbal be

sent for Chemical examination. This report he had

proved and is marked as Ex.-P14.

18. He further states that on 21.07.2008, he had

examined the appellant and had noticed some

scratches on his right leg for which he had prepared

an injury report which he proved and marked as Ex.-

P15. He also states that on 20.07.2008, the clothes

16 on the body of the deceased had blood-stains on it

and he had advised that the same be sent for

chemical examination. This report, he also proved

and marked as Ex.-P16.

19. In his cross-examination, he states that the

length of the Tabbal (metal part) was 13.5 cm. He

further states that length of the injury on the

deceased was 5 cm. He further states that it is

correct in case if the said weapon is used for assault,

then the length of the injury would also have been

13.5 cm. He also states that it is correct that from

the weapon recovered, the injury could not have

been caused on the neck of the deceased. He again

admits that the clothes which were seized from the

appellant had some stains like blood but he was not

sure whether it was human blood or not. He also

admits that in the stomach of the deceased

sufficient quantity of alcohol was found and it

17 takes about 18 hours for the alcohol to pass out

from the body. He also states that it is possible

that the deceased could have received the injury

in an accident.

20. PW-7 is witness of inquest and the site plan and

also of the recovery, nothing much turns upon his

statement. He has given a similar kind of statement

as the other witness to recovery and inquest.

21. PW-8 is Ajit Ram, father of the deceased. He

states that when he reached home around 08.00 PM

after carrying out some purchases, his brother Vijay

Kumar (PW-1) informed that his son Jagat had

shouted that the appellant had assaulted him. He

has proved some police papers. He admits that he

had guests at home on that day. He also states that

deceased also used to stay with him. He admits of

consuming alcohol but insofar his son Jagat is

concerned he states that he does not know

18 whether he used to consume alcohol or not. He

also admits that there was no enmity between

deceased and the appellant. He, however, claims

that he had no knowledge of complaint being made

by the appellant against the Sarpanch and his son

Jagat supporting the appellant. He has denied the

suggestion that he was falsely taking the name of

the appellant during the trial as prior to it he had

never taken his name during investigation.

22. PW-9 is Firtu, neighbour of Chandu Lal. He

states that while he was about to have dinner at

around 7-8 PM, he heard some noise from outside

and then there was another call that Jagat had been

murdered and that the appellant has murdered him,

then, he came out. Jagat was lying in the lane with

the injury on his neck and Vijay Kumar told him that

the appellant had committed this crime. He admits

that Jagat, the deceased did not tell him

19 anything. He also states that others like Akshay and

Mannu had also come. Jagat, the deceased was

unconscious and he was taken to the hospital but he

died on the way. He states that Shatrughan, the

appellant while passing through his house had called

him and thereafter, he had heard the voice of Jagat.

He also states that the appellant, while crossing

his house on his cycle, had called him and asked

him as to what was he cooking. He then states that

PW-1 Vijay Kumar has told him that it was the

appellant who had assaulted and that he had

communicated this to IO but he has not mentioned

in the statement under section 161 for which he

cannot tell the reason. He further states that he

never heard Jagat shouting and he had not seen

the appellant. It was only on the call of Vijay

Kumar that he had come out.

20

23. PW-10 is Seepat Bai, wife of Firtu. She only

states that in the night, she heard people shouting

run-run. When she came out, her husband was

already outside and then she was told that the

appellant had assaulted the deceased.

24. PW-11 is Khemraj Singh. He is Sarpanch of the

village. He states that he had accompanied PW-1 to

the outpost and then to the Police Station. He

then denies the suggestion that the appellant had

made a complaint against him and others regarding

mis-appropriation of funds. He further denied the

suggestion that Jagat, the deceased had supported

Shatrughan and Rajendra in the complaint. However,

he admits that on the complaint the Project

Officer and others had come for inquiry. Other

suggestions relating to the complaint and inquiry are

denied by him.

21

25. PW-12 is one Akshay Kumar. He states that on

the date of the incident in the night, he heard lot of

noise and commotion and people shouting run-run,

upon which he came out of the house. He saw PW-1,

his wife and his daughter. At that time, PW-1 told him

that the appellant had assaulted the deceased with

the Tabbal. He further states in the cross-

examination that when he came out, Firtu Ram,

Sarpanch & others had not come there and that he

had not seen the appellant at that place. He states

that he knows that there was no enmity between

the appellant and the deceased. He is the next-door

neighbour of informant PW-1.

26. PW-13 is Chandu. He states that the murder of

Jagat had taken place in front of his house in the lane

and that he had heard that the appellant had

assaulted him.

22

27. PW-14 is Karan Singh who states that about

07.00 PM in the evening on 19.07.2008, he was

changing clothes as he got wet while returning from

work. Vijay Kumar came to his house and told him

that Jagat had fallen down and that Jagat was taken

for treatment. It was after that Lakhan and Laxman

told him that it was the appellant who had assaulted

the deceased. He is witness to the memo (Ex-P18)

prepared for handing over the dead body to the family

of the deceased. In the cross-examination he states

that he had heard that Sarpanch Khemraj had

accompanied the injured to the hospital. Further he

had also gone to the Police Station along with Vijay

Kumar (PW-1) and Sarpanch Khemraj. He further

states that they reached the Police Station at 06.00

AM although police had arrived in the village at 04.00

AM. FIR was registered at 07.00 AM and they

returned to the village in the evening at 04.00 PM.

23

28. PW-15 is one Abhiram Sahu. He had prepared

the site plan and proved it, which was marked as Ex.-

P19.

29. PW-16, Dinu Ram Mandavi, Inspector is the

Investigating Officer. He has stated about the Merg

Report dated 20.07.2008 registered as Merg No.82 of

2008 which he proved as Ex-P2. He further proves

the FIR as Ex.-P1, the site plan, the inquest, and its

intimation as Ex-P3 and Ex-P4. Further, he proves

Ex-P13 is the request for Post Mortem and the

recovery memo of the Tabbal (Ex-P14) also contains

his signatures. He also proves the other Police papers

and further proves the recoveries made during the

investigation. He tried to explain the delay in

registering the FIR and, according to him, the Merg

report having been registered, the criminal

machinery had been put into motion. He has denied

24 the suggestion that in fact in the initial Merg

report, the name of the appellant was not there

and it was only later on that his name had been

added. He further states that he could not find any

reason as to what was the motive for committing

the crime. All other suggestions have been denied by

him.

30. In the examination under section 313 Code of

Criminal Procedure3, the entire evidence against the

appellant was put to him which he has denied. He

however, stated that he was doing his duty as

Chowkidar in the Forest Department and on account

of personal enmity he had been falsely implicated.

He also states that he wants to examine Forest Range

Officer Mr. Sinha and one Mr. Rajendra Thakur.

However, no evidence was led on behalf of the

defence.

3 CrPC 25

31. The first question to be considered is as to

whether any of the eye-witnesses had actually seen

the occurrence of the appellant assaulting the

deceased. The answer is ‘no’.

32. Following are the reasons for the above

conclusion:

a) According to the informant (PW-1), he was the

first person to arrive at the site along with his

wife upon hearing the cry for help from the

deceased that Shatrughan was assaulting him

with a tabbal. When he reached the site he saw

that the deceased was lying on the road and the

appellant was moving towards his house on a

cycle along with tabbal. This is the FIR version.

b) In his deposition PW 1 states that when he

rushed to the place of occurrence, he saw the

accused running away and the tabbal was lying

26 there. The deceased had fallen unconscious and

there was deep cut on his neck with blood

flowing from the injury. Upon his call, the other

neighbours and his daughter all came out from

their houses.

c) PW-14 who has stated that PW-1 only informed

him that Jagat (deceased) had been assaulted

and had been taken to the hospital. PW-1 did

not inform PW-14 that it was the appellant who

had assaulted. PW-14 states that it was later on

that Lakhan and Laxman who informed about

the appellant assaulting the deceased. The

other eye-witnesses whose testimonies have

already been narrated above have not stated

that they saw the appellant assaulting the

deceased.

d) PW-2 is the wife of PW-1, PW-3 is the widow of

the deceased, PW-4 is daughter of PW-1, are the

27 other witnesses who reached the place of

occurrence. None of them have stated that they

have seen the appellant assaulting the

deceased.

e) Thus, the only evidence is of PW-1 stating that

the appellant was running away from the place

of occurrence when he reached there. He has

himself stated that the deceased was already

unconscious as such was not in a condition to

speak.

f) There is one more aspect to be considered as to

whether the cry given by the deceased could

have been made as stated. Normally in villages

nobody takes the name of elders and especially

their uncles. PW 1 Vijay Kumar is the uncle

(father’s brother) of the deceased. Under normal

course the deceased would have called kaka

only and would not take his name to say that

28 ‘kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan is assaulting

me with a tabbal’ (“काका विजय व िंह दौड़ो , मेरे को

शत्रुघ्न तब्बल े मार वदया है ”).

g) In the First Information Report it is stated that

when PW 1 came out he saw Shatrughan

running towards his house on a cycle along with

tabbal but in the deposition before the Trial

Court it is stated that when he reached the place

of occurrence the appellant was running and

the tabbal was lying there and then he states

that the deceased had only shouted that the

appellant is assaulting him.

h) Another aspect to be considered is whether after

receiving the said injury the deceased could

have shouted and if he had shouted before being

assaulted then the situation would have been

different. It would have been a one to one and

29 he could have resisted the assault. The fact is

there is only one injury on the neck.

33. In view of the above, the prosecution story as set

out does not appear to be a probable story and the

supporting evidence led during trial of the witnesses

of fact also does not inspire confidence. Rather there

are material contradictions.

34. On the other hand, the defence has been

successful in making a serious dent in the

prosecution case for the following reasons:

a) The first point is that no motive has been set

up by the prosecution as to why the appellant

would assault the deceased. All the witnesses of

fact who are family members have stated that

there was no enmity between the appellant and

the deceased. Once there is no eye-witness of

the incident the prosecution will have to

establish a motive for the commission of the

30 crime inasmuch as in a case of direct evidence,

motive may not have a major role. If there is no

motive setup or proved and there are direct eye-

witnesses, motive may loose its importance but

in the present case as admittedly no one has

seen the occurrence, the motive has an

important role to play.

b) The defence during the cross-examination has

elicited that the Sarpanch Khemraj had grouse

against the appellant for the reason that the

appellant had made a complaint regarding

misappropriation of government funds and also

of committing major illegality in distribution of

essential commodities. On the said complaint

an enquiry was made where the Sarpanch

Khemraj PW 11 had to tender public apology.

c) Defence has also suggested that in the night

itself after the deceased was taken to the

31 hospital, a meeting was called by the Sarpanch

Khemraj where the appellant was forced to

confess. The said meeting has been admitted by

PW-5. It was suggested that appellant in the

meeting had stated that he had seen the

deceased tripping and falling on the sharp

object resulting into the injury which proved

fatal.

d) It is possible that on account of the influence of

the Sarpanch Khemraj that the appellant has

been falsely implicated.

e) The defence also had elicited during cross-

examination of PW 6 that the weapon of assault

recovered and produced before him could not

have caused the injury in view of the size of the

weapon of assault and the size of the injury

which had no match.

32

f) The defence had also suggested that in fact the

deceased was heavily drunk and had fallen on a

sharp-edged object because of which he had

received the injury. This appears probable for

two reasons: firstly, that PW 6 had stated that

there was sufficient alcohol in the body of the

deceased and secondly that the weapon of

assault produced by the prosecution did not

match with the injury. The injury could have

been caused by the deceased slipping and

falling on a sharp object.

35. From the above narration of the evidence and

analysis, it is evident that the testimony of PW 1 was

not reliable and could not have formed the basis of

conviction. Apparently, he was influenced by

Sarpanch Khemraj whose active participation in the

proceedings subsequent to the incident cannot be

ruled out. The medical evidence did not support the

33 prosecution case as the weapon of assault could not

have caused injury on the deceased as noticed in the

post-mortem report. There was no motive as to why

the appellant would commit the murder of an

acquaintance and a friend for no reason. The defence

version that the deceased was under the influence of

alcohol and could have tripped and fallen on a sharp

object resulting into the ante-mortem injury reported

in the post-mortem was quite possible. The same is

clearly borne out from the record. The explanation for

delayed lodging of the FIR is not satisfactory.

36. In view of the above discussion, the prosecution

had failed to establish the charge.

37. For all the reasons explained above, the

appellant would be entitled to acquittal. The appeal

is accordingly allowed. The conviction and sentence

of the appellant are set aside. He is acquitted of all

34 the charges. The appellant is in custody. He shall be

released forthwith, if not wanted in any other case.

38. Pending applications are disposed of.

….………………………………..J. (VIKRAM NATH)

……………………………………J. (AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH) NEW DELHI JULY 20, 2023

35