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.
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.
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-
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
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
(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.