Faliram vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Conviction,Sentence

Under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,"Imprisonment for Life and fine of Rs.1,000, in default of

payment thereof, additional rigorous imprisonment for 4

months

According to the case of prosecution itself, on 18.2.2010, the disclosure statement (Ex.P8) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act of the Appellant",

was recorded. From perusal of the said disclosure statement, it reveals that the Appellant has stated therein that after coming out of the house of",

Aghnu (PW5) and Suhanobai (PW6), both the Appellant and the deceased first went to the house of the Appellant and after sometime, the deceased",

went towards the village and again returned to the house of the Appellant at about 8-9 p.m. Thus, it appears that the above fact disclosed by the",

Appellant was well within the knowledge of the investigating officer, but, despite that, the investigating officer has not investigated into this fact nor did",

he collect any evidence in this regard. Though the above statement of the Appellant cannot be used against him, a doubt arises whether Suhanobai",

(PW6) was the only witness who had last seen the Appellant and the deceased together? Despite the fact that in his disclosure statement (Ex.P8),

recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the Appellant has disclosed some facts which are under discussion, the investigating officer has not",

investigated into those facts nor did he collect any evidence in this regard. The time gap between the death and the post mortem examination reported,

(Ex.P13) by Dr. A.R. Jayant (PW15), as discussed above, also creates a doubt whether Suhanobai (PW6) was the only witness who had last seen",

the Appellant and the deceased together. With regard to the motive also, the prosecution has totally failed to produce any material. Rather, from the",

evidence of the prosecution itself, it reveals that there was a cordial relation between the Appellant and the deceased. Both were doing devari work",

together and on 3.2.2010 also, when the deceased was last seen alive, both had gone to the house of Suhanobai (PW6) together to do devari work.",

Thus, in our considered view, without any other corroborating evidence, only on the basis of the statement of Suhanobai (PW6), sustaining the",

conviction of the Appellant is not safe and, therefore, the Appellant is entitled to get benefit of doubt.",

In the result, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The Appellant is acquitted of the charge",

framed against him. He is reported to be in jail. He is directed to be released from custody immediately, if not required in any other case.",