Manharan Dhruv vs State Of C.G. And Ors

Sr. No.,Offence u/S.,Sentence,"In default of payment of

fine

1.,"302, IPC",Imprisonment for life,"Additional RI for 2

months

2.,"201, IPC","RI for 2 years + fine of

Rs. 1,000/-","Additional RI for 2

months

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on",,,

any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.,,,

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.,,,

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and",,,

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the,,,

accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.â€​,,,

In Bhagwan Dass (supra) Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed in para-5, relevant portion is reproduced below:-",,,

“5. This is a case of circumstantial evidence, but it is settled law that a person can be convicted on circumstantial evidence provided the links in the",,,

chain of circumstances connects the accused with the crime beyond reasonable doubt vide Vijay Kumar Arora vs. State (NCT of Delhi), (2010) 2",,,

SCC 353 (para 16.5), Aftab Ahmad Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal, (2010) 2 SCC 583 (vide paragraphs 13 and 14), etc.â€​",,,

In Chanchal Ku. -v- Union Territory Chandigarh (AIR 1986 SC 752) the Hon'ble Apex Court has held that Suspicion however strong cannot take,,,

the place of proof.,,,

In Manzoor -v- State of UP and Suleman -v- State of up (AIR 1983 SC 295) Hon'ble Apex Court has held that where the prosecution failed to,,,

prove the guilt satisfactorily beyond reasonable doubt, the benefit of 'doubt' must go to accused and the accused must be acquitted.",,,

As per the alleged post mortem report Ex. P-18, P.W. 9 Dr. Girdharilal Chandrakar opined that no definite opinion can be given because the body",,,

was almost putrefied. Thus, the prosecution does not get any help from Ex. P-18.",,,

As per the alleged panchnama Ex.P-3 on 05-2-2012 at 20:30 pm appellant told that on 12-1-2012 he had killed the deceased by pressing her mouth,",,,

hid the dead body in the heap of straws at the barn of Bhuneshwar Chandrakar.,,,

P.W. 2 Punit Ram says in para 4 of his statement given on oath that on 5-2-2012 at Murrum quarry at village Kaundakera, the appellant told that",,,

he had killed his wife and hid her dead body in the heap of straws of the barn of Bhuvneshwar Chandrakar.,,,

P.W. 3 Hemant Kumar Chandrakar says in para 2 of his statement given on oath that on 5-2-2012, the appellant confessed before Punit Das,",,,

village Kotwar and him that he had killed his wife.,,,

Alleged panchnama Ex. P-3 was prepared by P.W. 8 Rajiv Sharma, Inspector. P.W. 2 Punit Ram is the witness of Ex. P-3. Moreover, he says in",,,

para 6 during cross examination that when the appellant confessed, at that time police personnel were present. Ex. P-3, the aforesaid statement of",,,

para 4 of this witness, and aforesaid statement of P.W. 3 Hemant Kumar Chandrakar are hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus,",,,

the prosecution does not get any help from Ex. P-3, aforesaid statement of para 4 of P.W. 2 Punit Ram and aforesaid statement of P.W. 3 Hemand",,,

Kumar Chandrakar.,,,

When P.W. 6 Arjun was declared hostile then he says in para 3 that it is true that appellant told him on 4-2-2012 that he had killed his wife by,,,

pressing her mouth and neck, hid her dead body in the heap of straws of the barn of Bhuvneshwar. In para 2 during examination-in-chief he had",,,

stated that the appellant had not told him about the incident. Further, he stated in para 4 during cross-examination that it is true that the appellant had",,,

not told him anything about the incident. He had stated in para 5 during re-examination-in-chief that he had not given the statement of “A to Aâ€,,,

(Dinank 05/02/2012 ko Manharan …............. Galti Ho Gai Haiâ€) of Ex. P-5. In these circumstances, this Court disbelieves the aforesaid statement",,,

of para 3 of this witness.,,,

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, this Court finds that above mentioned judicial precedents by Hon'ble",,,

Supreme Court in Bhagwan Dass (supra) Sharad Bhirdhichand Sarda (supra) go against the prosecution case.,,,

P.W. 2 Punit Ram says in para 1 that 4-6 months prior to the incident, deceased had lodged report in police station against the appellant. P.W. 6",,,

Arjun says in para 2 that 2-3 months ago from the date of incident the deceased had lodged report in police station and the appellant was sent behind,,,

the bars. These circumstances cast a suspicion on the appellant. Looking to the judicial precedent by Hon'ble Supreme Court in Chanchal Ku. (supra),",,,

this Court finds that mere suspicion on the appellant cannot take place of proof.,,,

Looking to the above mentioned facts and circumstances of the case, material placed on record, this Court finds that prosecution has failed to",,,

prove guilt of the appellant under sections 302 and 201 of the I.P.C. beyond reasonable doubt.,,,

Looking to the judicial precedent by the Apex Court in Manzoor (supra), the appeal is allowed. Impugned judgment of conviction and order of",,,

sentence are set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges by extending him benefit of doubt. He is in jail. He be set at liberty forthwith, if not",,,

required in any other case.,,,