CASE TITLE:
Shatrughan v. The State of Chhattisgarh
DATE OF ORDER:
20th July 2023
BENCH:
Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah
PARTIES:
Petitioner (s)- Shatrughan
Respondent (s)- The State of Chhattisgarh
SUBJECT:
The present case involves an appeal against the judgement and order of the Chhattisgarh HC dating 6th April 2015 where the division bench dismissed criminal appeal no.3 of 2010 namely ‘Shatrughan vs The State of Chhattisgarh’. The conviction under Section 302 of the IPC, which resulted in a life sentence and a fine of Rs. 5,000, has been appealed to by the appellant. The appellant alleges that hearsay and circumstantial evidence served as the basis for his conviction and claim lack of motive for the alleged crime. On the grounds of insufficient evidence and unreliable witness testimony, the appeal attempted to challenge the use of the evidence and to obtain acquittal.
IMPORTANT PROVISIONS:
The Indian Penal Code, 1860
Section 302- Punishment for Murder- Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life and shall be liable to fine.
The Code of Criminal Procedure
Section 154- Information in cognizable cases- (1) When given orally to a police officer in charge, every piece of information pertaining to the commission of a crime must be reduced to writing by him or under his supervision and read to the informant. Every such piece of information, whether given in writing or reduced to writing as aforesaid, must also be signed by the person giving it, and the substance of it must be recorded in a book to be kept by such officer in whatever format the State Government may specify.
The Indian Evidence Act, 1872
Section 17- Admission defined- An admission is a statement, 1[oral or documentary or contained in electronic form], which suggests any inference as to any fact in issue or relevant fact, and which is made by any of the persons, and under the circumstances, hereinafter mentioned.
Section 118 – Who may testify- Everyone who wishes to testify must be of legal age, unless the court determines that their extreme age, a physical or mental illness, or another similar reason prevents them from understanding the questions asked of them or from responding to them rationally.
Section 136- Judge to decide as to admissibility of evidence. ––When a party wants to present evidence of a fact, the judge may inquire as to how the fact would be significant if it were proven. If the judge believes the fact would be important if it were proven, the evidence will be admitted, and not otherwise..
Section 137- Examination-in-chief. –– The examination of witness by the party who calls him shall be called his examination-in-chief. Cross-examination. –– The examination of a witness by the adverse party shall be called his cross-examination.
BRIEF FACTS:
- In the present case, the appellant was convicted u/s 302 IPC and was sentenced to life imprisonment added with a fine of Rs. 5000.
- The conviction occurred due to the incident that happened on the night of 19th July 2008 where the appellant allegedly assaulted the deceased (Jagat Ram) with a ‘Tabbal’ (a sharp-edged weapon) in front of the house of Chandu Lal in a village of Chhattisgarh.
- The very next day, FIR was lodged by Vijay Kumar (uncle of the deceased) who asserted that after the alleged assault by the appellant, he heard his nephew screaming for help.
- As no eyewitnesses claimed to have witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased, the prosecution's case was primarily supported on hearsay and circumstantial evidence.
- The appellant's injuries to the dead could have been caused accidentally while he was drunk, the defense argued, and there was no evidence to support a motivation for the crime.
- The prosecution cross-examined 16 witnesses and produced 21 documents throughout the trial, but the defense examined no witnesses, nor did it present any documentary evidence.
- The trial court after considering the material on record came to the decision that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and found the appellant guilty of culpable homicide not amounting to murder u/s 302 IPC and punished him accordingly. After the High Court upheld the conviction as well, the appellant went to Supreme Court for appeal.
ARGUEMENT FROM THE APPELLANT:
- The learned counsel of the appellant contended that both the Trial and High Court have made serious error of law by convicting the appellant. They relied on inadmissible evidence and that there was no direct evidence on the commission of the crime.
- The witnesses of fact were vague and medical evidence was not supporting prosecution’s story.
- The Prosecution has failed to set up presence of motive of the appellant both in the FIR, in the statements recorded during investigation and the evidence during trial.
- It was strongly contended that the appellant deserves acquittal after suffering incarceration for 15 years
ARGUMENT FROM THE RESPONDENT
- The learned counsel for the respondent submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the commission of the appellant’s crime by giving well-founded evidence.
- They said that the testimony of the witnesses was reliable and consistent, giving a clear account of the incident and identifying the appellant as the culprit.
- The respondent argued that the medical evidence supported the prosecution's case since the injury's nature was compatible with the use of the "Tabbal" that the appellant was claimed to have wielded.
- They emphasized that there was no need to prove a motive because the appellant's involvement in the offence was made abundantly obvious by the evidence.
- The respondent contended that there was no need for the Supreme Court to intervene because the trial court's conviction and the High Court's affirmation of it were based on an accurate and complete assessment of the facts.
JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS:
- The judges of the bench carefully considered every aspect of the case, scrutinizing the decisions made by the trial court and the High Court to determine if the conviction based on hearsay and circumstantial evidence was appropriate.
- The court focused on any substantive disparities that would call into question the authenticity of the witnesses' testimony as well as their consistency in retelling the occurrence.
- To ascertain whether the accused assault weapon (Tabbal), which was used to cause the specific injury shown on the deceased, could cause that injury, medical evidence, including the autopsy report, was thoroughly examined.
- Inquiring into whether there was any direct evidence connecting the accused to the deceased or any causes for their hostility, the court paid careful attention to the absence of any established motive for the appellant to commit the crime.
- The prosecution's account was compared to the defense's claim that the deceased might have accidentally suffered the injury while intoxicated, analysing the likelihood of each possibility.
CONCLUSION:
- The Supreme Court came to the decision that the prosecution had failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt after carefully examining the evidence.
- The appellant was not directly implicated in the commission of the crime, and the court emphasized the strong reliance on circumstantial and hearsay evidence, which, taken alone, may not be enough to support a conviction.
- The court awarded the appellant's acquittal after 15 years in prison due to questions raised regarding the reliability of the witnesses, the absence of a clear motivation, and the potential for an accident.
- The Supreme Court emphasized the significance of ensuring that convictions are founded on strong and conclusive evidence by overturning the trial court's and the High Court's earlier convictions, protecting the values of justice and fairness.
