In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court has acquitted three men who were earlier convicted of murder by a lower court, citing lack of conclusive evidence and questionable witness testimony. The Division Bench comprising Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay Agrawal delivered the verdict on July 1, 2024, in Criminal Appeal No. 1179 of 2015.
Background of the Case:
The case dates back to May 24, 2014, when Bharat @ Bhupendra was allegedly murdered in the forest area of Village Khisora, under Baloda Police Station in Janjgir-Champa district. The prosecution claimed that the three accused – Rajendra Prasad, Komal Prasad, and Kaliram Lahare – had strangulated the victim using a gamcha (towel) between 9 AM and 4 PM on that day.
On September 8, 2015, the Additional Sessions Judge, Fast Track Court, Janjgir, convicted the three accused under Section 302 (murder) read with Section 34 (common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. They were sentenced to life imprisonment and fined Rs. 1,000 each. Aggrieved by this decision, the accused filed an appeal in the High Court.
Key Legal Issues and Court’s Decision:
1. Homicidal Nature of Death:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish conclusively that the death was homicidal in nature. Dr. Sadanand Jangde (PW-10), who conducted the autopsy, could not provide a definite opinion on the cause of death. The court noted that no injuries were found on the victim’s head, and there were no signs of strangulation.
2. Reliability of Eyewitness Testimony:
The prosecution’s case heavily relied on the testimony of Devnath Jangde (PW-4), presented as an eyewitness. However, the court found his testimony unreliable for several reasons:
a) He was a chance witness whose presence at the crime scene was not satisfactorily explained.
b) His statement was recorded after a delay of over nine months.
c) His conduct after allegedly witnessing the crime was deemed unnatural, as he did not report the incident to anyone immediately.
3. Application of Section 34 IPC (Common Intention):
The court found insufficient evidence to prove that the accused shared a common intention to commit the murder.
4. Motive:
The prosecution failed to establish a clear motive for the crime, as there was no proximate enmity between the accused and the deceased.
Court’s Decision:
Based on these findings, the High Court set aside the conviction and sentence imposed by the trial court. The three appellants – Rajendra Prasad, Komal Prasad, and Kaliram Lahare – were acquitted of all charges and ordered to be released immediately if not required in any other case.
Also Read
Legal Representation:
Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni appeared as the advocate for the appellants, while Mr. Afroz Khan represented the State as the Panel Lawyer.
