The High Court of Chhattisgarh has overturned a trial court’s acquittal, convicting two men for a 2013 murder, attempt to murder, and robbery. A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru found the trial court’s decision to be a “perverse finding,” holding that it had wrongly disregarded the credible and material testimony of the injured eyewitness.
The High Court sentenced Vicky @ Manohar Singh and Vijay Chaudhary to life imprisonment for the murder of Dashrath Lal Khandelwal and a concurrent ten-year sentence for the attempted murder of his wife, Smt. Vimla Devi Khandelwal. The judgment sets aside the May 16, 2016, decision of the Third Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, which had acquitted both accused.
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case dates back to November 22, 2013, when two assailants forcibly entered the home of the elderly couple, Dashrath Lal Khandelwal and Vimla Devi Khandelwal. According to the First Information Report (FIR) lodged by the victim’s son, Anil Khandelwal, the accused brandished a knife, demanded money, and attacked the couple when they resisted.
Dashrath Lal Khandelwal sustained multiple fatal stab wounds and was declared dead upon arrival at the hospital. Vimla Devi was also grievously injured with a stab wound to her abdomen and was confined to a room by the assailants, who then fled after robbing the deceased’s wristwatch and mobile phone.
Following an investigation, Vicky @ Manohar Singh and Vijay Chaudhary were arrested. The trial court, however, acquitted them of all charges under Sections 455, 394, 307, 302, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading the victim’s son and the State of Chhattisgarh to file separate appeals before the High Court.
Arguments Before the High Court
The appellants argued that the trial court had committed a grave error by ignoring crucial evidence. They contended that the testimony of the injured eyewitness, Smt. Vimla Devi (PW-3), who identified the accused, was improperly dismissed. Furthermore, they asserted that the court overlooked corroborating evidence, including the Test Identification Parade (TIP), the seizure of blood-stained knives from the accused, and a Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report that confirmed the presence of human blood on the seized items.
The respondents’ counsel defended the acquittal, arguing that the four-month delay in conducting the TIP undermined its credibility. They pointed to an initial police statement where Vimla Devi had stated that the assailants’ faces were covered with scarves. Her subsequent testimony that the scarves fell off during the scuffle, enabling her to identify them, was presented as a contradiction. They argued that these discrepancies rendered the identification evidence unreliable.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court began by affirming the trial court’s conclusion that the death of Dashrath Lal Khandelwal was homicidal in nature, based on the postmortem report. The central issue for the appellate court was whether the acquittal was justified in light of the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the injured eyewitness.
The Bench, citing Supreme Court precedent in cases like Tota Singh v. State of Punjab, reiterated that an appellate court should not interfere with an acquittal unless the trial court’s approach is “vitiated by some manifest illegality” or its conclusion is “perverse.”
Injured Eyewitness Testimony Found Credible The Court placed significant weight on the testimony of Smt. Vimla Devi (PW-3). It noted that despite minor contradictions, which were attributable to “trauma and lapse of time,” her evidence “unequivocally establishes the presence of the accused at the scene, their forcible intrusion, and the stabbing of her husband.” The Court referenced the Supreme Court’s ruling in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, which holds that the evidence of an injured witness has “greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.”
Corroborating Evidence The High Court found that the Test Identification Parade (TIP), conducted by Additional Tahsildar Jay Uraon (PW-6), was executed lawfully and substantiated the identification. The Court also relied on the testimony of Reshma Bano (PW-12), to whom the accused Vicky Singh allegedly made an extra-judicial confession. Citing State of Rajasthan v. Raja Ram, the Court held that such a confession, if found to be voluntary and true, can be relied upon.
Crucially, the Court highlighted the recoveries made from the accused based on their disclosure statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. These included blood-stained clothes and a knife. The FSL report (Ex.P-70) confirmed human blood on a pant seized from Vicky and on a pant and knife seized from Vijay Chaudhary.
Trial Court’s Finding Deemed “Perverse” In its concluding analysis, the High Court held that the trial court had erred significantly. The judgment states: “the present case clearly demonstrates that despite the existence of cogent legal evidence against the accused/respondents, the trial Court has, regrettably, based its conclusions solely on conjectures and surmises. In particular, the trial Court has disbelieved the testimony of the injured witness, Smt. Vimla Devi (PW-3), whose evidence is material and credible on the record. Such an approach by the trial Court amounts to a perverse finding, as it disregards unimpeached and reliable evidence without any justifiable basis.”
Final Verdict
Finding compelling reasons to interfere with the acquittal, the High Court allowed both appeals. The judgment of the trial court was set aside, and the accused were convicted.
- For the offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC (Murder): Vicky @ Manohar Singh and Vijay Chaudhary were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000 each.
- For the offence under Section 307/34 of the IPC (Attempt to Murder): They were sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs. 200 each.
Both sentences are to run concurrently. The convicts have been directed to surrender before the trial court within one month to serve their sentences.
