The Mere Fact Of Discovery Of Incriminating Articles Cannot Be Regarded As Conclusive Proof That The Accused Was In Possession Of These Articles, Especially If It Was Discovered In A Visible Place

Case title:
Ramvriksh Vs. State of Chhattisgarh

Date of Order:
21.7.2022

Bench:
Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal

Parties:
Appellant- Ramvriksh @ BirchhaLohar
Respondent- State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Chando

SUBJECT

The Chhattisgarh High Court ruled that recovering any incriminating object from a public or conspicuous location would taint the evidence under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.

IMPORTANT PROVISIONS

1. Section 374(2) The Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973- The section deals with appeals from commissions. It states that any individual convicted on a trial conducted by a Sessions Judge or an Additional Sessions Judge, or on a trial conducted by any other Court, and sentenced to prison for more than 7 years may file an appeal with the High Court.
2. Section 302 of the IPC- The section provides the punishment for committing the offense of murder, stating that whoever commits murder should be punished by death or life imprisonment, as well as a fine.
3. Section 25(1B) the Arms Act, 1959- This section in the Arms Act provides the various offenses that are punishable by imprisonment for a period of more than one year but not less than three years, as well as a fine.
4. Section 27 of the Arms Act, 1959- The punishment for using arms, etc. is provided in this section by stating that anyone who uses any arms or ammunition in violation of section 5 of the Act is to be penalized by imprisonment for a period of three to seven years, as well as a fine.
5. Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989-

OVERVIEW

• It was the case of the prosecution that the appellant, in this case, killed Sohna Uraon with a gun and thereby committed an offence. The prosecution further claimed that the deceased's wife fled with the appellant, eloping with him.
• Before the shooting, a witness notified the deceased that the appellant and his wife were together in the mountains. The deceased and the witness traveled to the location where they were present and requested that the wife rejoin them back in the village. but the appellant stated that he would take her and escort her to the village.
• While returning to the village, while the witness and victim were separated, the witness heard a gunshot and discovered the victim dead on the floor. He returned to the village and immediately informed the villagers as well as police officers of the incident.
• The doctor who performed the autopsy determined that the cause of death was hemorrhaging and a shock caused by gunshot injuries to the lungs and head and that the death was homicidal in character.
• Three months later, the appellant was apprehended and the Head Constable Lalit Ram Bhagat seized a sealed package containing one bullet extracted from the deceased's body. Eleven months after the incident, the gun was discovered in the forest.
• The accused's statement was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which he denied wrongdoing and went into defence, asserting that he had not committed the crime in issue and had been wrongfully implicated in it. The trial court, after considering the oral and recorded evidence on record, acquitted the appellant of the allegation under Section 3(2)(5) of the Scheduled Castes & Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, however, convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and Sections 25(1B) and 27 of the Arms Act in its judgment dated 19.2.2014. This has led to the present appeal.

ISSUES RAISED

• Whether the learned trial Court accurately established that the deceased's death was homicidal in nature?
• Whether the discovery of the article in an open space could imply the appellant's possession of the same?

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANT

• The counsel for the appellant argued that because the witness did not observe the occurrence, a conviction could be entered against the appellant solely on the basis of his statement.
• It was submitted that the gun was discovered 11 months after the incident, in a deep forest. The seizure could not be shown only based on the information of the investigating officer, and purported recovery according to the disclosure statement would not be helpful to the prosecution because it was not retrieved from the appellant's possession.
• It was argued that even the armorer's report was not reliable because the bullet that was removed from the victim's body was provided to the constable who brought the body for postmortem, but it was later recovered from the Head Constable after 2 months, which raises questions. The prosecution also did not explain where the bullet was kept from September 28, 2008, until the date of seizure. Hence, it was argued that the report should be set aside.
• It was further submitted that the prosecution failed to prove the appellants' guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and even infractions under Sections 25(1B) and 27 of the Arms Act were not proven because the confiscation was made from the forest, in an open location.
• It was further argued that the event occurred on September 25, 2008, but the report was filed on September 28, 2008, and there was no justification for the three-day delay in filing the FIR.
• The appellant also submitted that because the witness was also a close relative of the deceased and an interested witness, his evidence should not be relied on. Furthermore, the witness testified that he saw two gunshots, although the doctor saw just one gunshot injury and the wife was not examined. As a result, the contested judgement should be reversed.

ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENT

• The counsel for the respondent argued that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt since the witness who accompanied the deceased on the date of the occurrence had indicated before the Court that he witnessed the accused attacking the dead Sonha with a gun.
• it was also further argued that the seizure of the bullet was proven in line with the law, and so the appeal should be denied.

JUDGEMENT ANALYSIS

• Regarding the nature of the death of the victim, the bench affirmed the Trial Courts findings based on medical evidence and the postmortem report and held that the death of the deceased was indeed homicidal in nature.
• When discussing the dismissal of the witness’ statement on account of him being a close relative of the deceased, the court stated that it is a well-established legal concept that a witness's simple relationship with the victim is insufficient to dismiss the credibility of a witness, whose evidence would otherwise inspire trust in the Court's conscious, and statements must be analyzed consciously. They placed reliance on the case of Gulab v. State of Uttar Pradesh [2021 SCC OnLine SC 1211] for the same.
• However, they also stated that the prosecution had not explained why there was a three-day delay and why the witness did not file a report despite the fact that his son-in-law was shot dead and he purportedly witnessed the appellant's gunshot injuries. Furthermore, the investigating officer had also not addressed the delay in filing the FIR, and there was no justification for not filing the FIR by the eyewitness, and his behaviour as a father-in-law who had witnessed his son-in-law shot dead was not normal.
• They further stated that since, according to the memorandum statement, recovery was made 11 months after the date of the crime and that too from a forested area, which was accessible to everyone, it was difficult to comprehend that it was in the appellant's exclusive possession and thus, recovery of countrymade pistol becomes questionable.
• The bench concluded that the honourable trial Court was completely unjustified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC.
• They accordingly overturned the conviction for the offence under Section 27 of the Arms Act, but upheld the appellant's conviction and sentence for an offence under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act.

CONCLUSION

The criminal appeal was granted in part. The appellant's conviction and sentence under Section302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act were thereby overturned, but his conviction and penalty under Section 25(1B) of the Arms Act were upheld. He was exonerated under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 27 of the Arms Act and was ordered to be released from the sentence he was serving since 2009.

Learn the practical aspects of CrPC HERE, CPC HERE, IPC HERE, Evidence Act HERE, Family Laws HERE, DV Act HERE

Click here to download the original copy of the judgement