DLD(Cri)-2023-2626
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SHATRUGHAN-APPELLANT
VS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH-RESPONDENT
( Before :VIKRAM NATH, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ. )
Decided on : 20-07-2023
Important Point : (Law Point)
A) In case of circumstantial evidence, when no motive has been set up by the prosecution as to why the appellant would assault the deceased, serious dent is caused to prosecution.
B) Medical opinion as to weapon, injuries and possibility of injuries cannot be ignored.
Head Note : Indian Penal Code—Section 302—Appeal against conviction—Inconsistent testimony—Medical evidence—Circumstantial evidence—Trial Court convicted appellant—High Court confirmed conviction—Investigating Officer could not find any reason as to what was the motive for committing the crime—There was no eyewitness to incident—Testimony of supporting witness also does not inspire confidence—Rather there are material contradictions—Size of the recovered weapon of assault and the size of the injury had no match—There was sufficient alcohol in the body of the deceased—Possibility of deceased falling on sharp object and receiving such injury cannot be ignored—Held, Prosecution story as set out does not appear to be a probable story—Impugned judgment set aside—Appellant acquitted. (Para : 1, 5, 7, 11, 31-38)
(Background facts)
On the previous night of lodging of FIR, while Informant was sitting in his house, his nephew was returning on a cycle and shouting, “Kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan has assaulted me with a Tabbal”—Informant along with his wife, ran to the lane in front of the house of and saw that his deceased nephew was lying on the road and that accused was moving on his cycle along with Tabbal towards his house—Father of deceased took the injured on Motor Cycle—Victim died—PW 1, uncle of the deceased lodged FIR.
Result : Appeal allowed.