CHUNTHURAM versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2020] 8 S.C.R. 1071 · Decided: 29-10-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · cites 2 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1071
1071
[2020] 8 S.C.R. 1071
CHUNTHURAM
v.
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 1392 of 2011)
OCTOBER 29, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, KRISHNA MURARI AND
HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302/34 – Murder – The prosecution
case is that when the victim-deceased was returning from market to
village, the appellant and the co-accused assaulted him with axe
and stick, and the victim died on the spot – The trial Court reached
a guilty verdict and sentenced both accused accordingly – However,
the High Court referred to the testimony of PW-4 who admitted that
he could not recognize the second person at the spot and could
identify only the appellant, based on this, the co-accused was
acquitted – On appeal, held: The alleged weapons of assault
recovered were never linked to the crime – The doctor in his cross-
examination admitted that bloodstains or other marks on the exhibits
could not be seen – The weapons were sent for chemical examination
and the trial Court referred to the report of chemical analyst to
conclude the presence of blood on the exhibits but the purported
chemical analyst report is not found available with the case records
and there is no mention of such report in the High Court judgment
as well – Thus, the prosecution did not produce any chemical analyst
report – Other relevant forensic evidence like seized shirt of the co-
accused was withheld by the prosecution – When such vital forensic
evidence is kept away, an adverse inference will have to be drawn
against the prosecution – Another infirmity was the presence of the
police during the Test Identification Parade – Also, the Pahchan
patra of TIP mentions three lungis were presented, however, the
related witness was shown only one lungi for identification as per
own statement of witness, PW-3 – Such infirmities would render TIP
unworthy of acceptance – Further, there were inconsistencies in
the statement of PW-3, he stated that lungi was found 10-12 steps
from the dead body, however, the spot report noted that lungi was
found at a distance of 150 feet from the body – As far as PW-4 is
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1072
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 8 S.C.R.
concerned, he admitted to having poor eye sight and was incapable
of seeing things beyond one or two feet – He also admitted that it
was dark and cloudy as it was raining on that day – Besides, he
heard victim cry for help from 200 yards and whereas PW-2 who
was 54 yards away from the place of incident, never heard anything
– This would render testimony of PW-4 unreliable – This was coupled
with the unnatural conduct of PW-4, as witness here knew the victim
and his family – PW-4 allegedly saw the incident and yet remained
quiet about the incident – His reaction and conduct does not match
upto ordinary reaction of a person who knew the deceased and his
family – Therefore, the infirmities in the prosecution evidence has
made out a case for interference – Consequently, the judgments of
the trial Court and the High Court are set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The alleged weapons of assault recovered on
the basis of statement of the accused could be a key evidence to
support the prosecution, but unfortunately, the recovered articles
were never linked to the crime. The doctor in his cross-
examination, admitted that bloodstains or other marks on the
exhibits could not be seen. The weapons were reportedly sent
for chemical examination and although the trial Court had referred
to the report of chemical analyst to conclude the presence of
blood on the exhibits but the purported chemical analyst report
is not found available with the case records. Moreover, there is
no mention of any such report in the High Court’s judgment.
This would suggest that the prosecution did not produce any
chemical analyst report in the case. [Para 8.1][1076-F-H; 1077-
A]
2. The relevant forensic evidence for the seized shirt
(supposedly worn by the co-accused acquitted by High Court)
was withheld by the prosecution. When such vital forensic
evidence is kept away, an adverse inference will have to be drawn
against the prosecution. [Para 8.2][1077-A-B]
3. The infirmities in the conduct of the Test Identification
Parade would next bear scrutiny. The major flaw in the exercise
here was the presence of the police during the exercise. When
the identifications are held in police presence, the resultant
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
1073
communications tantamount to statements made by the identifiers
to a police officer in cour

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.