LexHANSRAJ versus STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 612 : 2025 INSC 178 Hansraj v. State of Chhattisgarh (Criminal Appeal No. 1387 of 2012) 10 February 2025 [Pankaj Mithal* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.] Issue for Consideration The appellant was convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC. Whether the appellant can be held guilty of the commission of offence beyond reasonable doubt. Headnotes† Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Appellant was residing with the victim-deceased and was assisting him in his work – On the fateful day, the appellant left in morning however, returned early claiming his cycle got punctured – He asked PW-5 (wife of victim) for money to get puncture repaired – To give appellant money PW-5 went to market to sell paddy, leaving appellant and her victim-husband behind – When she returned, she saw her husband lying on floor dead, bleeding with his neck severed – FIR was registered – Trial Court convicted appellant for offence u/s.302 IPC and same was upheld by the High Court – Correctness: Held: It is settled that the chain of events leading to the prosecution of the convict must conclusively be established with certainty and there shall not be any room for any second opinion which may lead to the innocence of the accused – In the instant case, it is alleged that there was some discord between appellant and the deceased in connection with non-payment/untimely payment of wages – The issue of non-payment of wages is hardly material and is so trivial a matter so as to compel anyone to take an extreme step of committing a crime of such a grave nature – Moreover, there is no material evidence to prove any discord between the two – It is the consistent case of all the witnesses including PW-5 that the appellant had left in the morning for his * Author [2025] 2 S.C.R. 613 Hansraj v. State of Chhattisgarh native place and that as told by PW-5 he returned as his cycle’s tyre got punctured – The fact that he actually returned as alleged does not stand established by any independent evidence except for the statement of PW-5 – However, her statement could not be corroborated by any piece of evidence – The cycle of the appellant was recovered by the police but no effort was made to find out if either of the tyres was actually punctured, which could have proved that the appellant may have returned as the cycle’s tyre got punctured – The weapon of crime i.e., farsi (Ex P/6) with blood stains was set to have been recovered after 20-25 days of the incident on the pointing out of the appellant – However, no forensic report was brought on record to prove that the blood stains on it matched with that of the blood of the deceased – Merely for the reason that the doctor opined that the injuries on the deceased may have been caused by a similar weapon would not conclude that the recovered farsi was the weapon of crime – That apart, JR, who lodged the complaint, in his cross-examination stated that the farsi was lying in an open place, referring to the place of the commission of the crime – The said statement completely belies the fact that the farsi was recovered subsequently from the field of one C – The recovery of the weapon of crime or the farsi, which was recovered, is doubtful and it is also not certain that it was actually the weapon of crime – Also, PW-5 had not found and seen the appellant at the place of the crime after her return as he had already fled – However, in her cross examination she took a summersault and stated that when she came back, she saw the appellant running from the house with the farsi – Further, the evidence of none of the two witnesses (PW-1 and PW-3) could conclusively establish that they saw the appellant running or fleeing from the place of crime or from the village – The identity of the person running away had not been established by any evidence – The circumstances raising finger upon the appellant, are not of a conclusive nature to prove beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was the person responsible for the commission of the crime – Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the benefit of doubt goes in his favour. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17] Case Law Cited Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1 SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 – referred to. 614 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Digital Supreme Court Reports List of Acts Penal Code, 1860. List of Keywords Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860; Circumstantial evidence; Conclusion of guilt; Hypothesis of gui
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.