SHATRUGHAN versus THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

Citation: [2023] 10 S.C.R. 758 · Decided: 20-07-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: VIKRAM NATH · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

cites 1 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
758
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
SHATRUGHAN
v.
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
(Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2016)
JULY 20, 2023
[VIKRAM NATH AND AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Culpable homicide amounting to
murder – Conviction u/s. 302 – Correctness of – FIR against the
appellant by the informant-uncle of deceased – Allegation that the
deceased had shouted that the appellant had assaulted him with a
tabbal – Informant rushed to the place of incident and saw his
nephew lying there with deep cut on the neck – Nephew later
succumbed to his injuries – Conviction of the appellant u/s. 302
and sentenced to life imprisonment by the courts below – On appeal,
held: Prosecution failed to establish the charge – Prosecution story
does not appear to be a probable story – Supporting evidence does
not inspire confidence, rather there are material contradictions –
Testimony of the informant not found to be reliable, thus could not
form the basis of conviction – Medical evidence also does not
support the prosecution case as the weapon of assault could not
have caused injury on the deceased – Further, no motive as to why
the appellant would commit the murder of the deceased – Defence
version that the deceased was under the influence of alcohol and
could have tripped and fallen on a sharp object resulting into the
ante-mortem injury reported in the post-mortem was quite possible,
and is clearly borne out from the record – Thus, the conviction and
sentence of the appellant set aside.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 None of the eye-witnesses had actually seen
the occurrence of the appellant assaulting the deceased. [Para
31][770-F]
1.2 According to the informant, he was the first person to
arrive at the site along with his wife upon hearing the cry for help
from the deceased that the appellant was assaulting him with a
tabbal. When he reached the site he saw that the deceased was
[2023] 10 S.C.R. 758 : 2023 INSC 630
758
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
759
lying on the road and the appellant was moving towards his house
on a cycle along with tabbal. This is the FIR version. In his
deposition the informant stated that when he rushed to the place
of occurrence, he saw the accused running away and the tabbal
was lying there. The deceased had fallen unconscious and there
was deep cut on his neck with blood flowing from the injury. Upon
his call, the other neighbours and his daughter all came out from
their houses. PW-14 stated that PW-1 only informed him that
deceased had been assaulted and had been taken to the hospital.
PW-1 did not inform PW-14 that it was the appellant who had
assaulted. PW-14 stated that it was later on that others who
informed about the appellant assaulting the deceased. The other
eye-witnesses did not state that they saw the appellant assaulting
the deceased. PW-2 is the wife of PW-1, PW-3 is the widow of the
deceased, PW-4 is daughter of PW-1, are the other witnesses
who reached the place of occurrence. None of them stated that
they had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased. Thus, the
only evidence is of PW-1 stating that the appellant was running
away from the place of occurrence when he reached there. He
himself stated that the deceased was already unconscious as such
was not in a condition to speak. There is one more aspect to be
considered as to whether the cry given by the deceased could
have been made as stated. Normally in villages nobody takes the
name of elders and especially their uncles. PW 1 is the uncle
(father’s brother) of the deceased. Under normal course the
deceased would have called kaka only and would not take his
name. In the First Information Report it is stated that when PW
1 came out he saw the appellant running towards his house on a
cycle along with tabbal but in the deposition before the trial court
it is stated that when he reached the place of occurrence the
appellant was running and the tabbal was lying there and then he
stated that the deceased had only shouted that the appellant is
assaulting him. Another aspect to be considered is whether after
receiving the said injury the deceased could have shouted and if
he had shouted before being assaulted then the situation would
have been different. It would have been a one to one and he
could have resisted the assault. The fact is there is only one injury
on the neck. [Para 32][770-G; 771-A-H; 772-A-B]
SHATRUGHAN v. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
760
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 10 S.C.R.
1.3 

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