State of Gujarat Vs. Ratansingh @ Chinubhai Anopsinh Chauhan
|
Head Note
Indian Penal Code,1860 - Section 376 , Section 302 , Section 201
Sustainability - Respondents were convicted by Trial Court u/ss.302, 376 and 201 IPC - HC, however, acquitted the respondents - HC had expressed its doubts on recovery of grinding stone from the house of the respondent which was allegedly used for committing murder of the deceased - It was pointed out by HC that evidence suggested that the officer of the (Forensic laboratory) FSL was summoned on 19-8-2023 who inspected the place of incident and instructed the Inquiry Officer to recover the stone which was, accordingly, recovered - It was so stated in FSL officer's report as well as in his deposition - As per discovery Panchnama drawn on 23-8-2023 the said grinding stone was recovered from beneath steel cupboard at the instance of the respondent - How the recovery could have taken place if the stone had already been recovered on 19-8-2023 - That casted doubt about the documents and the discovery of stone itself - There was another aspect highlighted by the HC which was very pertinent and could not be ignored - After the incident when sniffer dog was brought to the site, said dog had tracked to the house of PW16 and not the respondent - In fact, on that basis the son of PW16 was even taken into custody by the police and was detained for 2 days - Thereafter, son of PW16 was allowed to go inasmuch, as per the police he had not committed any offence - That version had come from the testimony of PW16 herself - On the other hand, I.O. had totally denied that son of PW16 was ever detained for 2 days - There was no such entry in the daily diary as well - From this evidence appearing on record, the HC had concluded that investigation could not be considered as honest inasmuch as it would indicate to two possibilities, namely: (1) Investigating officer (I.O) did not detain or interrogate the son of PW16 for 2 days - If that was so I.O failed in his duty when the sniffer dog tracked to the house of PW16 - (2) If I.O. had detained the son of PW16, then case diary did not record the events correctly and I.O was not telling the truth before the Court - That apart, it also spoke volumes about the reliability of the investigation and evidence collected, more so when no explanation was coming forward as to why the son of PW16 was released by the police and the respondent arrested - SC, thus, agreed with the findings of the HC that the evidence led by the prosecution did not establish a complete chain of circumstances to connect the accused with the murder of deceased - Further, immediately after respondent's arrest, the respondent was sent for medical check up - As per the medical report there were injuries on chest and back which was described by the doctor as linear abrasions - There were no foreign particles in his nails - Doctor also admitted in his cross-examination that he did not notice any injury on the penis of the accused - Therefore, this showed contradiction between the recording of medical condition in the Panchnama and the medical examination conducted by the doctor, in so far as they relate to the injury on the penis of the respondent - HC had rightly observed that the Panchnama had recorded abrasions and therefore it could not have disappeared within such a short time - It reflected adversely on the prosecution case - As regards injuries found on chest and back of the respondent, they were tried to be shown as injuries caused with nail of the deceased - However, the post mortem note did not indicate presence of any traces of skin of the accused in nail of the deceased - Appeal dismissed.
Topic(s)-