According to the prosecution story, Vijay Kumar (PW1) uncle of the deceased (Jagat Ram) lodged a First Information Report at 04:30 AM on 20.07.2008 that on the previous night at about 08.00 PM while he was sitting in his house, his nephew Jagat was returning on a cycle and he heard his nephew shouting, while passing in front of the house of one Chandu “Kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan has assaulted me with a Tabbal”. On hearing the said cry for help, the informant along with his wife, ran to the lane in front of the house of Chandu Lal and saw that his nephew Jagat was lying on the road and that Shatrughan was moving on his cycle along with Tabbal towards his house. Investigation was entrusted 4 to Investigating Officer (PW-16) who visited the spot, got the inquest prepared, recorded the statements of the informants as well the witnesses, arrested the appellant and recovered various articles including the weapon of assault, other clothes containing blood stains and also recovered the cycle.
Anu Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant, both the Courts below committed serious error of law by recording conviction.
Sodhi has also taken us to the relevant part of the evidence in order to discredit the arguments and the evidence shown to us by the learned counsel for the appellant.
On the other side of the lane, a little away and diagonally from the house of Chandu is the house of Vijay Kumar, the informant (PW-1) which has been marked by alphabet “C”. It would be relevant to note that evidence as recorded is in close proximity and within a reasonable time from the date of occurrence (within a few months on 11.02.2009). The incident had actually taken place in front of house of Chandu and Akshay.
In his cross-examination, PW-1 admits that after the house of Chandu there is house of one Ram Singh and after the house of Ram Singh, next is his house. He admits that he had no dispute with the appellant nor did the deceased had any dispute with him. She also admits that her nephew had helped Shatrughan and Rajendra in that 13 complaint against the Sarpanch as a result the Sarpanch had to give a public apology. She also admits the suggestion that house of Firtu Ram is closest to Chandu Lal’s house and her house is little away. In paragraph 10, he admits that the Sarpanch was there in the meeting and he also admits that in the said meeting, the appellant had said that while he was passing, he saw the deceased had fallen on the ‘Pharsa’. He also states that on 20.07.2008, the clothes 17 on the body of the deceased had blood-stains on it and he had advised that the same be sent for chemical examination. He further states that it is correct in case if the said weapon is used for assault, then the length of the injury would also have been 13.5 cm.
He states that when he reached home around 08.00 PM after carrying out some purchases, his brother Vijay Kumar (PW-1) informed that his son Jagat had shouted that the appellant had assaulted him. He states that Shatrughan, the appellant while passing through his house had called him and thereafter, he had heard the voice of Jagat. He further states that he never heard Jagat shouting and he had not seen the appellant.
Also Read: https://newslaw.in/supreme-court/challenge-to-state-governments-directive-for-cadre-merger/
He further denied the suggestion that Jagat, the deceased had supported Shatrughan and Rajendra in the complaint. He states that the murder of Jagat had taken place in front of his house in the lane and that he had heard that the appellant had assaulted him. He further states that they reached the Police Station at 06.00 AM although police had arrived in the village at 04.00 AM. FIR was registered at 07.00 AM and they returned to the village in the evening at 04.00 PM.
He has denied 25 the suggestion that in fact in the initial Merg report, the name of the appellant was not there and it was only later on that his name had been added.
Following are the reasons for the above conclusion: a) According to the informant (PW-1), he was the first person to arrive at the site along with his wife upon hearing the cry for help from the deceased that Shatrughan was assaulting him with a tabbal.
d) 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 28 other witnesses who reached the place of occurrence. Under normal course the deceased would have called kaka only and would not take his name to say that 29 ‘kaka Vijay Singh run, Shatrughan is assaulting me with a tabbal ’ (“ , ”). If there is no motive setup or proved and there are direct eye- witnesses, motive may loose its importance but in the present case as admittedly no one has seen the occurrence, the motive has an important role to play. b)
Case Title: SHATRUGHAN Vs. THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH (2023 INSC 630)
Case Number: Crl.A. No.-000437-000437 / 2016
