In the Matter at hand Shatrughan v. State of Chhattisgarh There has been an appeal filed against the Chhattisgarh High Court’s decision and order upholding the conviction under Section 302 of the Penal Code, 1860 and the sentence of life in prison and a fine of Rs. 5,000 imposed by the Additional Sessions Judge. The informant recounts a four-month episode in which the dead was attacked by a prisoner, who fled and collapsed. There was no animosity between the deceased and the prisoner, although the deceased had a serious cut on his neck. The prison sentence for the criminal is roughly 15 years. The Trial Court sentenced the defendant to life in prison after finding him guilty of culpable homicide in accordance with Section 302 IPC. The conviction was upheld by the High Court, which prompted this appeal. The convicted person contended that there was hearsay and indirect evidence supporting the prosecution rather than direct evidence of the offence. In the First Information Report or comments made during the inquiry, the prosecution failed to provide a motive. The State countered that the prosecution had successfully established the offence through substantial evidence.
Analysis of Court Order
The Supreme Court Justice Vikram Nath and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah’s division bench acquitted the defendant and speculated that the dead may have been seriously intoxicated when he fell and hit his head on a sharp instrument, causing the damage. As a result, the charge had not been proven by the prosecution.
The Bench stated that although motive may not play a significant part in a case of direct evidence, the prosecution would need to prove a reason for the offence after there are no eyewitnesses to the occurrence. If no motivation has been shown and there are direct eyewitnesses, the motive may become less significant; but, in the current case, because there are no eyewitnesses, the motive is crucial.
The court determined that the evidence of the informant was unreliable and could not have served as the foundation for the conviction. Sarpanch, who was not engaged in the event, was found to have influenced the informant. Medical evidence refuted the prosecution’s case since an injury could not have been caused by the assault weapon. The murder of a friend and acquaintance was not done for any reason by the defendant. According to the defence’s account, which the evidence backed up, the deceased may have landed on a sharp item while intoxicated and stumbled. The FIR was not filed promptly, and the prosecution was unable to prove the accusation. Therefore The Supreme Court Judge bench overturned the High and trial Court Convict’s conviction and punishment and Released the prisoner.
CASE NAME – Shatrughan v. State of Chhattisgarh, Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2016