1 Reserved on : 19/03/2025 Delivered on: 24/06/2025 AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 353 of 2019 Ramesh Kumar Sahu S/o Awadh Ram Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Semartal, Present Address- Village- Ramtala, Thana- Koni, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Koni, Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Devesh G. Kela, Panel Lawyer DB : Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput C A V Judgment Per Sachin Singh Rajput, J. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374 (2) of CrPC assailing legality, correctness and judicial propriety of the judgment dated 12/12/2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.08/2018 by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) [for short ‘trial Court’] convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC twice for committing murder of Laxmin Bai and Rukhmani Sahu and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life and pay fine of Rs.500/- each. 2. The deceased Laxmin Bai happened to be the mother-in-law and deceased Rukhmani Sahu the sister-in-law of the accused/ 2 appellant. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the accused/appellant was in illicit relation with deceased Rukhmani Sahu whereas the deceased Laxmin Bai wanted to get her (Rukhmani Sahu) married somewhere else. Over this, the accused/appellant used to pick up quarrel with Laxmin Bai. In the intervening night of 09 & 10/10/2017 when Laxmin Bai and Rukhmani Sahu were sleeping in their house, the accused/appellant inflicted fatal injuries on their person which led to their death. Anjora Bai (PW-2) – the wife of the accused/appellant is said to have seen the entire incident from her room. After causing the death of the two, the accused/appellant went absconding. It is stated that after hearing the cries of Anjora Bai, the people of the vicinity came to the spot and on seeing Laxmin Bai and Rukhman Bai lying with injuries on their body, complainant Shivkumar Yadav (PW- 3) informed the police of Police Station – Koni on the basis of which merg intimation Ex. P-5 and Ex. P-6 followed by FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. Inquest on the dead bodies was conducted vide Ex. P-2 & 3 followed by postmortem examination being conducted vide reports Ex. P-19 and P-20. Plain soil and blood stained soil was collected from the spot, the clothes worn by Laxmin Bai and Rukhmani; vaginal slides of Rukhmani were preserved and were seized under Ex. P-12. The accused/appellant was arrested on 24.10.2017 and on his memorandum (Ex. P-8) seizure of pick-axe was made on the same day under Ex. P-9. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL, Bilaspur from where unexhibited report dated 29.05.2018 was received. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur who in turn committed the case for trial to 3 concerned Sessions Judge from where it was transferred to 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur for trial. The accused/appellant however denied the charges and claimed trial. 3. Prosecution, in order to prove its case, examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 CrPC was recorded where he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. No witness however was examined by the defence. 4. Learned trial Court after going through the record has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as described above. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings recorded by trial Court are contrary to the evidence available on record and therefore, are liable to be set aside. He submits that though the entire case is based on eye witness account and circumstantial evidence, the chain thereof, as has been propounded in series of decisions by the Supreme Court, is not complete which makes the accused/appellant receive benefit of doubt. It is submitted that recovery of pick-axe said to have been made at the instance of the accused/appellant is not correct for the reason that if the statement of Shivkumar Yadav (PW-3) and Ankur Singh Thakur (PW-5) are read together, it appears to have been found lying on the spot. It is also submitted that the prosecution does not appear to have rebutted the statement of wife of the appellant Anjora Bai (PW-2) who in her cross-examination has stated that two days before the incident the accused/appellant had gone to Nagpur for earning livelihood. She has given different versions in the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC, the one made in the examination-in-chief and then another in 4 the cross-examination, which renders her entire testimony extremely doubtful inuring the benefit of doubt to the accused/appellant. According to the counsel for the appellant, even the motive for killing Rukhmani and Laxmin Bai has not been established by the prosecution. It is submitted that if the evidence of Anjora Bai (PW-2) and Kumari Anisha Sahu (PW-4) who claim to have been present in the house at the relevant time, their version as to the commission of crime does not stand in harmony to each other and therefore also the same cannot be placed implicit reliance upon. In support of his submissions, he placed reliance on the decision of the Supreme Court in the cases of Ram Kumar Pandey v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (1975) 3 SCC 815, Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and ors. v. State of Maharashtra, (2007) 13 SCC 501, Mukhtiar Ahmed Ansari v. State (NCT of Delhi), (2005) 5 SCC 258 and Joseph @ Jose v. State of Kerala, (2003) 11 SCC 223, State of Punjab Vs. Praveen Kumar (2005) 9 SCC 769, Madhav Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2021) 17 SCC 600, Rai Sandeep Alias Deepu Vs. State (NCT of Delhi) (2012) 8 SCC 21, Mohd. Muslim Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2023) 7 SCC 350. Reliance is also placed on the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Shingara Singh Vs. State of Haryana and another (2003) 12 SCC 758, In Re Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh and others (2021) 10 SCC 598, Baldev Singh and another Vs. State of MP (2003) 9 SCC 45, Suresh Miri Vs. State of Chhattisgarh CRA No.1307/2019 decided on 18.02.2025, Bhothar Ram Vs. State of Chhattisgarh CRA No.704/2006 decided on 25.10.2016, Mehilal Agariya Vs. State of Chhattisgarh CRA No.528/2016 decided on 5 08.11.2023. Therefore, he submits that the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted of the aforesaid charge. 6. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the evidence brought on record clearly establishes the complicity of the accused/appellant in crime in question and therefore, the view taken by the trial Court cannot be said to be illegal or arbitrary. He submits that though Anjora Bai (PW- 2) in her cross-examination has not supported the case of the prosecution, in her examination-in-chief and statement under Section 164 CrPC, she clearly stated that it is the appellant who killed both Rukhmani and Laxmin Bai with the help of pick-axe. According to him, apart from Anjora Bai, other witnesses have also supported the case of prosecution and therefore also, the findings recorded by the trial Court cannot be said to suffer from any legal flaw requiring interference in this appeal. Being all this, it is submitted that the appeal lacks merit and is liable for dismissal. 7. A patient hearing has been given to the counsel for both the parties and close scrutiny of the evidence has also been undertaken by this Court. 8. First of all, this Court proceeds to deal with the evidence of two important witnesses PW-2 and PW-4 who claim themselves to have seen the incident from the close quarters and thus happen to be the eye-witnesses to the incident. 9. Anjora Bai (PW-2) has stated that in the night of 10.10.2017 the accused/appellant who happens to be her husband had come home inebriated and assaulted her mother Laxmin Sahu and sister Shrimati @ Rukhmani Sahu with a pick-axe. This, she saw from the courtyard 6 but could not speak anything because of fear. Thereafter the accused/appellant is stated to have fled from the spot. Her daughter Anisha (PW-4) is also stated to have been sleeping in the house at the relevant time who woke up after hearing the cries, saw the entire incident and started weeping. According to this witness, her cries also drew the people from vicinity to the spot. The incident was telephonically informed to the Police by Sarpanch (PW-5). Her mother and sister were seen to be dead from the courtyard. After marriage her husband used to live in the house of her mother as Gharjamai. Since the accused/appellant was dependent on the property of Laxmin Sahu, there used to be frequent quarrels between the two over that. Another reason for quarrel between the two was that the accused/appellant took objections over the attitude of Rukhmani Sahu. According to this witness even on the date of incident the accused/appellant had quarreled with her sister and having returned home under the influence of liquor he caused the death of her mother and sister by assaulting with the help of pick-axe. However, in the cross- examination she has taken a complete somersault in portraying the entire incident. She has admitted that two days prior to the date of incident the accused/appellant had gone to Nagpur in search of livelihood and after the incident she had sent a message to him informing about the killing of her mother and sister by some unknown person and 12-13 days thereafter he returned to village Ramtala from where the Police had arrested him. She has admitted that through the open thatched rooftop anybody could have made easy entry into her house. She has also admitted that on account of being darkness at the relevant time the person even at the distance of 2-3 feet was not 7 visible. She has further admitted that the incident was seen neither by her nor by her daughter (PW-4) and that it is Shivkumar Yadav (PW-3) and Mulchand Dubey (PW-6) who had made her give statement to the Police as also to the Court against the accused/appellant by putting her under threat of life. Mulchand Dubey (PW-6) is stated to have threatened her of doing anything and everything to her and also to her daughter by just spending Rs.50,000/-. She has reiterated that her examination-in-chief was utterly under the influence of PW-3 and PW-6 who all throughout had been around her until it was over. Likewise her daughter PW-4 was also put under persistent threat for giving a false statement against the accused/appellant but in fact the incident was not seen either by her or by her daughter. She has stated that the accused/appellant was affectionate to Rukhmani Sahu and took all care of her including giving education as to her own daughter. The accused/appellant had even fixed the marriage of her deceased sister but Mulchand Dubey (PW-6) somehow got broken the same. She has also admitted that once PW-6 had made Rukhmani Sahu captive from morning to night. She has stated that whenever her mother went to the house of PW-6 to take back her deceased sister, he used to hurl abuses to her and subjected to beating. Even her deceased sister also used to abuse and did not want to return from the house of PW-6. PW-3, PW-5 and his family members are also stated to have come to her house frequently and subjected this witness and her deceased mother to beating and threatened of life as well. Two months prior to the incident, nephew of PW-3 had also thrashed her, her mother and sister and pressed her neck for which her husband had lodged a report in Police Station Koni. PW-3 is also stated to have 8 come to her house carrying axe with him and struck at the door with it hurling threat of their life. She has further stated that the spot was not visible from the place where she and her daughter (PW-4) were sleeping. She has stated that though at the relevant time there was darkness yet the spot could not be seen from the place where they were sleeping, even in the light. She has reiterated that her mother and sister were killed by some unknown persons and that when she reached the spot, a blood stained axe was lying nearby. Thereafter, she is stated to have gone to the Sarpanch and informed him about the incident who then telephonically intimated to the concerned Police Station. According to this witness, after inquest the dead bodies were sent for postmortem examination and the police people took with them the blood stained axe and knife from the spot. From the evidence of this witness it also comes out that out of the total six acres of land, she and her deceased sister were to get three acres each and to grab the share of her deceased sister Moolchand Dubey (PW-6) used to keep her in his house. She has stated that on account of the threats given by Shiv Kumar Yadav (PW-3), she had given the evidence against her husband. She has reiterated that two days prior to the incident, the accused/appellant had gone to Nagpur to earn a living and that after receiving the information about the incident he had come back to village Ramtala. She has further stated that after the incident she and her daughter (PW-4) had informed about the same to the Sarpanch (PW-5). She has stated that her daughter (PW-4) came to know about the incident after being told by her. Even the trial Court has mentioned that the version of this witness in the cross examination is completely opposite to what she has stated in the examination-in-chief and also in 9 the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC. As regards 164 CrPC statement, this witness is stated to have made that statement on account of threats of life to her and her children at the hands of Shiv Kumar yadav (PW-4). According to her, she did not state to the Magistrate about the threats given by PW-4 as he had asked to finish her if she did anything like that. 10. Anisha Sahu (PW-4) – a minor witness was also examined by the trial Court after assessing her competence to given evidence by putting certain questions. She is stated to have seen while sleeping the accused/appellant assaulting her aunt and maternal grandmother. She then called her uncle (PW-6) but by that time her aunt had already died and her maternal grandmother was alive. Heads of both of them were crushed. According to her, she did not tell anyone about the incident and that at the relevant time her mother (PW-2) was in the nearby house. After arrival, her mother also saw the heads of both the deceased crushed and then she went to call PW-6. In the cross- examination, she has stated the things stated in the examination-in- chief were not disclosed to anyone there-before. Though there was darkness at the relevant time but the things were not completely invisible, and visibility a little was there. She has stated that the act of assault by the accused/appellant and then fleeing from the spot, was told by her to PW-6. On being asked by the Court, this witness made it clear that she saw the assault. 11. Now the testimony of other witnesses is also needs to be adverted to. Shiv Kumar Yadav (PW-3) has stated that on the date of incident at about 4-5 AM when he was sleeping in his house, his wife woke him up and informed about the incident, and that after he went 10 to the spot both the deceased women were lying in the pool of blood. Information in this regard was given to Police Station Koni by Sarpanch (PW-5) on phone. On being asked by the police as to who would come forward to lodge the report, he showed his readiness for that and thus lodged the report Ex. P-7. On the memorandum of accused/appellant (Ex.P-8), an axe was seized in his presence from the house of PW-2 under Ex. P-9, and they both bear his signature. Then this witness has stated that the pick-axe was seized from the place where dead bodies were lying. In paragraph No. 10 of his deposition he has stated that after the police came, the blood stained axe was lying on the spot from where it was seized. Here the trial Court has put a note that the accused/appellant present in the Court had stated that it is this witness (PW-3) who many a time tried to kill him and on earlier occasions also he had come to his house carrying axe and struck the same at the door of his house. After this version of the accused/appellant, this witness also stated that previously also the accused/appellant had made an effort to finish the two deceased women herein by pouring kerosene and just the matchstick was to be ignited, but on the intervention of the people of neighborhood the mishap was averted. Report thereof is also stated to be lodged in the police station. 12. Ankur Singh Thakur (PW-5) is the Sarpanch who had gone to the house of PW-2 on being called by her, saw the dead bodies of the two deceased women and telephonically informed the police about the same. He has stated that accused/appellant was arrested after about 15 days and on his memorandum Ex. P-8, seizure of pick-axe was made under Ex. P-9, which carries his signature. In cross-examination he 11 has stated that when he reached the spot, a blood stained axe was lying there which was taken by the police people. He has admitted that the accused/appellant had not handed over the axe or pick-axe to the police in his presence and that when he went to the police station, the axe or pick-axe was kept there. He has stated that the police informed that the said weapon was brought from the spot. 13. Mool Chand Dubey (PW-6) has stated that incident is of the night of 10.10.2017 and that he came to know of the same on the next day at about 5.00 am through daughter of accused/appellant namely Anisha and his own daughter Payal. According to this witness, Anisha has told him that Shrimati @ Rukhmani and Laxmin Bai were killed by the accused/appellant by assaulting with the help of pick-axe. He has stated that when he went to the house of accused/appellant, two dead bodies were lying there. Thereafter he called the Sarpanch of the village who had telephonically informed the Police about the incident. According to this witness, he was told by Anjora Bai that her sister and mother were killed by the accused/appellant with the help of pick- axe. He has stated that accused/appellant used to harass Shrimati @ Rukhmani and was also having illicit relations with her. He has further stated that it is he who had imparted education to Shrimati @ Rukhmani Sahu who was living in his house since childhood. He has admitted that prior to 06.06.2018 whenever Anjora Bai and her daughter went to the Court for giving statement he used to be always with them. 14. Akshay Sahu (PW-7) has stated that the talks of marriage of Shrimati @ Rukhmani Sahu with him were going on and that he had taken her with him to Bilaspur twice for excursion. In cross- 12 examination he has stated that he came to know through Anjora Bai that some unknown persons had finished her mother and sister by entering into her house and that two days prior to the date of incident accused/appellant had gone to Nagpur. He has further stated that though an effort was made to inform the accused/appellant of the incident but as he was not keeping mobile with him, it could not be communicated immediately. He went on to state that when the accused/appellant received the information about the killings of the two 14-15 days after the incident he came down to Ramtala. He has however specifically stated that he did not see the incident and has given the description as was narrated to him by Anjora Bai. Lastly he has admitted that when he went to the house of accused/appellant after hearing about the incident, an axe was lying there on the spot. 15. Priya Dwivedi (PW-12) is the Patwari who prepared Spot Map (Ex. P-4) in presence of witnesses. She has denied that the Spot Map (Ex.P-4) was prepared by her in her office. S. C. Shukla (PW-13) is the Investigating Officer who has stated that on 24.10.2017 he has recorded the memorandum of accused/appellant Ex. P-8 and made seizure of pick-axe based on that vide Ex. P-9 and also arrested the accused/appellant under Ex. P-11 on the same day. In cross- examination he has stated that he knew the difference between the axe and pick-axe and that the mention of pick-axe on the spot has wrongly been made though in fact it was not there. He has admitted that being an agricultural equipment, the pick-axe is normally available in the house of almost every farmer. In respect of axe also he has stated the same thing. He has stated that a day prior to the date of incident the Sarpanch had telephonically informed him that accused/appellant was 13 creating nuisance in his house after consuming liquor and on receiving this information the patrolling party had gone to his house but the accused/appellant was not found there. He has admitted that he did not make any entry in this respect in the Rojnamchasanha or any other document. 16. Dr. Dharmendra Kumar (PW-14) is the witness who conducted postmortem examination on the dead bodies and gave his report Ex. P- 19 & Ex.P-20. After describing multiple injuries on the dead bodies he has opined that cause of death of two was cardio respiratory failure due to shock as a result of mentioned injuries and its duration was less than 24 hrs. While replying to the query whether the injuries present over the bodies of two deceased women could be caused with the help of pick-axe presented before him for examination, he vide reports Ex. P-20 & P-21 has stated in affirmative. This witness has admitted that neither in the PM reports nor in the query reports he has mentioned the death being homicidal in nature. He has then stated that it was not possible for him to opine in definite terms whether the death of two was homicidal in nature. He has further admitted that there is no much difference between the axe and pick-axe and that they both are the hard and blunt object. There is categorical admission by this witness that the injuries mentioned in the PM reports could be caused with axe. 17. Having thus gone into the evidence of the witnesses at considerable length, this Court thinks it appropriate to assess the credibility or otherwise of each of the witnesses individually and/or conjunctively, in the following manner:- 14 17.1 Though the so-called eyewitness to the incident namely Anjora Bai (PW-2) has given varying statements at different places contradictory to each other yet to determine the trustworthiness and credibility of her overall narration coupled with the genuineness of the conduct expected of an eyewitness needs a rethink. Though she claims to have seen the accused/appellant assaulting her mother and sister with the help of pick-axe yet instead of making any intervention to save their lives she is stated to have kept mum out of fear and in the meanwhile, the accused/appellant ran away. This conduct of PW-2 appears to be very unnatural and difficult to digest because after seeing such a gory act before her own eyes, the natural course of conduct for her would have been to go and make all endevours to save their lives or to make arrangement to shift them to the hospital particularly when the victims happened to be her real mother and sister. But, what this witness did was that she came out of the house and started crying and did not do anything to stop the on-going assault. Dealing with this aspect of the matter as to the conduct of an eyewitness after witnessing an incident, it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Muslim (supra) as under:- “19. The son and the nephew of the deceased Altaf Ahmed were following him on their own cycle but the defence has doubted their presence. The conduct and behaviour of both of them appear to be unnatural inasmuch as, had their father been assblood stainedaulted in the manner alleged, they would have been the first person to intervene so as to save him, but there is no evidence to indicate that upon seeing the accused appellants assaulting deceased Altaf Hussain they had rushed to the spot 15 which was hardly at some distance from them rather two other persons came on the spot and tried to save deceased Altaf Hussain upon hearing the alarm raised by them. The son and nephew of deceased Altaf Hussain did not even care to take him to the hospital though one of them went to lodge an FIR, the other did not even feel likemajor contradiction staying with the deceased and instead went away to the village. Therefore, the conduct of these two persons amply supports the defence version that they may not be present at the place of event.” 17.2 Secondly, she is stated to be the eyewitness to the incident but the police is stated to be informed by the village Sarpanch (PW-6) and after arrival of the police at the spot FIR (Ex.P-7) was registered. It is surprising that though Anjora Bai was also present there, the FIR does not mention her to be the eyewitness. If Anjora Bai was indeed an eye- witness having witnessed such a gruesome attack on her own mother and sister, she had absolutely no reason for her not to become the first informant. This apart, from the statement of Anisha (PW-4) it is manifest that at the relevant time her mother (PW-2) was in the nearby house and after her arrival she saw the crushed heads of the two deceased women. PW-2 thus does not appear to be an eyewitness to the incident and appears to have been planted as such subsequently. While deciding an identical issue in the matter of Ram Kumar Pandey (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court thus:- 8. The above mentioned First information Report was lodged at Police Station Ganj on 23-3-1970 at 9.15 p.m. The time of this incident is stated to be 5 p.m. The only person mentioned as an eye witness to the murder of Harbinder Singh is Joginder Singh. The two daughters Taranjit Kaur, PW 2, and Amarjit Kaur, PW 6, are 16 mentioned in the F.I.R. only as persons who saw the wrapping of the chadar on the wound of Harbinder Singh, What is most significant is that it is nowhere mentioned in the F.I.R. that the appellant had stabbed Harbinder Singh at all. It seems inconceivable that by 9.15 p.m. it would not be known to Uttam Singh, the father of Harbinder Singh, that the appellant had inflicted one of the two stab wounds on the body of Harbinder Singh. 9. No doubt, an F.I.R. is a previous statement which can, strictly speaking, be only used to corroborate or contradict the maker of it. But, in this case, it had been made by the father of the murdered boy to whom all the important facts of the occurrence, so far as they were, known up to 9.15 p.m. on 23-3-1970, were bound to have been communicated. If his daughters had seen the appellant inflicting a blow' on Harbinder Singh, the father would certainly have mentioned it in the F.I.R. We think that or missions of such important facts, affecting the probabilities of the case, are relevant under Section 11 of the Evidence Act in judging the veracity of the prosecution case. 11. Satwant Kaur, PW 7, the wife of Uttam Singh, who claimed to have been an eye witness of the whole occurrence, was also not mentioned in the F.I.R. Suresh had, according to her, stabbed Harbinder Singh on the right side of the chest at the door of the kitchen, and thereafter, Pandey was said to have attacked him. 12. Again, we find that Taranjit Kaur, PW 2, and Amarjit Kaur, PW 6, daughters of Uttam Singh, have figured as eye witnesses of the whole occurrence including the stabbing of Harbinder Singh by the appellant. As already indicated, they are not mentioned in the F.I.R. as eye witnesses of the murder. This is also very significant in the present case. They have been mentioned 17 only as witnesses of wrapping a chadar on the wound of Harbinder Singh who was then said to be lying in the lane after the occurrence. 17 As regards the second and third points, we are unable to give credence to the version of the three alleged eye witnesses as they were not mentioned as eye witnesses in the F.I.R. made in the circumstances indicated above. 18. Lastly, the alleged dying declaration is also not mentioned in the F.I.R. On the other hand, the F.I.R., mentions Joginder Singh, who tried to prove the dying declaration as an eye witness.” 17.3 The similar view has been taken by the Supreme Court in its subsequent decision in the matter of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar (supra). Relevant portion reads thus:- “18. A First Information Report cannot be lodged in a murder case after the inquest has been held. The First Information Report has been lodged on the basis of the statements made by PW-11 to the informant himself at the spot. If the said prosecution witness who claimed himself to be the eye-witness was the person who could lodge a First Information Report, there was absolutely no reason as to why he himself did not become the first informant. The First Information Report was recorded on the basis of his information given to the first informant at the spot. All information given by him to PW-13 was made before the Investigating Officer himself. What prevented him from lodging the First Information Report is beyond our comprehension. PW-11, we may place on record, categorically stated that he had disclosed the details of information to all concerned. Therefore, it is expected that the first informant was informed thereabout. We have noticed hereinbefore that the information given by PW-13 had at least been recorded by the police in the Crime 18 Register and he categorically stated a few facts, viz., the main accused Accused No. 9 committed murder of his brother Shivaji Patil and one Baburao Patil. Even the place where the murder took place was known to him. If we are to believe the investigating officer, he recorded the In Re statement after holding inquest. The detailed report in regard to the nature of injuries as also the place where the injuries were inflicted was known to him as inquest report had already been prepared. Such an attempt on the part of the investigating officer has been deprecated by this Court in a large number of decisions. All other witnesses including the Panch witnesses must have been present there. If despite the same, according to Panch Witnesses, at least in respect of Baburao, unknown persons are said to be his assailants, it is evident that PW-11 did not disclose the names of the assailants; at least all of them before PW-9 as also the Investigating Officer.” 17.4 Having thus seen the conduct of Anjora Bai (PW-2) in the light of the legal position adumbrated above, this Court has no hesitation to say that she cannot at all be termed as an eyewitness to the incident. It is particularly when the spot map (Ex.P-4) also does not show as to where in fact this witness was standing at the relevant time so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the incident could be seen from the place she was at. It has time an again been reiterated by the Supreme Court that the site plan is not a mere formality and it is an essential feature to highlight the importance of the site plan. Relying upon several judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court in this regard, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shingara Singh (supra) has held as under:- 19 “29. The evidence on record with regard to the existence of cots in the court-yard of Gurdeep Singh, the existence of a bicycle, as also about the existence of a ladder is rather unsatisfactory and creates a serious doubt as to whether the prosecution witnesses are telling the truth. The omission to show them in both the site plans cannot be attributed to a mere lapse on the part of the investigating agency. In fact so far as the site plans are concerned, the case of the prosecution is that they were prepared in the presence of PW 5 and another witness and on their pointing. However, PW 5 denied that the plans were prepared in his presence. The other witness was not examined.” 14. Similarly in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that site plan is not a mere formality and it is essential feature to highlight the importance of the site plan and held as under : “13…..The site plan prepared by Arvind Khare does not show the presence of cycles or the bushes although the site plan mentions the place wherefrom the two witnesses claim to have seen the incident.” 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), in para-3, has issued the following guidelines regarding site plan: “3. SCENE MAHAZAR/ SPOT PANCHANAMA i. A site plan of the place of occurrence of an incident shall be appended by the Investigating Officer to the scene mahazar or spot panchnama. ii. The site plan shall be prepared by the Investigating Officer by hand, and shall disclose a. the place of occurrence, b. the place where the body (or bodies) was / were found, c. the place where material exhibits and/or weapons, 20 d. blood stains and/or body fluids had fallen, e. the place where bullet shells, if any, were found or have caused impact, f. the source of light, if any and g. adjoining natural and man-made structures or features such as walls, pits, fences, trees/bushes, if any and h. elevation of structures and their location. iii. The preparation of this sketch by the Investigating Officer shall be followed by a scaled site plan prepared by police draftsman, if available, or such other authorized or nominated draftsman by the State Government, who shall prepare the scaled site plan after visiting the spot. iv. The relevant details in the mahazar or panchnama shall be marked and correlated in the said site plan.” 18. This apart, if the statement made by the Anjora Bai (PW-2) recorded under Section 164 CrPC and the one recorded in the Court at the time of trial are juxtaposed, they appear to carry major contradictions and omissions to each other on material particulars. In the statement recorded under Section 164 CrPC she has stated that 15 days prior to recording of her statement the accused/appellant as usual returned home in the night and threatened of doing away with her. She has also stated that he caught hold of her neck and tried to kill her. However, no such disclosure has been made at the time of recording her evidence in the Court, which goes to show that this witness is not a “sterling witness” as her deposition is not unassailable and of very high quality and caliber to be relied upon. Dealing with an identical question it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deepu (Supra) as under:- 21 “22.In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross- examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 19. Though Anjora Bai (PW-2) has stated that after the occurrence having taken place and the accused/appellant fled away from the scene she raised cries but there is no mention of the same in the statement of 22 any of the witnesses who heard those cries. If her statement is seen in juxtaposition with the evidence of Anisha (PW-4), she cannot be termed as sterling witness within the parameters of the law laid down by the Supreme Court. 20. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the trial Court has treated one Mool Chand Dubey (PW-6) to be a res gestae witness. However, if his entire statement is looked into, it appears that he came to know of the same on the next day at about 5.00 am through daughter of accused/appellant namely Anisha and after going to the house of accused/appellant, he saw two dead bodies were lying there. Since this witness came to know about the incident in the next morning, he cannot at all be termed as a res gestae witness rather than a hearsay witness. Dealing with an identical point, it has been held by the Co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the matter of Bhothar Ram (Supra) as under:- “8. Before proceeding to evaluate the statements of witnesses, it would be apt to remember the principle enshrined under Section 6 of the Evidence Act. The said provision is reproduced hereunder for ready reference:- “6. Relevancy of facts forming part of same transaction.- Facts which, though not in issue, are so connected with a fact in issue as to form part of the same transaction, are relevant, whether they occurred at the same time and place or at different times and places.” 9. The principle on which the provision referred above is based is popularly defined as res gestae. It has been defined in Black's Law Dictionary as follows:- “(Latin: 'things done') The events at issue, or other events contemporaneous with them. In evidence law, words and statements about the res gestae are usually admissible under a hearsay exception (such as present sense impression or excited utterance).” 23 10. Section 6 of the Evidence Act is thus an exception to the general rule whereunder hearsay evidence, which is otherwise inadmissible, becomes admissible. However, for bringing such hearsay evidence within the ambit and scope of Section 6 what is required to be established is that it must be almost contemporaneous with the acts and there could not be any interval which would allow fabrication. In other words, the statement forming part of res gestae must be made contemporaneously with the act or immediately thereafter. 21. Even assuming for a while that the trial Court was right in treating PW-6 as res gestae witness, the conviction cannot rest on such testimony alone as has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (AIR 1999 SC 3883). 22. As regards the seizure of blood stained pick-axe from the possession of accused/appellant, it also seems to be highly doubtful for the reason that evidence on record suggests that it was already lying on the spot and was taken in the custody of the Police from the place of incident itself. Out of two seizure witnesses, one PW-3 has categorically stated that the Police has seized an axe from the house of PW-2 and except that no seizure was made in his presence. This witness is also the witness to memorandum of accused/appellant Ex. P-8 but has categorically denied that the accused/appellant had made any disclosure to the Police that he would lead the Police to the place where he had kept the pick-axe and get it recovered from there. This witness therefore, has been declared hostile. Though there is a statement of Sarpanch (PW-5) that when he reached the spot, a blood stained axe was lying there which was taken by the police people. He has further admitted that the accused/appellant had not handed over the axe or pick-axe to the police in his presence and that when he went 24 to the police station, they were kept there and the Police People had informed him that those weapons were brought from the spot itself. Though the seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and the human blood on the mattresses marked as article A-1 and A-2, pick-axe marked as article D and peticoat of deceased Laxmin Bai marked as article G-2 are opined to have contained human blood and that blood on mattress marked as Article A-2 and peticoat of Laxmin Bai marked as Article G-2 opined to be of group “O”, yet as the said report has not been exhibited by the prosecution it remains of no help to its case. The report categorically states that as the result of mattress marked as Article A-1 and the pick-axe is inconclusive and its grouping could not be determined. Thus, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove whether the blood found on the aforesaid articles pertains to that of the blood group of the two deceased persons. 23. The Investigating Officer has also admitted that when he went to the house of accused/appellant after hearing about the incident, an axe was lying there on the spot. From the statement of this witness it does not appear that such seizure was made from the possession of accused/appellant on the basis of disclosure statement made by him. While dealing with an issue of identical nature it has been held by the Supreme Court in the matter Madhav (Supra) as under:- “29.Apart from the fact that the witnesses in whose presence the seizure of the weapons was allegedly effected, had turned hostile, there was also one more thing. There is nothing on record to show that the blood stains said to have been present in those weapons, matched with the blood of the deceased. Unfortunately, 25 the High Court proceeded on a wrong premise that there was scientific evidence to point to the guilt of the accused, merely because as per Exhibit P25 (FSL Report), the knife and lathis said to have been seized by the police, contained stains of human blood. The prosecution has not established either through the report of FSL or otherwise, that the blood stains contained in the knife and lathis were that of the deceased. 30. We are conscious of the fact that there is a divergence of views on this aspect. In Raghav Prapanna Tripathi vs. The State Of Uttar Pradesh2, a Constitution Bench of this Court by a majority held that, “…that it would be farfetched to conclude from the mere presence of bloodstained earth that that earth was stained with human blood and that the human blood was that of the victims…”. In Kansa Behera vs. State of Orissa3, this Court acquitted the appellant on the ground that though the Serologist report found the shirt and dhoti recovered from the possession of the appellant to be stained with human blood, there is no evidence to connect the same with the blood of the deceased. In Surinder Singh vs. State of Punjab4, the blood stains found on the knife allegedly used for the commission of the offence, were established to be human blood. But this Court rejected the prosecution theory 2 AIR 1963 SC 74 3 (1987) 3 SCC 480, 4 (1989) Supp.(2) SCC 21 on the ground that those blood stains on the knife were not shown to be of the same group as the blood of the deceased. In Raghunath, Ramkishan & Ors. vs. State of Haryana,5 this Court held that the blood stain, though of a human blood, is not conclusive evidence to show that it belongs to the blood group of the deceased. In Sattatiya vs. State of Maharashtra6, this Court found the credibility of the evidence relating to the recovery of the object used for the commission of the crime, substantially dented, on account of the fact that the blood stains, though found to 26 be of human source, could not be linked with the blood of the deceased. 31. In contrast, this Court held in State of Rajasthan vs. Teja Ram and Others (1999) 3 SCC 507, that at times the Serologist may fail to deduct the origin of the blood, either because the stain is too insufficient or because of hematological changes and plasmatic coagulation. After referring to the Constitution Bench decision in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi (supra), this 5 (2003) 1 SCC 398 6 (2008) 3 SCC 210 7 (1999) 3 SCC 507 Court held in Teja Ram (supra) that it is not as though the circumstances arising from the recovery of the weapon would stand relegated to disutility, in all cases where there was failure of detecting the origin of the blood. This Court indicated in Teja Ram (supra) that, “…the effort of the Criminal Court should not be to prowl for imaginative doubts…” and that the doubts should be of reasonable dimension, which a judicially conscientious mind entertains with some objectivity. 32. The decision Teja Ram (supra) was followed in Gura Singh vs. State of Rajasthan8 and in Prabhu Dayal vs. State of Rajasthan. 33. In R. Shaji vs. State of Kerala (2013) 14 SCC 266 this Court took note of almost all previous decisions starting from Prabhu Babaji Navle vs. State of Bombay (AIR 1956 SC 51) and including those in Raghav Prapanna Tripathi (supra); Teja Ram (supra), Gura Singh (supra); John Pandian vs. State (2010) 14 SCC 129; and Sunil Clifford Daniel Vs. State of Punjab (2012) 11 SCC 205 and came to the conclusion that once the recovery is made in pursuance of a disclosure statement made by the accused, the matching or non- matching of blood groups loses significance. 27 24. The other glaring discrepancy in the case of prosecution which this Court came across is that Anjora Bai (PW-2) has stated that after the incident she raised hue and cry, went to the house of Sarpanch (PW-5) and categorically informed him that the accused/appellant who happened to be her husband had killed her mother and sister but even than the accused/appellant has nowhere, either in the merg or the FIR, has been branded as such rather than merely to be the suspect by Shivkumar Yadav (PW-3) who put the criminal law in motion by making the report, and no plausible explanation for all this has been offered by him. Further the incident took place in the intervening night of 09/10.10.2017 whereas the accused/appellant has been arrested and the seizure of various articles including the weapon (Pick-axe) was made on 24.10.2017 as the accused/appellant remained absconding according to the prosecution. Even the appellant has taken a defence that two days prior to the date of incident he has gone to Nagpur and returned 14-15 days after the incident. The Police all along does not appear to have made serious efforts to trace the whereabouts of the accused/appellant and for this lapse of the investigating Agency in not arresting the accused which also caused delay in recording his memorandum and affecting seizure is in fact creating a doubt in the case of prosecution and mere absconding of accused/appellant cannot lead to draw an inference against him to be the real culprit in the case. Dealing with an identical issue in the case of Chetan Vs. State of Karnataka reported in 2025 INSC 793 it has been held by the Supreme Court that it is trite that mere absconding by itself does not constitute a guilty mind as even an innocent man may feel panicky and 28 may seek to evade the police when wrongly suspected of being involvement as an instinct of self-preservation. 25. Having thus gone through the factual scenario of the instant case in the light of evidence on record as also the law governing the fact situation, this Court arrives at the conclusion that the prosecution has not succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. As already said, the prosecution has not been in a position to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt and so also the trial Court has not made appreciation of the evidence in right perspective. Being so, the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court cannot be made to sustain in the eye of law. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, the judgment impugned is set aside, the appellant is acquitted of charge leveled against him. As the accused/appellant is behind the bars, let he be set free forthwith if not required in any other case. 26. Record with this judgment be sent to the trial Court forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Jyotishi/parul