{"id":176311,"date":"2010-06-29T00:00:00","date_gmt":"2010-06-28T18:30:00","guid":{"rendered":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010"},"modified":"2016-12-18T19:24:20","modified_gmt":"2016-12-18T13:54:20","slug":"chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010","status":"publish","type":"post","link":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010","title":{"rendered":"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010"},"content":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court<\/div>\n
Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010<\/div>\n
       \n\n  \n\n  \n\n \n \n             HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR      \n\n\n\n                Criminal Appeal No.285 of 2003\n\n\n\n\n                                Chingada  alias Chamara\n                                                     ...Petitioners\n\n\n                            Versus\n\n                         State     of    Chhattisgarh\n                                                        ...Respondents\n\n\n\n!     Shri Alok Dewangan, counsel for the appellant\n\n\n\n^     Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State\/respondent\n\n\n\n\n\n\nHonble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, Honble Shri R.N. Chandrakar, JJ.\n\n\n\n\n       Dated: 29\/06\/2010\n\n\n\n:       Judgement\n\n\n                        J U D G M E N T\n<\/pre>\n
                (Delivered on 29th June, 2010)<\/p>\n
      The  following  judgment of the Court was  delivered  by
\nDhirendra Mishra, J.\n<\/p>\n
  1.    The  appellant has preferred this appeal  against  the<\/p>\n
     judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11th July,<\/p>\n
     2002 passed in S.T. No.271\/2002 whereby learned 4th Additional<\/p>\n
     Sessions Judge (FTC), Bastar at Jagdalpur, after holding the<\/p>\n
     appellant guilty for committing murder of Sharad  Chandra<\/p>\n
     Yadav, has convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC and<\/p>\n
     sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine<\/p>\n
     of Rs.200\/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo<\/p>\n
     additional R.I. for 4 months.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  2.    The case of the prosecution, in brief, as projected in<\/p>\n
     the impugned judgment is that, on 5-2-2000 at about 9 pm the<\/p>\n
     appellant came with two bottles of liquor in the house of<\/p>\n
     Sharad Chandra.  Both of them consumed liquor from one bottle.<\/p>\n
     When the deceased opened second bottle, the accused went away.  <\/p>\n
     Deceased Sharad after consuming liquor fell sick, suffered<\/p>\n
     stomachache and started writhing.  His wife Meena went in<\/p>\n
     search of the accused and returned back, as she did not find<\/p>\n
     him.  Looking to the condition of her husband, she called<\/p>\n
     doctor and on his advise, she took him in a rickshaw to the<\/p>\n
     hospital where the deceased died on 6-2-2000 at 11.30 am.<\/p>\n
  3.    Merg  was  registered  on 6-2-2000  on  the  basis  of<\/p>\n
     information  received from hospital vide  Ex.-P\/4.  After<\/p>\n
     preparing inquest over the dead body vide Ex.-P\/10, the dead<\/p>\n
     body was sent for autopsy to Maharani Hospital, Jagdalpur vide<\/p>\n
     Ex.-P\/11, where Dr. M.A.H. Rizvi (PW-7) conducted postmortem<\/p>\n
     and gave his report vide Ex.-P\/5 on 7-2-2000.  One bottle of<\/p>\n
     English wine containing liquid of yellow colour was taken into<\/p>\n
     possession on 9-2-2000 at 15.00 hours on being produced by<\/p>\n
     Meena Yadav in Police Station vide Ex.-P\/1.<\/p>\n
  4.   Crime was registered on 1st March, 2000 on information of<\/p>\n
     Raj Kumari Pandey, Assistant Sub Inspector vide Ex.-P\/2.  Two<\/p>\n
     plastic sealed containers containing viscera of the deceased<\/p>\n
     preserved during postmortem and received from hospital was<\/p>\n
     taken into possession vide Ex.-P\/3.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  5.    In reply to query dated 23-2-2000 by the IO, Dr. Rizvi<\/p>\n
     gave his opinion on 1-3-2000 vide Ex.-P\/7.  Site plan was<\/p>\n
     prepared by the I.O. on 2nd March, 2000 vide Ex.-P\/8.  In<\/p>\n
     reply to other query dated 27-2-2000, Dr. V.K. Joshi (PW-10)<\/p>\n
     gave his opinion vide Ex.-P\/13.\n<\/p>\n
  6.    Bottle  containing  liquor and two bottles  containing<\/p>\n
     viscera of Sharad Chandra Yadav and solution of salt were sent<\/p>\n
     for chemical examination to FSL, Sagar and the report of FSL<\/p>\n
     is Ex.-P\/15.  As per the report of the FSL, liquor in the<\/p>\n
     bottle contained Mono Chrotophos and ethyl alcohol and the<\/p>\n
     container containing viscera also contained Organo Phosphorous<\/p>\n
     insecticide Monochrotophos and ethyl alcohol.<\/p>\n
  7.    After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was<\/p>\n
     filed against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial<\/p>\n
     Magistrate, Jagdalpur, who in turn committed the case to the<\/p>\n
     Court of Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur and the same was received<\/p>\n
     on transfer for trial by learned Additional Sessions Judge.<\/p>\n
  8.    Learned Additional Sessions Judge framed charge  under<\/p>\n
     Section 302 of the IPC against the appellant, who abjured<\/p>\n
     guilt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  9.   The prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all.  Thereafter<\/p>\n
     statement  of the accused was recorded under Section  313<\/p>\n
     Cr.P.C. in which he denied the circumstances appearing against<\/p>\n
     him in the prosecution case and pleaded innocence and false<\/p>\n
     implication.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  10.   The trial Court after hearing learned counsel for  the<\/p>\n
     respective parties, convicted and sentenced the appellant as<\/p>\n
     mentioned in para-1 of the judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  11.  Sharad Chandra Yadav’s death on account of poisoning has<\/p>\n
     not been disputed.  From the following unrebutted evidence<\/p>\n
     also, it is established that the deceased died as a result of<\/p>\n
     consuming poisonous substance organo phosphorous insecticide <\/p>\n
     Monochrotophos.\n<\/p>\n
          “Meena   (PW-2)   has  deposed   that   after
\n          consuming  liquor  from  the  second  bottle,
\n          condition    of    her    husband     started
\n          deteriorating  and  she  took  him   to   the
\n          hospital.   Dr.  Rizvi (PW-7)  has  conducted
\n          postmortem and on internal examination  found
\n          that pungent foul smell like suspected organo
\n          phosphate  type was emanating  from  abdomen.
\n          He had preserved viscera and advised chemical
\n          examination.  In reply to the query,  he  had
\n          submitted  his report of Ex.-P\/6  and  opined
\n          that  it was possible that the deceased could
\n          die due to organo phosphate and ethyl alcohol
\n          vide his report of Ex.-P\/6.  However, he  had
\n          opined  that it is not possible to  tell  the
\n          cause  of  death vide his report  of  Ex.-P\/7
\n          dated  1st  March, 2000. The report  received
\n          from  FSL  (Ex.-P\/15) also mentions that  the
\n          bottle containing yellow liquid marked as Ex.
\n          `A’  and  2 containers containing viscera  of
\n          the  deceased  marked  as  Ex.  `B’  and  `C’
\n          contained   Organo  Phosphorous   insecticide
\n          Monochrotophos and ethyl alcohol.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  12.  Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that<\/p>\n
     in  order to sustain conviction in the cases of murder by<\/p>\n
     poisoning, the prosecution is duty bound to establish that the<\/p>\n
     accused had a clear motive for administering poison to the<\/p>\n
     deceased.  In the instant case, wife of the deceased  has<\/p>\n
     clearly stated that the appellant frequently visited her house<\/p>\n
     and they used to consume liquor together and he did not have<\/p>\n
     any enmity with them.  There is no evidence available  on<\/p>\n
     record that the appellant had any motive for committing murder<\/p>\n
     of the deceased.  There is no evidence that the accused had<\/p>\n
     poison in his possession and that he had an opportunity to<\/p>\n
     administer poison to the deceased.  On the contrary, on the<\/p>\n
     date of the incident, the deceased consumed liquor with Ten<\/p>\n
     Singh Thakur at about 6 pm.  His conviction is based on the<\/p>\n
     evidence of Meena (PW-2), wife of the deceased, and Shankar<\/p>\n
     (PW-3), father of the deceased.  Meena claims to  be  the<\/p>\n
     witness of the fact that the appellant brought 2 bottles of<\/p>\n
     liquor.  Both of them consumed liquor with the first bottle.<\/p>\n
     When her husband opened second bottle, the appellant went away<\/p>\n
     and only after consuming liquor from the second bottle, the<\/p>\n
     deceased fell sick and ultimately died.  Liquor in the second<\/p>\n
     bottle contained poison.  The bottle containing liquor was not<\/p>\n
     seized from the appellant and the same was seized after 4 days<\/p>\n
     of the incident on 9-2-2000 on being produced by Meena in<\/p>\n
     police station.  In these circumstances, there is material<\/p>\n
     discrepancy in the description of the bottle and colour of the<\/p>\n
     liquid  in bottle given by Meena Bai.  There is inter  se<\/p>\n
     contradiction in the version of Meena Bai and her father-in-<\/p>\n
     law Shankar Yadav (PW-3).  There is evidence that there was<\/p>\n
     quarrel between his son Praveer and Sharad.  His father has<\/p>\n
     admitted  that he did not work and consumed  liquor  and,<\/p>\n
     therefore, there used to be some quarrel between the husband<\/p>\n
     and  the  wife and Sharad used to beat her.  From overall<\/p>\n
     evidence, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to<\/p>\n
     establish that the appellant alone had an opportunity  to<\/p>\n
     administer poisonous liquor to the deceased.  The trial Court<\/p>\n
     has given undue importance to the fact that the appellant<\/p>\n
     remained absconding after the incident for more than 2 years.<\/p>\n
     The appellant is rustic villager of 21 years. The above fact<\/p>\n
     alone cannot be considered to be a circumstance to fasten<\/p>\n
     charge  of murder.  Even otherwise, no evidence has  been<\/p>\n
     adduced by the prosecution that the appellant was absconding<\/p>\n
     for more than 2 years and the above circumstance has also not<\/p>\n
     been put to the appellant in his examination under Section 313<\/p>\n
     of the Cr.P.C..\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  13.   On  the  other  hand, learned counsel  for  the  State<\/p>\n
     supported the impugned judgment.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  14.  We have heard learned counsel for the parties.  We have<\/p>\n
     perused the record as also the impugned judgment.<\/p>\n
  15.   The  Hon’ble  Supreme Court in the  matter  of  Sharad<\/p>\n
     Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra {(1984) 4 SCC 116}<\/p>\n
     while considering murder by poison or suicide has held in<\/p>\n
     paragraph 165 of the judgment thus:\n<\/p>\n
          “So  far as this matter is concerned, in such
\n          cases  the  court  must  carefully  scan  the
\n          evidence  and  determine the  four  important
\n          circumstances  which  alone  can  justify   a
\n          conviction:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          (1)  there is a clear motive for an accused to administer
\n               poison to the deceased,<\/p>\n
          (2)  that the deceased died of poison said to have been
\n               administered,<\/p>\n
          (3)  that the accused had the poison in his possession,<\/p>\n
          (4)  that he had an opportunity to administer the poison to
\n               the deceased.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  16.   In  the matter of Bhupinder Singh Vs. State of  Punjab<\/p>\n
     {(1988) 3 SCC 513}, the Hon’ble Apex Court has doubted the<\/p>\n
     availability of the above third circumstance as necessary to<\/p>\n
     establish the case of murder by poisoning.  Paragraphs 25 & 26<\/p>\n
     of the above judgment are reproduced hereunder:-<\/p>\n
          “25.We  do not consider that there should  be
\n          acquittal  or the failure of the  prosecution
\n          to  prove  the possession of poison with  the
\n          accused.   Murder  by  poison  is  invariably
\n          committed  under  the  cover  and  cloak   of
\n          secrecy.   Nobody will administer  poison  to
\n          another  in  the  presence  of  others.   The
\n          person  who administers poison to another  in
\n          secrecy will not keep a portion of it for the
\n          investigating officer to come and collect it.
\n          The  person  who  commits such  murder  would
\n          naturally take care to eliminate and  destroy
\n          the evidence against him.  In such cases,  it
\n          would  be  impossible for the prosecution  to
\n          prove  possession of poison with the accused.
\n          The prosecution may, however, establish other
\n          circumstances   consistent  only   with   the
\n          hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.   The
\n          court   then   would  not  be  justified   in
\n          acquitting the accused on the ground that the
\n          prosecution has failed to prove possession of
\n          the poison with the accused.\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
          26.The poison murder cases are not to be  put
\n          outside  the rule of circumstantial evidence.
\n          There  may  be  obvious very many  facts  and
\n          circumstances out of which the court  may  be
\n          justified  in  drawing permissible  inference
\n          that  the  accused was in possession  of  the
\n          poison  in question.  There may be very  many
\n          facts  and  circumstances proved against  the
\n          accused  which may call for tacit  assumption
\n          of  the  factum of possession of poison  with
\n          the  accused.   The insistence  on  proof  of
\n          possession   of  poison  with   the   accused
\n          invariably in every case is neither desirable
\n          nor  practicable.  It would mean to introduce
\n          an  extraneous ingredient to the  offence  of
\n          murder  by  poisoning.  We cannot, therefore,
\n          accept  the  contention urged by the  learned
\n          counsel for the appellant.  The accused in  a
\n          case  of  murder by poisoning cannot  have  a
\n          better   chance   of  being   exempted   from
\n          sanctions  than  in other kinds  of  murders.
\n          Murder  by  poisoning is run like  any  other
\n          murder.  In cases where dependence is  wholly
\n          on   circumstantial  evidence,   and   direct
\n          evidence  not being available, the court  can
\n          legitimately  draw from the circumstances  an
\n          inference  on  any  matter  one  way  or  the
\n          other.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  17.   This Court in the matter of Krishna Vs. State of  C.G.<\/p>\n
     {2008(1) CGLJ 107 (DB)} following the above judgments of the<\/p>\n
     Supreme Court, considering that the motive was not proved for<\/p>\n
     administering   poison  and  also  considering   material<\/p>\n
     contradictions  in the evidence of prosecution  witnesses<\/p>\n
     regarding  time and manner in administering  poison,  had<\/p>\n
     acquitted the appellant.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  18.   We propose to examine the oral evidence adduced by the<\/p>\n
     prosecution in the light of principles of law laid down by the<\/p>\n
     Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand<\/p>\n
     Sarda (Supra) and Bhupinder Singh (Supra) to ascertain whether<\/p>\n
     in the present case the four important circumstances have been<\/p>\n
     established or not.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          Whether  there  is  a clear  motive  for  the
\n          accused to administer poison to the deceased?<\/p>\n
  19.   The trial Court in para-25 of the impugned judgment on<\/p>\n
     the  basis of evidence of PW-3 Shankar has observed  that<\/p>\n
     Praveer is the elder brother of the deceased, who resides<\/p>\n
     separately  and on last Holi i.e. on 5-3-99  Praveer  had<\/p>\n
     attacked Sharad Chandra by arrow and bow and the case was <\/p>\n
     registered against him.  Further referring to the written<\/p>\n
     report lodged by Meena, reproduced in the first information<\/p>\n
     report, it has been observed that when Meena went to enquiry<\/p>\n
     about the accused to Praveer’s house, he got annoyed  and<\/p>\n
     abused her and became ready to beat her.  Thereafter he also<\/p>\n
     ran away with the accused.  On the basis of this evidence, it<\/p>\n
     has been observed that the appellant committed this heinous<\/p>\n
     offence in the interest of his brother-in-law knowing fully<\/p>\n
     well that by consuming poisonous alcohol Sharad Chandra would<\/p>\n
     die.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  20.   PW-2  Meena, in her cross-examination at  para-5,  has<\/p>\n
     categorically deposed that Chingda often came to their house<\/p>\n
     and consumed liquor with her husband.  He had no enmity with<\/p>\n
     them.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  21.  PW-3 Shankar has deposed that he has two sons.  His elder<\/p>\n
     son’s name is Praveer whereas younger is Sharad. In para-3, he<\/p>\n
     has deposed that there was some dispute between the two sons<\/p>\n
     and they were not in talking terms.  There was some quarrel<\/p>\n
     between them at the time of Holi festival.    PW-2 has also<\/p>\n
     deposed that she had given written complaint to the police and<\/p>\n
     in her complaint, she had mentioned that Praveer had attacked<\/p>\n
     her husband by bow and arrow on 7-3-99.  From the evidence of<\/p>\n
     this  witness, it is also evident that there was frequent<\/p>\n
     quarrel  between  Meena and the deceased  on  account  of<\/p>\n
     consumption of alcohol.  He used to beat her also.   PW-3<\/p>\n
     Shankar has also deposed the above fact.\n<\/p>\n
          The  finding  of the trial Court that the  appellant<\/p>\n
     might have administered poisonous alcohol to the deceased<\/p>\n
     in  the  interest of his brother-in-law Praveer, who  had<\/p>\n
     inimical  relationship  with  his  real  younger  brother<\/p>\n
     Sharad, is perverse and based on conjectures and surmises<\/p>\n
     in  view of the categorical assertions of Meena Bai  that<\/p>\n
     her  husband used to consume liquor with the accused  and<\/p>\n
     he  did  not have any enmity with them.  The trial  Court<\/p>\n
     was wholly unjustified in reaching to positive conclusion<\/p>\n
     that  the appellant had a motive to commit murder of  the<\/p>\n
     deceased  and  accordingly, we hold that the  prosecution<\/p>\n
     has  utterly failed to prove that the appellant  had  any<\/p>\n
     motive  to  commit  murder  of  the  deceased.   On   the<\/p>\n
     contrary,   we  hold  that  the  appellant  had   cordial<\/p>\n
     relations with the deceased.  He used to frequently visit<\/p>\n
     the house of the deceased in his life time.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          Whether  the deceased died of poison said  to
\n          have been administered?\n<\/p>\n
  22.  So far as this circumstance is concerned, we have already<\/p>\n
     held that the deceased died on account of organo phosphorous<\/p>\n
     insecticide Monochrotophos.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
          Whether  the  accused had the poison  in  his
\n          possession  and  whether the accused  had  an
\n          opportunity to administer the poison  to  the
\n          deceased?\n<\/p>\n
  23.   The bottle containing poisonous liquor has been seized<\/p>\n
     from Meena PW-2 on being produced by her on 9-2-2000 in the<\/p>\n
     Police Station vide Ex.-P\/2.  Meena has deposed that  her<\/p>\n
     husband had consumed liquor from one bottle and some part of<\/p>\n
     another bottle.  At that time she was present in the house and<\/p>\n
     saw him consuming liquor.  The appellant was with him and both<\/p>\n
     were consuming liquor.  Chingda consumed liquor from the first<\/p>\n
     bottle with her husband, however, he did not take liquor from<\/p>\n
     the second bottle and ran away.  Her husband had consumed <\/p>\n
     liquor from the second bottle also and his condition started<\/p>\n
     deteriorating whereupon she went to the house of Praveer to<\/p>\n
     call  Chingda, however, he was not present in his  house,<\/p>\n
     thereafter she took her husband to Maharani Hospital where he<\/p>\n
     died on Sunday at about 8-9 am.  She had gone to lodge report<\/p>\n
     and had given written report to the police.  Colour of the<\/p>\n
     liquor was red. In cross-examination, she has stated that<\/p>\n
     Chingda had brought 2 bottles of liquor.  Both bottles were<\/p>\n
     `Half’ (Adhdhi).  Her husband had opened first bottle with the<\/p>\n
     help of knife, however, he had opened second bottle by hand.<\/p>\n
     He  consumed liquor from the second bottle, however,  the<\/p>\n
     accused did not consume liquor from the second bottle as he<\/p>\n
     had gone out.  She had taken only one bottle to the police<\/p>\n
     station.  She has also stated that she lodged report after 8<\/p>\n
     days of the incident.  She has further stated that she had<\/p>\n
     given written report in the office of the Superintendent of<\/p>\n
     Police and along with her application, she had handed over<\/p>\n
     bottle containing liquor.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  24.   PW-3 Shankar has deposed that his son poured liquor in<\/p>\n
     two glasses and was handing over to him. He went to ease out<\/p>\n
     and by the time he returned, Sharad had taken liquor from the<\/p>\n
     glass and asked him not to drink as poison has been mixed.<\/p>\n
     Thereafter, he started complaining stomach pain and writhing.<\/p>\n
     In cross-examination, he has deposed that he saw the appellant<\/p>\n
     and Sharad consuming liquor in his house, however, they did<\/p>\n
     not quarrel in his presence.  Chingda had come to his house at<\/p>\n
     7-8 pm.  When Chingda came to his house, he offered liquor<\/p>\n
     when he returned after watching TV.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  25.  PW-4 Ten Singh Thakur has also deposed that on the date<\/p>\n
     of the incident he had consumed liquor with the deceased at 6<\/p>\n
     pm.  The deceased fell sick 2-3 hours after consuming liquor.<\/p>\n
     He was complaining pain in the stomach and vomiting. He was<\/p>\n
     admitted in the hospital where he died.  He has categorically<\/p>\n
     deposed that he did not see the appellant visiting Sharad’s<\/p>\n
     house.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  26.   Thus, from the above evidence of the witnesses, it  is<\/p>\n
     clear that on the date of the incident, the deceased consumed<\/p>\n
     liquor with Ten Singh Thakur as well as the appellant.  There<\/p>\n
     is evidence that two bottles of liquor were brought by the<\/p>\n
     appellant, however, during investigation, neither  second<\/p>\n
     bottle allegedly brought by the appellant nor glasses which<\/p>\n
     were  used for consuming liquor were promptly seized  and<\/p>\n
     sealed.  Second bottle of liquor has been seized from the<\/p>\n
     possession of Meena on 9-2-2000 in the police station on being<\/p>\n
     produced by her.  Thus, the bottle remained in possession of<\/p>\n
     Meena in unsealed condition for 4 days.  She has also deposed<\/p>\n
     that she had given bottle of poison in the office of  the<\/p>\n
     Superintendent of Police along with her written complaint<\/p>\n
     which she claims to have lodged after 8 days.  The bottle<\/p>\n
     which  has  been seized on 9-2-2000 from Meena  has  been<\/p>\n
     forwarded to the FSL.  In these circumstances, the finding of<\/p>\n
     the trial Court that bottle of poisonous liquor was the same<\/p>\n
     bottle which was allegedly brought by the appellant is not<\/p>\n
     proper and evidence adduced by the prosecution in this regard<\/p>\n
     does not inspire confidence.  In the absence of any evidence<\/p>\n
     that bottle which the appellant brought was in fact seized and<\/p>\n
     the same contained poison and the same was sent for chemical<\/p>\n
     examination to the FSL; on mere evidence of Meena Bai and<\/p>\n
     Shankar that the deceased and the appellant both consumed<\/p>\n
     liquor brought by the appellant and on account of consuming<\/p>\n
     liquor from the second bottle, the deceased died, it cannot be<\/p>\n
     held that the appellant alone had an opportunity to administer<\/p>\n
     poison  to  the deceased, particularly, in the  light  of<\/p>\n
     uncontroverted evidence of Ten Singh, who has also deposed<\/p>\n
     that he along with the deceased consumed liquor on the same<\/p>\n
     day at about 6 pm and 2-3 hours thereafter he complained pain<\/p>\n
     in the stomach and vomited and died in the next day in the<\/p>\n
     hospital.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  27.  For the aforesaid reasons, we are of the opinion that the<\/p>\n
     prosecution has also failed to prove the circumstance that the<\/p>\n
     appellant alone had an opportunity to administer poison to the<\/p>\n
     deceased.  We have already observed that there was absolutely<\/p>\n
     no apparent reason for the appellant to administer poison to<\/p>\n
     the  deceased as there is evidence that the appellant had<\/p>\n
     cordial relations with the deceased.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  28.   The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jaipal  Vs.<\/p>\n
     State of Haryana {(2003) 1 SCC 169}, has referred to  the<\/p>\n
     judgment of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) with approval and<\/p>\n
     in paragraph 33 of the judgment it has been held thus:-<\/p>\n
          “33.  Dealing  with a case of  circumstantial
\n          evidence the court has to be circumspect.   A
\n          note of caution was sounded by a Constitution
\n          Bench   of  this  Court  in  Raghav  Prapanna
\n          Tripathi Vs. State of U.P., quoting  (at  AIR
\n          p.89, para 60) from R. v. Hodge:\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
                “The mind was apt to take a pleasure in
\n          adapting  circumstances to one  another,  and
\n          even in straining them in little, if need be,
\n          to  force them to form parts of one connected
\n          whole; and the more ingenious the mind of the
\n          individual   the   more   likely   was    it,
\n          considering   such matter, to  overreach  and
\n          mislead  itself, to supply some  little  link
\n          that  is  wanting, to take for  granted  some
\n          fact  consistent  with its previous  theories
\n          and necessary to render them complete.”\n<\/p><\/blockquote>\n
  29.  We are unhesitatingly of the opinion that the prosecution<\/p>\n
     has utterly failed in proving such chain of circumstantial<\/p>\n
     evidence as would fasten the guilt on the accused leaving no<\/p>\n
     room for doubt.\n<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
  30.  In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The conviction of<\/p>\n
     the accused under Section 302 of the IPC and the sentence<\/p>\n
     passed  thereon  by the trial Court are set  aside.   The<\/p>\n
     accused\/appellant  is acquitted.  He  shall  be  released<\/p>\n
     forthwith if not required to be detained in any other offence.<\/p>\n
       J U D G E                               J U D G E\n\n<\/pre>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"
Chattisgarh High Court Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010 HIGH COURT OF CHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No.285 of 2003 Chingada alias Chamara …Petitioners Versus State of Chhattisgarh …Respondents ! Shri Alok Dewangan, counsel for the appellant ^ Shri Arun Sao, Govt. Advocate for the State\/respondent Honble Shri Dhirendra Mishra, […]<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":0,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"_lmt_disableupdate":"","_lmt_disable":"","_jetpack_memberships_contains_paid_content":false,"footnotes":""},"categories":[12,8],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-176311","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","hentry","category-chattisgarh-high-court","category-high-court"],"yoast_head":"\nChingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India<\/title>\n<meta name=\"robots\" content=\"index, follow, max-snippet:-1, max-image-preview:large, max-video-preview:-1\" \/>\n<link rel=\"canonical\" href=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:locale\" content=\"en_US\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:type\" content=\"article\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:title\" content=\"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:url\" content=\"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:site_name\" content=\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:publisher\" content=\"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:published_time\" content=\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"article:modified_time\" content=\"2016-12-18T13:54:20+00:00\" \/>\n<meta property=\"og:image\" content=\"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:width\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:height\" content=\"512\" \/>\n\t<meta property=\"og:image:type\" content=\"image\/jpeg\" \/>\n<meta name=\"author\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:card\" content=\"summary_large_image\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:creator\" content=\"@legaliadmin\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:site\" content=\"@Legal_india\" \/>\n<meta name=\"twitter:label1\" content=\"Written by\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data1\" content=\"Legal India Admin\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:label2\" content=\"Est. reading time\" \/>\n\t<meta name=\"twitter:data2\" content=\"18 minutes\" \/>\n<script type=\"application\/ld+json\" class=\"yoast-schema-graph\">{\"@context\":\"https:\\\/\\\/schema.org\",\"@graph\":[{\"@type\":\"Article\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010#article\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010\"},\"author\":{\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\"},\"headline\":\"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010\",\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T13:54:20+00:00\",\"mainEntityOfPage\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010\"},\"wordCount\":3480,\"commentCount\":0,\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"articleSection\":[\"Chattisgarh High Court\",\"High Court\"],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"CommentAction\",\"name\":\"Comment\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010#respond\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"WebPage\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010\",\"name\":\"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"isPartOf\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\"},\"datePublished\":\"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00\",\"dateModified\":\"2016-12-18T13:54:20+00:00\",\"breadcrumb\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb\"},\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"ReadAction\",\"target\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010\"]}]},{\"@type\":\"BreadcrumbList\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb\",\"itemListElement\":[{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":1,\"name\":\"Home\",\"item\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\"},{\"@type\":\"ListItem\",\"position\":2,\"name\":\"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010\"}]},{\"@type\":\"WebSite\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#website\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"name\":\"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"description\":\"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.\",\"publisher\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\"},\"alternateName\":\"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India\",\"potentialAction\":[{\"@type\":\"SearchAction\",\"target\":{\"@type\":\"EntryPoint\",\"urlTemplate\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/?s={search_term_string}\"},\"query-input\":{\"@type\":\"PropertyValueSpecification\",\"valueRequired\":true,\"valueName\":\"search_term_string\"}}],\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\"},{\"@type\":\"Organization\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#organization\",\"name\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\",\"alternateName\":\"Legal India\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/\",\"logo\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/wp-content\\\/uploads\\\/sites\\\/5\\\/2025\\\/09\\\/legal-india-icon.jpg\",\"width\":512,\"height\":512,\"caption\":\"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India\"},\"image\":{\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/logo\\\/image\\\/\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.facebook.com\\\/LegalindiaCom\\\/\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/Legal_india\"]},{\"@type\":\"Person\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/#\\\/schema\\\/person\\\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea\",\"name\":\"Legal India Admin\",\"image\":{\"@type\":\"ImageObject\",\"inLanguage\":\"en-US\",\"@id\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"contentUrl\":\"https:\\\/\\\/secure.gravatar.com\\\/avatar\\\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g\",\"caption\":\"Legal India Admin\"},\"sameAs\":[\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\",\"https:\\\/\\\/x.com\\\/legaliadmin\"],\"url\":\"https:\\\/\\\/www.legalindia.com\\\/judgments\\\/author\\\/legal-india-admin\"}]}<\/script>\n<!-- \/ Yoast SEO plugin. -->","yoast_head_json":{"title":"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","robots":{"index":"index","follow":"follow","max-snippet":"max-snippet:-1","max-image-preview":"max-image-preview:large","max-video-preview":"max-video-preview:-1"},"canonical":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010","og_locale":"en_US","og_type":"article","og_title":"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","og_url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010","og_site_name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","article_publisher":"https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","article_published_time":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","article_modified_time":"2016-12-18T13:54:20+00:00","og_image":[{"width":512,"height":512,"url":"https:\/\/i0.wp.com\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg?fit=512%2C512&ssl=1","type":"image\/jpeg"}],"author":"Legal India Admin","twitter_card":"summary_large_image","twitter_creator":"@legaliadmin","twitter_site":"@Legal_india","twitter_misc":{"Written by":"Legal India Admin","Est. reading time":"18 minutes"},"schema":{"@context":"https:\/\/schema.org","@graph":[{"@type":"Article","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010#article","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010"},"author":{"name":"Legal India Admin","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea"},"headline":"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010","datePublished":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T13:54:20+00:00","mainEntityOfPage":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010"},"wordCount":3480,"commentCount":0,"publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"articleSection":["Chattisgarh High Court","High Court"],"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"CommentAction","name":"Comment","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010#respond"]}]},{"@type":"WebPage","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010","name":"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010 - Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","isPartOf":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website"},"datePublished":"2010-06-28T18:30:00+00:00","dateModified":"2016-12-18T13:54:20+00:00","breadcrumb":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb"},"inLanguage":"en-US","potentialAction":[{"@type":"ReadAction","target":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010"]}]},{"@type":"BreadcrumbList","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/chingada-alias-chamara-vs-state-of-chhattisgarh-on-29-june-2010#breadcrumb","itemListElement":[{"@type":"ListItem","position":1,"name":"Home","item":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/"},{"@type":"ListItem","position":2,"name":"Chingada Alias Chamara vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 June, 2010"}]},{"@type":"WebSite","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#website","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","name":"Free Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","description":"Search and read the latest judgements, orders, and rulings from the Supreme Court of India and all High Courts. A comprehensive database for lawyers, advocates, and law students.","publisher":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization"},"alternateName":"Free judgements of Supreme Court & High Court of India | Legal India","potentialAction":[{"@type":"SearchAction","target":{"@type":"EntryPoint","urlTemplate":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/?s={search_term_string}"},"query-input":{"@type":"PropertyValueSpecification","valueRequired":true,"valueName":"search_term_string"}}],"inLanguage":"en-US"},{"@type":"Organization","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#organization","name":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India","alternateName":"Legal India","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/","logo":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/","url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","contentUrl":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-content\/uploads\/sites\/5\/2025\/09\/legal-india-icon.jpg","width":512,"height":512,"caption":"Judgements of Supreme Court & High Court | Legal India"},"image":{"@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/logo\/image\/"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.facebook.com\/LegalindiaCom\/","https:\/\/x.com\/Legal_india"]},{"@type":"Person","@id":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/#\/schema\/person\/0bfdffe9059fb8bb24a86d094609c5ea","name":"Legal India Admin","image":{"@type":"ImageObject","inLanguage":"en-US","@id":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","url":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","contentUrl":"https:\/\/secure.gravatar.com\/avatar\/4faa9d728ed1af3b73d52225c7f12901ac726fe6f7ea0a3348a1d51f3a930987?s=96&d=mm&r=g","caption":"Legal India Admin"},"sameAs":["https:\/\/www.legalindia.com","https:\/\/x.com\/legaliadmin"],"url":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/author\/legal-india-admin"}]}},"modified_by":null,"jetpack_featured_media_url":"","jetpack_sharing_enabled":true,"jetpack_likes_enabled":true,"jetpack-related-posts":[],"_links":{"self":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176311","targetHints":{"allow":["GET"]}}],"collection":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts"}],"about":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/types\/post"}],"author":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/users\/1"}],"replies":[{"embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/comments?post=176311"}],"version-history":[{"count":0,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/posts\/176311\/revisions"}],"wp:attachment":[{"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/media?parent=176311"}],"wp:term":[{"taxonomy":"category","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/categories?post=176311"},{"taxonomy":"post_tag","embeddable":true,"href":"https:\/\/www.legalindia.com\/judgments\/wp-json\/wp\/v2\/tags?post=176311"}],"curies":[{"name":"wp","href":"https:\/\/api.w.org\/{rel}","templated":true}]}}