(Uday Umesh Lalit and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.)
Vikki Sarathi ______________________________________ Appellant;
V.
State of Chhattisgarh and Another _________________ Respondent(s).
Criminal Appeal No. 346 of 2022 (Arising out of Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2013 of 2022), Decided on March 4, 2022
The Order of the court was delivered by
Order
1. Leave granted.
2. This appeal challenges the common judgment and order dated 10-01-2018 passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal Nos. 830, 832, 833, 835-837, 843-844 and 914 of 2012.
3. The present appellant was original accused No. 7 and was convicted alongwith 11 others by the Trial Court for the offences punishable under Section 147, 148, 302 read with 149, 307 read with 149 and 324 read with 149 and was imposed sentence of life imprisonment, rigorous imprisonment for seven years and rigorous imprisonment for one year respectively under the aforesaid three counts.
4. The convicted accused being aggrieved, preferred criminal appeals in the High Court. All the appeals were heard together and dealt with by the judgment and order which is presently under challenge.
5. The High Court affirmed the view taken by the Trial Court in respect of accused Nos. 1 to 9 but granted benefit of doubt to accused Nos. 10-12. Thus, the conviction of sentence passed by the Trial Court as against the present appellant stood affirmed.
6. It must be stated that out of nine convicted accused, eight accused persons had preferred Criminal Appeal Nos. 1655-1658 of 2019 and 726-728 of 2021 in this Court, which were disposed of by this Court by its Judgment and Order dated 15.02.2022. The appeals preferred by the original accused Nos. 1 to 4 were dismissed, while those preferred by other accused were allowed and appellants Manoj Yadav, Manoj Sewani, Saiyed Javed and Manohar Valmiki were acquitted of the charges levelled against them.
7. Paragraphs 15 to 17 of said Judgment of this Court were as under:
“15. Considering the totality of evidence on record what emerges is:—
a. Accused No. 1 Dinesh Rawani who was armed with gupti, gave fatal blow on the chest of the deceased as well as dealt blows on the injured witnesses.
b. Apart from accused No. 1 Dinesh Rawani whose gupti blow landed in the chest of the deceased, three accused, accused No. 2 Brajesh, accused No. 3 Mani Yadav and accused No. 4 Parmesh gave patta blows on the head of the deceased. The deceased died as a result of injuries suffered on the head and in the chest.
c. Except the aforestated four accused, none of the other accused was stated to have given any blow to the deceased but as alleged by PW1 Natwar Soni, accused No. 5 Javed had facilitated the blow by accused No. 1 Dinesh Rawani by holding the witness.
However, none of the other witnesses had named Javed with sufficient attribution in their testimonies.
d. Accused Nos. 1 to 4 were thus attributed clear and overt acts. Their names appeared in the First Information Report and the case of the prosecution as against these four accused was quite clear and consistent.
e. On the other hand, insofar as rest of the accused are concerned, none of them was named in the First Information Report.
f. Apart from accused No. 5 Javed, nothing substantial was attributed to anyone. Even the attribution insofar as accused No. 5 Javed was concerned, was of holding the witness.
g. Accused Nos. 10, 11 and 12 have already been granted benefit of doubt by the High Court.
16. Considering the totality of the circumstances on record, in our view, except accused No. 1 Dinesh Rawani, accused No. 2 Brijesh Sonkar, accused No. 3 Mani Yadav and accused No. 4 Parmesh Thakur, rest of the accused persons, namely, Sayyed Javed, Manoj Sevani, Manoj Yadav and Manohar Balmiki are also entitled to the benefit of doubt and are thus acquitted of all the charges levelled against them.
Since participation and acts committed by accused No. 1 to accused No. 4 are clearly spelt out and stand proved from the record, we convert conviction of said accused Nos. 1 to 4 from Sections 302/149 IPC to Sections 302/34 IPC. Similarly, their conviction under Sections 307/149 IPC is also converted to one under Sections 307/34 IPC.
17. We, thus, dismiss the appeals preferred by accused No. 1 Dinesh Rawani, accused No. 2 Brijesh Sonkar, accused No. 3 Mani Yadav and accused No. 4 Parmesh Thakur, but allow the appeals preferred by the accused/appellants, namely, Manoj Sevani, Manoj Yadav, Sayyed Javed, and Manohar Balmiki.”
8. We have heard Mr. Manu Padalia, learned Advocate for the appellant and Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, learned advocate for the State.
9. Mr. Sodhi, learned advocate fairly accepts that the case of the present appellant stands on similar footing as that of the accused who were granted benefit of acquittal by this Court.
10. In the circumstances, we allow this appeal, set aside the order passed by the Courts below and acquit the appellant of the charges levelled against him. He be set at liberty unless his custody is required in connection with any other case.
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 2013/2022
(Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 10-01-2018 in CRLA No. 843/2012 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at Bilaspur)
Vikki Sarathi.….Petitioner(s)
v.
State of Chhattisgarh & Anr.….Respondent(s)
(FOR ADMISSION and I.R. and IA No. 17832/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING C/C OF THE IMPUGNED JUDGMENT and IA No. 17833/2022-EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.)
Date : 04-03-2022 This petition was called on for hearing today.
(Before Uday Umesh Lalit and Pamidighantam Sri Narasimha, JJ.)
For Petitioner(s) Mr. Sudhir Naagar, AOR
Ms. Manu Padalia, Adv.
Mr. Pradeep Shukla, Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. Sumeer Sodhi, AOR
Mr. Dhruv Wadhwa, Adv.
Mr. Gaurav Arora, Adv
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
ORDER
11. Leave granted.
12. The appeal is allowed in terms of the singed order.
13. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.
———
