Jashpur (C.G.) v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Of Police Station Bag
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:30883-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.07 18:57:46 +0530 CRA No. 94 of 2025 1 - Kuber Ram S/o Shri Ganesh Ram Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Tatkela Neempara Police Station Bagicha District - Jashpur (C.G.) 2 - Ganesh Ram S/o Shri Jethu Ram Aged About 52 Years R/o Village Tatkela Neempara Police Station Bagicha District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Of Police Station Bagicha District - Jashpur (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr.Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 7/7/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 2 05.12.2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur in Sessions Trial No.09/2021 by which the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹ 5000/-, in default, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 9.9.2020 at 11 A.M. Khirodhar Yadav had gone to the field to cut grass. Seeing Khirodhar Yadav going alone in the field, appellants Ganesh Ram Yadav and Kuber Yadav ran from his house to the field with axe in their hands with the intention of killing him and started attacking Khirodhar Yadav with axe. When he stopped himself with his hand to save himself, due to axe hitting his right hand, his right hand was completely cut off. As soon as Khirodhar fell on the ground, both the appellants attacked him one by one with axe on his legs and head, due to which both his legs were almost severed. Khirodhar suffered a deep injury on his head, due to which there was excessive bleeding. When Khirodhar’s family members came to the spot to intervene, the appellants fled from there. Due to the land distribution dispute, the appellants attacked Khirodhar with axe with the intention of killing him. Khirodhar Yadav was admitted to Bagicha Hospital, from where he was referred to Ambikapur
Facts
Hospital. On the report of complainant Mrs.Devaki Yadav, FIR in Crime No.120/2020 under Section 307 read with Section 34 of the 3 IPC was registered against the appellants in Police Station Bagicha vide Ex.P-1. 3. The spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-2. Injured Khirodhar Yadav was referred to Bagicha Hospital and from there he was referred to Ambikapur Hospital where his primary treatment was done. During the investigation, Khirodhar’s family members said that he has died during treatment. Inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-5. Patwari also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-6. Statement under Section
Legal Reasoning
witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26) “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.” 15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. We may refer to the observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry): (SCC p. 213, para 23) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for 12 consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 19. Though the eyewitnesses who have been examined in the present case were closely related to the deceased, namely his grand daughter Ku.Sindhiya Yadav (PW-2), grand son Varun @ Arun Yadav (3) and daughter-in-law Smt.Devki Yadav (PW-1), their testimonies are consistent with respect to the accused persons being the assailants who inflicted wounds on the deceased. As is revealed from the sequence of events that transpired, one of the family members was subjected to an assault. It was thus quite natural for the other family members to rush on the spot to intervene. The presence of the family members on the spot and thus being eyewitness has been well established. In such circumstances, merely because the eyewitnesses are family members, their testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that ground. 20. Considering the statements of the eyewitnesses Ku.Sindhiya Yadav (PW-2), Varun @ Arun Yadav (3) and Smt.Devki Yadav (PW-1), evidence of Dr.Sanjiv Khakha (PW-11), his autopsy report (Ex.P-30), further considering the material available on record and also considering the finding recorded by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. We 13 do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 21. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 22. It is stated at the Bar that the the appellants are in jail, they shall serve out the sentence as ordered by learned trial Court. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 24. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Bablu
Arguments
164 CrPC of Smt.Saraswati Bai was taken vide Ex.P-9. After death of Khirodhar Yadav, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-15. Memorandum statement of appellant Kuber Ram Yadav was recorded vide Ex.P-17. Bloodstained soil and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-18. On the basis of memorandum statement of appellant Kuber Ram Yadav, axe was recovered at his instance vide Ex.P-19. Appellants were arrested on 9.9.2020 vide arrest memo (Exs.P-20 and P-21). Numberi merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-23. Postmortem was conducted by Dr.Sanjiv Khakha (PW-12) vide Ex.P30 and found following injuries:- “1. A torn wound on the back of the head, which was 5 x 3 x 0.5 cm in size, there was a blood clot below the injury, there was also a 6 x 4 cm sized contusion present on the internal part of the skull and a depressed 4 x 4 x 0.5 cm sized one, the bones were broken and in pieces. 4 2. A contusion measuring 4 cm x 3 cm, located on the front of the left thigh, 2 cm from the knee, along with a punctured wound measuring 5 cm x 5 cm, one third down the left thigh. 3. A contusion measuring 5 cm x 4 cm along with a punctured wound measuring .5 cm x .5 cm, located 5 cm above the ankle on the left leg, there was muscle and tissue damage internal to the injury and broken bones called the tibia and fibula. 4. There was a torn wound of 7 x 4 x 2 cm size 6 cm above the right ankle, the edges of the injury were regularly cut, the muscles were also cut, the tibia and fibula bone of the right leg was broken. 5. A chop wound 5 x 3 x 3 cm in size, was on the right forearm 5 cm above the right wrist. Along with this injury, there was also a contusion, the size of which was 5 x 3 x 2 cm, the muscles were cut, the right radius and ulna bone were broken.” The doctor has opined that death was due to shock and heamorrhage as a result of multiple injury present on body and death was homicidal in nature. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.C-1), human blood was found on axe (Article C) seized from appellant Kuber Ram Yadav (wrongly mentioned the name as Suleram). 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the accused / appellants were charge-sheeted for offence under Sections 307, 302/34 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court 5 and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Jashpur, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Jashpur received the case on transfer for trial in accordance with law. 5. The accused / appellants abjured the guilt and entered into witness. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. The defence has examined none and no document has been exhibited. 6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellants who have caused the murder of the deceased, proceeded to convict and sentence them under Section 302/34 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal has been preferred. 7. Mr.Ratnesh Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse, illegal, unjust and thus, liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court relied upon the statements of eyewitnesses Ku.Sindhiya Yadav (PW-2), Varun @ Arun Yadav (PW-3), Devki Yadav (PW-1) and Ghanshyam Yadav (PW-4), despite they have interested witnesses. He further submits that learned trial Court overlooked the omission and contradiction of the statement of Saraswati (PW-5) and relied upon and convicted to the appellants. He also submits that learned trial Court wrongly relied upon the 6 memorandum statement of the accused Ex.P-17, despite the said statement not proved by Ghanshyam Yadav (PW-10) and Deepak Yadav (PW-13). As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr.Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submit that statements of Ku.Sindhiya Yadav (PW-2), Varun @ Arun Yadav (PW-3), Devki Yadav (PW-1) are wholly reliable and trustworthy as their testimonies inspire confidence. He further submits that the appellants have rightly been convicted by the trial Court and as such, the criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 10. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Khirodhar Yadav was homicidal in nature ? 11. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr.Sanjiv Khakha (PW-11), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Khirodhar Yadav vide Ex.P-30, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Khirodhar Yadav was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is 7 a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 12. The next question is that the appellants have been convicted on the testimonies of Ku.Sindhiya Yadav (PW-2), Varun @ Arun Yadav (PW-3), Devki Yadav (PW-1), whether testimonies of these witnesses should be relied upon to base conviction unless it is corroborated by other appropriate valid piece of evidence. 13. Ku.Sindhiya Yadav (PW-2) is child eyewitness. She has stated in para 1 of his evidence that on the date of incident, she was going from home with her grandfather to cut grass. Her younger brother Varun was also with her. Her parents had already gone to cut grass. In para 2 of her evidence, she has stated that on the way near the field, her grandfather was caught by appellant Ganesh and Kuber and both of them together killed her grandfather with axe. Ganesh had axe, then she went to call her parents, who had gone upstairs to cut the grass. Then she called him and brought him, grandfather had become unconscious and then her parents brought him home. Then later her grandfather was taken to the hospital and her grandfather died in the hospital. In para 4 of her cross-examination, she has denied that she was in her school on that day and was not going with her grandfather, she herself stated that classes were not being held due to the lock down. 8 When she went to call her parents, they were cutting grass sitting on Roop Kumar’s stick. 14. Varun @ Arun Yadav, who is also child eyewitness, has stated in para 1 of his evidence that on the date of of the incident, he was going from home with his grandfather to cut grass. His sister Sindhiya was also following behind him. In para 2 of his evidence, he has stated that on the way of their farm, appellants Ganesh and Kuber caught hold of grandfather and started killing with axe. Both of them had axe. Then he went to call his parents, who had gone 200 meters away to cut grass. Then later his parents came, his father brought grandfather home. Then later the grandfather was taken to the hospital where he died. In para 4 of his cross- examination, he has denied that he did not see his grandfather being killed by the appellants. 15. Smt.Devki Yadav (PW-1) has stated in para 2 of her evidence that they were ahead, her father-in-law was about 200 meters behind. At the same time, appellants Ganesh and Kuber caught hold of her father-in-law and appellant Ganesh hit him on the head with axe. After that, both the appellants father and son, chopped off the hands and legs of her father-in-law. When her father-in-law shouted for help, they came running. At the same time, her son Arun told that both the appellants had killed his grandfather. 16. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the deceased, is often scrutinized. 9 However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the deceased. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy. 17. The distinction between "interested" and "related" witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 1453, where the Supreme Court emphasized that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other evidence in the case. 18. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of a “related witness” cannot be discarded only on the ground of relationship. On the contrary, why a “related witness” would spare the real culprit in order to falsely implicate some innocent person? There is a difference between “related witness” and “interested witness”. “Interested witness” is 10 a witness who is vitally interested in conviction of a person due to previous enmity. The “Interested witness” has been defined by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, (2019) 19 SCC 567 as under : “13. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well- settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between “interested” and “related” witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki; Amit v. State of U.P.; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy). Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of T.N., in the following terms, by referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki: (Ganapathi case, SCC p. 555, para 14) “14. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be “interested”.” 11 14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested