Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.06.13 15:36:27 +0530 2025:CGHC:23308-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 5 of 2018 {Arising out of judgment dated 08.11.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No.R- 06/2014 by the learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja} Raja @ Salman, S/o. Abdul Salam, Aged About 25 Years, R/o. Village Ajirama, Police Station Jainagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station- Kusmi, District : Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. Amarnath Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S.Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari 2 Judgment on Board (12.06.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2017, passed by the learned Second Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Surguja in Sessions Trial No. R-06/2014, by which the sole appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.25,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that, on 25.07.2013, at about 6:30 P.M., at village Kusmi, Police Station- Kusmi, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, the appellant herein in furtherance of common intention with juvenile co-accused assaulted Krishna Prajapati (now deceased) by hand & fist, by which he suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby, the offence has been committed. The incident took place on 25.07.2013 and the deceased died on 27.07.2013 after two 3 days of the incident. On 27.07.2013, wife of deceased Smt. Jeevanti (PW-1) lodged merg intimation vide Ex.P-1 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-11, Inquest was conducted vide Ex. P-7 and dead body of deceased Krishna Prajapati was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. B.K. Bhagat (PW-12), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-13, according to which, cause of death was stated to be internal hemorrhage due to rupture of peritoneum and liver and death was homicidal in nature. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence before the jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 13 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence not examined any witness but has exhibited the document Ex.D-1. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the 4 offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced him for life imprisonment against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Amarnath Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the sole eye-witness to the incident i.e. Biju Prajapati (PW-7) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution and Smt. Jeevanti (PW-1), who is lodger of merg intimation, who was initially not the eye- witness, all of a sudden becomes eye-witness and the trial Court has convicted the appellant only on the basis of statement of S.R.Porte (PW-10) and Ambresh Kujur (PW-13), which is not sustainable at all. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. H.A.P.S.Bhatia, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence and, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Krishna Prajapati was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-13) proved by Dr. B.K.Bhagat (PW- 12), according to which, cause of death was stated to be internal hemorrhage due to rupture of peritoneum and liver and death was homicidal in nature, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 9. It is the case of the prosecution that, as per the merg intimation (Ex.P-1), Biju Prajapati (PW-7) is the eye-witness who informed about the incident to Smt. Jeevanti (PW-1) and Buchibai (PW-2) and they immediately reached to the spot, but Jeevanti (PW-1) and Buchibai (PW-2) found the deceased lying unconscious and he was taken to home and after two days, he died. The eye-witness (PW-7) has declared hostile and on having being asked the leading question, he has not 6 supported the prosecution case. As per the merg intimation, when the wife of deceased (PW-1) reached to the spot after being informed by Biju Prajapati (PW-7), the appellant and other juvenile co-accused had already left the scene of offence and her husband was lying unconscious to whom she (PW-1) and her mother-in-law (PW-2) brought home and he died after two days of incident i.e. on 27.11.2013. As such, Jeevanti (PW-1) is not the eye-witness and eye-witness Biju Prajapati (PW-7) has turned hostile. Thereafter, the trial Court has proceeded to convict the appellant only on the basis of the statement of S.R.Porte (PW-10) and Ambresh Kujur (PW-13) who are the investigating officers. 10. Similarly, Pankaj Dubey (PW-3), as per the merg intimation, also reached to the spot and he also claimed to be the eye- witness but, as per the merg intimation, he reached to the spot after some time on being informed by Biju Prajapati (PW-7), therefore, he also cannot be the eye-witness. 11. Lastly, the conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of S.R.Porte (PW-10) who has proved the investigation proceeding including merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-11). However, the merg intimation and FIR was 7 lodged on the basis of the statement of Biju Prajapati (PW-7) who informed about the incident to Jeevanti (PW-1) and thereafter, Jeevanti (PW-1) has lodged the merg and FIR. Since the eye-witness Biju Prajapati (PW-7) has turned hostile and has not supported the case of the prosecution at all and as per the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-11) lodged by Jeevnati (PW-1), she herself reached to the spot after the incident and, at that time, the two accused persons had already left the scene of occurrence, which has been proved by the investigating officers S.R.Porte (PW-10) and Ambresh Kujur (PW-13), the trial Court has committed grave error to convict the appellant. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 12.
Decision
In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2017 is hereby set aside. The appellant stands acquitted giving him benefit of doubt from the charge framed against him for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. The appellant is already on bail, he need not surrender; however, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 8 13. 14. In the result, this criminal appeal is allowed. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Ashok