Bemetara, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Stati
Case Details
1 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.23 17:30:51 +0530 2025:CGHC:26109-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 688 of 2023 Digeshwar Pal S/o Late Ramkhilawan Pal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Borsi, Chowki Kandaraka, Police Station Berla District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Berla, District- Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr.Arjit Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20/06/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
Legal Reasoning
sentence dated 02.02.2023 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Sessions Case No.44/2022 by which 2 the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of ₹ 1000/-, in default, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month.
Legal Reasoning
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Smt.Kamini Bai lodged a report on 4.7.2022 at dehati nalsi that a week before the date of incident, she had a dispute with her neighbour appellant Digeshwar Pal about throwing garbage in drain. Regarding the same matter, on the night of 4.7.2022 at about 9 P.M. near village Borsi Paithu pond crossing, appellant Digeshwar Pal, regarding a previous rivalry dispute, quarrelled and abused the complainant’s husband with obscene and dirty words and threatened to kill them and attacked her husband deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu with a sharp knife in his hand on the right and left neck, left chest, left side of head and left side of back. Due to the attack of the said knife by the appellant on the complainant’s husband / deceased, a lot of blood has come out, then the complainant told village Sarpanch Raju Verma and Gopendra Verma of the village and the people around and his family is very sad due to the said incident. The people around have also seen and heard the incident. On the information given by the above incident, dahati nalsi was registered vide Ex.P-1 and on the basis of said dahati nalsi, a crime was registered at zero in Police Outpost Kandraka under Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 324 of the IPC and Sections 294, 506 Part-II and 324 of the IPC was duly registered in Berla Police Station under Crime No.253/2022. During the investigation in the case, after one day on 6.7.2022 at 3 about 4.15 A.M., when injured Bhuvneshwar died due to the injuries sustained in the said incident, later Section 302 of the IPC was added. Cloth of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P-2. Knife stains with blood was seized vide Ex.P-3. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-5 and on the basis of his memorandum statement, jeans pant stains with blood & soil and full shirt stains with blood and soil were seized at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P-6. Bloodstains soil and plain soil were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-7. Inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-9. Spot map was prepared by the patwari vide Ex.P-10. Investigating officer also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-11. Statement of Arjun Nishad (PW-5) was recorded under Section 164 CrPC vide Ex.P-12. MLC of the deceased was done by Dr.Kundi Jyoti (PW-18) vide Ex.P-42 and noticed following injuries:- 1. Penetrating wound 2x0.5cm over right lower neck. 2. Penetrating wound 2x1cm over left side of neck. 3. Penetrating wound 4x1.5cm over left chest. 4. Penetrating wound 2x0.5cm over left posterior chest. 5. Penetrating wound 3x1cm over left parietal region. The injuries may be due to sharp and blunt object. Injured Bhuvneshwar died and his Dead body was sent for postmortem to the Medical College, Raipur where Dr.Snigha Jain Bansal (PW-11) postmortem vide and found following injuries:- 1. Surgical stitched wound on left side of back vertically present with 4 stitches in situ lateral to mid line on scapular area, on opening the stitches, stab wound with sharp edges of size 2cm long, 0.5cm wide and 4cm 4 deep directed straight and lower angle comparatively more acute. 2. Surgical stitched wound on left side of head with 5 stitches in situ in front of left parietal eminence with contused edges. Opening the stitches, the edges of the wound are sharp. 4cm long, 1 cm wide, scalp deep. 3. Surgical stitched wound obliquely present on chest on the left side just lateral to midline and 4.5cm long, on opening the skin stitches 1cm gap present and stitches beneath the skin present. Lower angle is comparatively more acute. 4. Surgical stitched wound on right side of neck obliquely present of 3cm length with stitches in situ. On opening the skin stitches, 0.5cm gap present with underlying surgical stitches and tailing present on lower end. 5. Surgical stitched wound on left side of neck obliquely present below left side of chin (lower border of mandible) 2cm long with stitches in situ. On opening the skin stitches, 1cm gap, 3cm depth and lower angle is comparatively more acute. 6. 3 Small contusions of approximately 1.5cm - 2cm diameter of dark bluish discoloration on extensor aspect of right forearm. The doctor has opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused by the stab injuries. The injuries are homicidal in nature. Clothes of the deceased was examined by Dr.Snigdha Jain Bansal. Button knife was examined by the same doctor vide Ex.P-22. The appellant was arrested on 7.7.2022 vide arrest memo Ex.P-38. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-50), human blood was found on knife (Article A), jeans pant and shirt (Articles D1 and D2) seized from the 5 appellant, full shirt (Article E1), sando (Article E2) and gaj piece (Article F) seized from the deceased. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Bemetara, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara received the case on transfer for trial in accordance with law. 4. The accused / appellant abjured the guilt and entered into witness. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 30 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents. The defence has examined none and no document has been exhibited. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who has caused the murder of the deceased, proceeded to convict and sentence him under Section 302 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred. 6. Mr.Arjit Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is contrary to the facts and evidences available on record, hence the same is liable to be set aside. He further submits that all the witnesses who have stated in their court examination or examination in chief are hearse witnesses i.e. Kamin Bai Sahu (PW-1), Karuna Verma (PW-20) and and Kamla Verma (PW-21), to whom the deceased has stated that 6 the appellant has assaulted Bhuvneshwar Sahu. There was evidence of previous quarrel amongst both the families, which has been clear from the evidence of Kamin Bai Sahu (PW-1), Suresh Kumar Sahu (PW-3), Loknath Sahu (PW-7) and Mahesh Nirmalkar (PW-9) and both the appellant and deceased were under the influence of ganja. He further submits that knife has not been recovered from the possession of the appellant and it was recovered from open place. The prosecution has not proved the motive in the present case. He also submits that learned trial Court convicted the appellant only on the basis of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstantial evidence is not connected to each other, hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eye of law. He lastly submits that if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to the deceased in spur of moment. There was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant to cause death of the deceased and both the appellant and the deceased were under the influence of ganja and all of sudden the dispute arose and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and, therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under 7 Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 7. On the other hand, Mr.Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that statement of Arjun Nishad (PW-5) is wholly reliable and trustworthy who has seen the appellant assaulting the deceased and his testimony inspires confidence and he has rightly been relied upon. He further submits that as per FSL report (Ex.P-50), human blood was found on knife (Article A), jeans pant and shirt (Articles D1 and D2) seized from the appellant, full shirt (Article E1), sando (Article E2) and gaj piece (Article F) seized from the deceased. As such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and 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. 9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu was homicidal in nature ? 10. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr.Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-11), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu vide Ex.P-21, has clearly come to the conclusion that death was due to shock and hemorrhage caused by the stab injures and the injuries are homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on 8 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 appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 11. The next question is that the appellant has been convicted on sole testimony of eyewitness Arjun Nishad (PW-5), whether sole testimony of this witness should be relied upon to base conviction unless it is corroborated by other appropriate valid piece of evidence. 12. Arjun Nishad (PW-5) is eyewitness of the incident. He has stated in para 2 of his evidence that the incident took place on 4th or 5th of July this year. On the date of incident he was sitting near Rati’s shop in the village, at that time deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu came there and asked him to go with him to Paitu pond. Then he went to Paitu pond with the deceased and he and the deceased were sitting there talking and smoking ganja, at the same time, appellant Digeshwar Pal also came there and started smoking ganja with them. After some time, appellant Digeshwar Pal said that he would come back after urinating and after coming back, he started hitting deceased Bhuvneshwar with some object. Due to darkness, he could not see the object with which the appellant was assaulting the deceased and he ran away from there in fear. He has denied in para 8 of his cross- examination that Sarpanch’s house is very far from the pond. On being asked whether the witness had seen the appellant assaulting Bhuvneshwar with a knife, the witness said that the appellant had assaulted Bhuvneshwar in front of him but it was night time at that time, so he could not see clearly with which weapon the appellant 9 present in the Court had assaulted Bhuvneshwar. In para 9 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that he did not see any weapon in the hands of the appellant at the time of incident. The witness himself stated that he came after urinating and directly started attacking Bhuvneshwar on his stomach and chest and it was night time. 13. Kamin Bai Sahu (PW-1) has stated that the incident took place around 9 P.M. four months ago. She was at her home on that day of the incident. At that time, Durgesh Yadav of the village came to call her saying let’s go to the Sarpanch’s house and she went with him on a bicycle to the Sarpanch’s house, Karuna Verma. When she reached there, she saw that her husband Bhuvneshwar Sahu was lying soaked in blood in the courtyard of Sarpanch’s husband Umakant’s house. At that time, her husband Bhuvneshwar Sahu told her that Arjun Nishad of the village and appellant Digeshwar Pal had taken him to Paitu pond of the village and accused Digeshwar Pal stabbed him in head, neck and chest with a knife. Her husband also told her that Arjun Nishad was also there. In para 8 of her cross- examination, she has admitted that before this incident, they did not report the dispute between the appellant and her family regarding drainage of drain water. The witness herself says that they had lodged a report against the appellant a long time ago. He had admitted that she did not see the incident herself. She has denied that she cannot tell who killed her husband Bhuvneshwar. The witness herself says that her husband i.e. deceased himself had told 10 her and the Sarpanch that the accused present in the Court had stabbed him with a knife. 14. The trial Court in para 18 of its judgment has observed that for crime to be constituted, it is necessary to have its object, motive, intention and preparation. From the examination of the evidence available in this case, it is clear that the appellant had inflicted fatal injuries on the neck, head, chest and back of deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu with a knife with an intention of causing his death, regarding which the appellant either knew or had the knowledge that the injury inflicted by him would cause death of the deceased or at least such an injury would be caused to him which would cause his death. It is definitely possible in this case from the examination of the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined in the Court that there was a rivalry between appellant Digeshwar Pal and deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu before the dispute regarding the drainage of drain water outside the house and due to this reason, the appellant has killed Bhuvneshwar by inflicting a fatal blow with a knife. Thus, from the examination of the statements of the prosecution witnesses examined in the Court, a clear motive is shown for murder of deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu by the appellant in this case. From the statements of the prosecution witnesses, this fact has also been proved that on the date of incident on 4.7.2022 at about 21:00 P.M. the appellant has killed deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu by inflicting fatal injuries on his neck, head, chest and back with a knife near Paitu pond. From this it is clear that the appellant had made necessary preparation before committing the said incident and had 11 kept a knife with him before reaching the crime scene, with which he had fatally attacked deceased Bhuvneshwar Sahu i.e. the appellant had reached the crime scene only after making necessary preparations before committing the incident and has committed the incident as per his preparation. 15. As such, taking into consideration the evidence of eyewitness Arjun Nishad (PW-5) and injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased, the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the appellant that the case falls under Section 304 Part I or Part II deserves to be and is hereby rejected. 16. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the statement of eyewitness Arjun Nishad (PW-5), further considering the material available on record, also considering the finding recorded by the trial Court and postmortem report (Ex.P-21) of Dr.Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-11) and taking into consideration the FSL report (Ex.P-50), we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court.
Decision
17. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 18. It is stated at the Bar that the the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 19. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along 12 with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Chief Justice (Ramesh Sinha) Bablu