Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.25 10:32:58 +0530 2025:CGHC:35354-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 958 of 2023 Manharan Khunte S/o Brijlal Khunte Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Tiwraiya, Police Station - Dharsinwa, District Raipur Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate - Station House Officer, Police Station - Dharsinwa, District - Raipur Chhattisgarh (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Kishore Narayan, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Chief Justice , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyre, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 2 ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned Special Judge (Atrocities), Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.33 of 2020, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 450 and 323 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and rigorous imprisonment for 6 months and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days and it is directed that all the sentences were run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is as follows: On 15.07.2019 at around 8:00 PM, in village Tivraiya, a verbal altercation ensued between the deceased Dinesh Sahu and the accused Manharan Khunte, when the deceased questioned the accused about making false allegations against his wife, Ritu Sahu (PW-1). Following the argument, both parties returned to their respective homes. After a short interval, the accused Manharan Khunte, armed with a knife, entered the house of the deceased and attacked him with the said knife. The deceased, while calling for help, ran out of the house, but the accused chased him and continued to stab him in the street. Upon hearing the cries for help, Rajendra Kumar Verma (PW-9) and Shatrughan Gaikwad (PW-4) arrived at the scene and intervened, managing to separate the accused 3 from the deceased. Dinesh Sahu sustained serious injuries, including a deep wound on the left side of his abdomen, causing his intestines to protrude, along with injuries to his back, elbow, and shoulder. He was initially taken to CHC Dharsiwa for treatment and subsequently referred to Mekahara Hospital, where he succumbed to his injuries the same night during the course of treatment. On the basis of the statement of Ritu Sahu (PW-1), wife of the deceased, a rural complaint (Ex.P/1) was lodged and crime was registered at Police Station Dharsiwa under
Facts
Sections 307 and 450 IPC, based upon which First Information Report was registered vide Ex.P/25. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P/2 and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/3. Shirt of the deceased was seized vide Ex.P/4. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P/5, based upon which, a knife, allegedly used in the offence as well as clothes of the appellants, blood-stained and plain soil from the scene of the crime were also seized vide Ex.P/6 to Ex.P/8. Notice under Section 175 Cr.P.C. was given to the witnesses vide Ex.P/9 and Naksha panchayatnama was prepared vide Ex.P/10. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P/13 and Ex.P/14. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/12. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-14) and according to postmortem report (Ex.P/34), the death was homicidal in nature due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab injury on chest and abdomen. A medical query was also raised with the concerned doctor regarding the seized articles. The seized articles were sent for its 4 chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur and according to the FSL report (Ex.P/32), though the blood was found on the seized knife and the group of blood was disintegrated. 4. After arresting the accused and following due formalities, a charge sheet under Sections 450, 307, 302, and 323 IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, and later the case was committed to the Hon’ble Sessions Court for trial. 5.
Legal Reasoning
After perusal of the case record and evidence prima facie, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 450, 302, and 323 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial, stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused reiterated his plea of innocence and denied all incriminating circumstances. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-14 and exhibited 35 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/35, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 7. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by him calling in question the impugned judgment. 5 8. Mr. Kishore Narayan, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 302, 450 and 323 of IPC, as the learned trial Court has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there is no direct evidence available against the appellant. He further submits that although conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Smt. Ritu Sahu (PW- 1) and Rajendra Kumar Verma (PW-9), but their evidence do not inspire confidence as their evidence are not safe for placing reliance in absence of any corroboration from independent source. Thus, the conviction of the accused-appellant herein is unsustainable, inadmissible and bad in law. It has been contended that even if the entire case is taken at its face value, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. It has been further contended that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellant for commission of heinous offence of murder, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and appellant- accused be acquitted/discharged from the said offence. 9. Per-contra, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. He further submits that there is ample evidence on record to connect the accused/appellant with the offence in question. The learned trial Court, 6 after proper appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused, which warrants no interference. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302, 450 and 323 of IPC, as the accused-appellant has caused murder of Dinesh Sahu. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. 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. 11. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased- Dinesh Sahu was homicidal in nature ? 13. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-14), who have conducted postmortem on the body of deceased vide Ex.P/34, has clearly come to the conclusion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab injury on chest and abdomen and the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 14. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is 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 appellant. We hereby affirm the said 7 finding. 15. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime. 16. In the present case, homicidal death due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab injury on chest and abdomen and the nature of death is homicidal has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-14) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/34) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 17. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-14) as well as the evidence of injured eye- witness namely, Smt. Ritu Sahu, wife of the deceased and Rajendra Kumar Verma (PW-3). 18. Smt. Ritu Sahu (PW-1), who is wife of the deceased, has stated in her evidence that the incident occurred at around 8:00 p.m. At that time, she was at home with her husband and her friend Smt. Godavari (PW- 3). There was a quarrel outside the house between her husband and the accused. She did not know the reason for the quarrel. A person from the neighborhood informed her about the altercation, after which she asked her husband about it, but he did not reveal anything. Subsequently, the accused came into their house and began quarreling with her husband. She and Smt. Godavari (PW-3) attempted to 8 intervene and separate them but were unsuccessful. She then went outside to call people from the neighborhood. After that, her husband and the accused also came outside. She did not witness the accused assaulting her husband. After the accused left, they noticed that Dinesh Sahu had sustained injuries on his left hand and the lower part of his abdomen, from which his intestines had protruded. The neighbors called the police. Her husband was taken to the Government hospital and later referred to Mekahara for treatment, where he succumbed to his injuries. 19. Rohit Tandon (PW-8) stated that the deceased Dinesh Sahu was his son-in-law. The incident took place in July of the previous year. He was at home when a neighborhood boy informed him in the evening that the accused Manharan and his son-in-law Dinesh had quarreled. He immediately went to the spot with his family and found his son-in-law lying injured outside the house in the lane, bleeding profusely from the left side of his abdomen. A large crowd had gathered. Subsequently, a 108 ambulance arrived and took Dinesh to the government hospital at Dharsiwa, from where he was referred to Mekahara, where he died the same night around 2.00 AM. He had heard that the accused had stabbed his son-in-law to death. The police did not interrogate the accused in his presence nor conduct any seizure proceedings in his presence, although his signature appeared on the memorandum statement of the accused (Ex.P/5). During cross-examination by the defence, this witness admitted that he knew nothing about the actual incident and did not know how Dinesh Sahu sustained injuries. He further accepted that he had not given any statement to the police and 9 that no seizure proceedings were conducted in his presence. He also admitted that he signed documents at the behest of the police. 20. Rajendra Kumar Verma (PW-9) stated that his house was adjacent to that of the deceased Dinesh Sahu. The incident occurred on the first Monday of the month of Sawan. In the evening, he learned that a quarrel had broken out between Dinesh and the accused Manharan Khunte. At that time, he was inside his house. Upon hearing shouting, he came out and saw a crowd gathered and both men quarreling. He then went back inside. Later, he learned that Manharan had stabbed Dinesh. Dinesh was taken to the government hospital at Dharsiwa via 108 ambulance and then referred to Mekahara, where he died. During cross-examination by the defence, he admitted that he knew nothing about the incident and had not given any statement to the police. He also admitted that he did not know how Dinesh died. However, he voluntarily stated that later he came to know that Dinesh had been stabbed. He confirmed that the police seized bloodstained soil from the spot in his presence but no other proceedings were conducted in his presence. 21. Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-14) who has conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased Dinesh Sahu vide Ex.P/34 has found following injuries :- “Injuries:- 1. Stab injury present on left hypocondrial region at anterior axillary line size of 02 cm. x 01 cm. x 13 cm. thoracic & abdominal cavity 10 deep transverse, omentum coming out from wound, after cutting skin soft tissues & muscles which entered into firstly thoracic cavity then entered into abdominal cavity, after cutting left lung lower lobe 02x01 cm. through & through, lung collapsed, then entered into diaphragm then entered into stomach size of 02x01 cm. cardiac part through & through then entered retro peritoneum size 02x01 cm. then entered left kidney upper pole 02x01 cm. through & through. Retro peritoneal cavity contains about 01 Ltr. blood & peritoneal cavity contains about 700 ml. blood. Thoracic cavity contains about 500 ml. blood. Injuries directed antero posteriorlly & upto slightly downward. Medial ends sharp then the lateral end. All around wounds red color ecchymosis present. 2. Stab wound present on right shoulder posterior Aspect 02x0.5x05 cm. transverse muscles deep directed posterior to lateral aspect. Medial ends sharp then the lateral end. All around wounds red color ecchymosis present. 3. Stab wound present on left shoulder posterior aspect over deltoid 02x0.5x05 cm. transverse muscles deep directed posterior to lateral aspect. lateral ends sharp then the medial end. All around wounds red color ecchymosis present. 11 4. Defence incised wound present on right finger dorsal aspect 4th fingers size 02x0.5 tissue deep. 5. Impacted abrasion on right arm anterior aspect 06x0.2 cm. Vertical. 6. Impacted abrasion present on both knee 02 to 3.5 cm. Diameter. Injury no 01 to 04 caused with hard, sharp & pointed object. Injury 01 sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. Injury no. 05 & 06 caused with hard & blunt object. All injuries are shows red colour ecchymosis & red clotted blood. All injuries are fresh. Ligature Mark :- There is contusion abrasion in the form of ligature mark present on neck just below thyroid eminence 01 cm. wide all around neck, completely. It then runs completely transverse all around neck, which running 06 cm. below to chin & 04 cm. below to left angle of mandible and 06 cm. below to left mastoid and then ends backwards 08 c.m. right to mid line back. The mark on right side of neck is runs transversely 06 cm. below to right angle of mandible and then transversely 07 cm. below to the right mastoid. It then meet to another side of ligature. The ligature mark is prominent all around neck. The inner part of the skin is pinched, dry, brownish white and parchmentised with two small red patches of 12 echymosis in the course of ligature. The ligature mark is fresh, caused during life and may be caused with the ligature material. Opinion:- 1- Death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of Stab injury on chest & abdomen. 2- Death was homicidal in nature. 3- Duration of injuries are within 12 hours prior to death. 4- Duration of death is within 24 hours prior to postmortem examination.” 22. Considering the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses as well as from the circumstantial evidence, it is evident that a verbal altercation ensued between the deceased Dinesh Sahu and the accused Manharan Khunte, when the deceased questioned the accused about making false allegations against his wife, Ritu Sahu (PW-1) and after a short interval, the accused Manharan Khunte, armed with a knife, entered the house of the deceased and attacked him with the said knife, due to which he died due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of stab injury on chest and abdomen. 23. Further transpires from the statements of Smt. Ritu Sahu (PW-1), Rajendra Kumar Verma (PW-9) and Rohit Tandon (PW-8) that at the time of the incident, a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased. This material fact remained unrebutted by the defense, despite detailed cross-examination. Thus, the evidence of the quarrel 13 between the deceased and the accused stands established. According to Smt. Ritu Sahu (PW-1), the accused entered the house and quarreled with the deceased. She and Godavari tried to intervene but failed. She went out to call the neighbors. When the accused and the deceased also came outside, the accused left the scene. Shortly thereafter, Dinesh was found injured, bleeding from his left shoulder and lower abdomen, with his intestines protruding. 24. Similarly, Rajendra Kumar Verma (PW-9) deposed that after hearing noise, he went outside and saw both men quarreling. Later, he came to know that Dinesh had been stabbed by the accused and was taken to the hospital via ambulance, where he died. 25. Smt. Godavari (PW-3) confirmed during cross-examination that she had been sitting and talking with Ritu Sahu and Usha Sahu, and that Dinesh was taken to the hospital, where he died during treatment. 26. Shatrughan Gaikwad (PW-4) stated that he learned after the incident that Dinesh had been murdered by Manharan. He also confirmed that Dinesh was taken by ambulance and died in the hospital. 27. The defence failed to produce any evidence to prove that the accused did not quarrel with the deceased, or that he was not present at the scene, or that he was not arrested on the date of the incident. Therefore, the fact that eyewitnesses i.e. Smt. Ritu Sahu (PW-2), Smt. Godavari (PW-3), and Shatrughan Gaikwad (PW-4) turned hostile in Court does not negate the overwhelming evidence indicating that the accused stabbed Dinesh Sahu to death. There is no material on record 14 to suggest that any person other than the accused was responsible for the stabbing and consequent death of Dinesh Sahu. 28. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that :- “death of deceased Dinesh Sahu was homicidal in nature; it is the appellant who has murdered the deceased by stabbing him with the help of knife.” 29. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the finding recorded by the trial Court in its judgment, it is reflected that the appellant has not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the statements of Smt. Ritu Sahu (PW-1), Smt. Godavari (PW-3), Shatrughan Gaikwad (PW-4), Rajendra Kumar Verma (PW-9) and Rohit Tandon (PW-8), whose statement too has no reason to be disbelieved and there is also no reason for them to lie as they are main witnesses to the incident disclosing the fact that the accused/appellant had stabbed the deceased with the help of knife, due to which, he died, therefore, the act of the accused/appellant by stabbing the deceased clearly shows the intention of the accused/appellant to kill the deceased as also caused injuries to Smt. Ritu Sahu (PW-1). For this reason, it is clearly and reliably established that it was the accused/appellant, who caused the death of the deceased by stabbing the deceased with the help of knife and in this regard, there is no defence on the part of the accused/appellant during 15 his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 450 and 323 of the IPC. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 31. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 16.07.2019 he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 32. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence 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 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 33. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu