High Court of Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.06.26 17:50:49 +0530 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:27645-DB NAFR CRA No. 1149 of 2024 1 - Rajesh Kumar Sahu S/o Preetam Lal Sahy Aged About 30 Years R/o Nawagaon Mudhipar, Police Station- Somani, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh 2 - Bindu Sahu S/o Late Navit Kumar Sahu Aged About 30 Years R/o Shitla Para, Pulgaon, Ward No. 55, Police Station- Pulgaon, District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh versus Appellants 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer Police Station Pulgaon, District : Durg, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s)
Legal Reasoning
: Mr. A.N. Pandey, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru Order on Board , Judge Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 25/06/2025 1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 27/04/2024 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Durg, , 2 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 Distt. Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 38/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302/34 & 120-B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- & sentenced to undergo Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. Facts of the case are that on 10/10/2020 Deepak Sahu (PW5) lodged a Merg intimation at Pulgaon Police Station to the effect that his elder brother Naveet Sahu (henceforth ‘the Deceased’) went to sleep after eating dinner at 11.00 pm on 09-10-2020. Subsequently, on 10/10/2020 at 3.00 am, he was given water due to chest pain, when he felt better, he went to sleep again. Subsequently, at around 4.00 am, his brother was found dead. On the basis of the Merg Intimation, the same registered as number-92/2020, and after Panchnama, the body of the deceased was sent to the Government District Hospital, Durg for postmortem, where after examination by the doctors, the body of the deceased was handed over to his family members and further investigation proceedings of the case were started. During the course of investigation, the statements of the deceased's younger brother Deepak Sahu (PW5), Shubham Sahu (PW2) eyewitnesses of the incident, the deceased's son Shubham alias Sibbu Sahu and daughter Khushi Sahu (PW1) were recorded. In their statements, it was revealed that the deceased's wife Bindu Sahu (henceforth ‘A2’) had a love affair with Rajesh Sahu (henceforth ‘A1’), a resident of village Navagaon, who had also come to the deceased's 3 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 house on the night of the incident. When the facts as above were revealed from the statements of the witnesses, A2 was questioned and she told that she had called A1 on mobile number 7389698171 from her mobile number 9111304371 to her house in a planned manner with the aim of eliminating the Deceased from the way. A1 had come from his village Navagaon on a motorcycle. When the deceased woke up, he was pushed and his head hit against the wall, he was put in a towel around his neck and both the appellants caused his death by pulling the towel from both sides. On the basis of the above confession made by the A2, she was arrested and a memorandum statement was recorded and on her identification, the towel and the mobile phone used by her for talking to the accused were seized. Spot map of the incident was prepared. A1 was also arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded and on the basis of the memorandum statement, the motorcycle and mobile used before the incident were seized. To confirm the facts stated by A2. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants under Sections 302, 120-B, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 7043/2020. Charges were framed against the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 and 120 (B) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. In order to bring home charge, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. After closing prosecution evidence, statement of the 4. 5. 6. 4 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 appellants under section 313 CrPC, thereby putting incriminating material against them, were recorded, to which they denied and pleaded false implication. They did not choose to examine any witness in defence, despite opportunity having been afforded. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There is no evidence adduced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the appellants. Learned counsel appearing on behalf of Appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. There are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There is no any iota of evidence against the appellants to show that they have committed the offence. The prosecution has failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubts, therefore, looking to the entire evidence, the conviction of the appellants is not sustainable. 7. On the other hand, learned State counsel opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellants and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are sufficient evidence available on record to hold that the appellants guilty for the alleged offence and the learned trial Court has absolutely justified 5 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 in passing the judgment of conviction and sentence against the appellants and the appeal filed by the appellants is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record. 9. 10. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased was homicidal in nature ? The trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. Mukesh Kumar (PW12) who has conducted postmortem and while examining he has found following injuries:- External examination:- During the external examination of the dead body, Rigor Martis was present. The pupil of the eye was dilated. During conducting the postmortem he found the following injuries i. There was an abrasion on the right side of the neck measuring 1 cm x 5 cm. ii. There was an abrasion on the left side of the neck measuring 2 cm x 1 cm. iii. 3. There was a lacerated trough in the left side temporoparietal region measuring 7 cm x 1 cm. iv. 4. There was a blood clot in the temporal region measuring 4 cm x 2 cm on the right side and 3 cm x 1 cm on the left side. v. There was a blood clot of about 100 ml in the left side temporoparietal region of the dead body. vi. There was a blood clot in the right side of the heart. Internal Examination:- On internal examination of the dead body, he found that:- I. They were normal. There was a blood clot in the right side of the heart, other organs of the chest II. They were normal. There was half-digested food in the stomach of the dead body. All other organs 6 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 Cause and manner of death:- According to him, the cause of death of the deceased is shock and cardiac arrest Which was caused by severe head injury before death. The time of death is within 18-24 hours. 11. Thus, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature, is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding. 12. The second question for consideration would be, whether there was any eyewitnesses to the incident or not? 13. PW2, Shubham Sahu is the son of Deceased and Appellant No.2, who is the eye-witness of the incident. He in his examination-in-chief has stated that when the appellant No.1 entered into their house at night, his father (deceased) asked him as to why he came to their house and abused and started beating A1. On which, A1 also pushed the deceased towards the wall as a result of which, the deceased sustained head injury and fell down. Thereafter, both the appellants, after putting Gamcha (towel) on neck, and strangulated him, as a result of which, the deceased died. Subsequently, the body was carried and put on the cot. In the cross- examination, this witness at para 13 has categorically stated that when the quarrel took place between the A1 and the Deceased, he was seeing the incident from the bed. He also stated that on account of push given by A1, the Deceased fell down on doorstep of the room. He also stated at para 17 that the appellants put the Gamcha on the neck of the Deceased 7 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 and strangulated him. 14. Thus, from the above statement of the witness, it is crystal clear that the appellants committed murder of the Deceased. Similar is the statement of PW1, Ku. Khusi Sahu, who is daughter of Deceased and A2. 15. PW5, Deepak Kumar Sahu, who is the brother of the Deceased has stated in his statement that A2 is his sister-in-law, whereas, A1 is his co- brother. He stated that the illicit relationship between A1 & A2 came to the knowledge of the Deceased for which A2 and Deceased had a quarrel at Rakhi Festival. He also stated that A1 and A2 used to meet each other in absence of the Deceased. 16. The memorandum statement of A1 is Ex.P/9. The witness of the memorandum statement is Mahesh Kumar Nishad (PW4). It has been alleged by this witness that after interrogating the appellants, on the basis of the memorandum statement Exhibit P-9 and Exhibit P-10 prepared, the seizure memo Exhibit P-11, 12 and Exhibit P-13 were prepared and a Vivo company's mobile, a towel and the documents of the motorcycle were seized. This witness has clarified in his cross- examination that after going to the deceased's house at the incident spot along with the appellant and seizing the towel, he went to the house of A1 and the motorcycle used in the incident, by which he had gone to the deceased's house, was seized. 17. Similarly, with regard to call details, Nodal Squad Executive, Vodafone Idea Limited, Pankaj Ramaiya (PW-12) in his deposition has stated on the basis of CDR Exhibit P-33 that a call was made to mobile number- 8 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 9111304371 from mobile number-7389698171 on 09-10-2020 at 2.47 pm. Further from perusal of the report Ex.P/33, it is apparent that several calls were made between these numbers on several times. 18. Though the medical evidence does not reveal that there was no fracture on the neck of the deceased and that the murder was caused by strangulation, but the medical evidence also reveals that injuries of a serious nature had been inflicted on the back of the head of the deceased before death. Both the eyewitnesses of the incident, who are minor son and daughter of A2, have proved in their deposition that A1 was present at their house after about 1.00 pm and before 4.00 am and witness Khushi Sahu saw the suspicious behaviour of both of them, whereas witness Shubham Sahu (PW1) has stated that A1 came to the house, his mother (A2), opened the door and when the door was opened, the father (deceased) woke up and he started questioning and abusing A1, and when there was a dispute, A1 pushed the deceased on his chest and hit his head against the wall, and when the deceased fell down, the towel used in the incident was put around the neck of the deceased and pulled from both sides. This witness also saw the scene that the Deceased being pulled and laid on the bed near him. From which it appears that the deceased was made to lie down on the bed by the A1. 19. Thus from the above it is apparent that when the deceased's head hit the wall and he fell down and immediately thereafter the accused put a towel around his neck and pulled him, and the deceased died due to cardiac arrest caused by shock. No such defence has been taken by the 9 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 appellants that the deceased was killed by them in self-defence when the deceased was abusing them, but the statement of witness Shubham Sahu reveals that when the deceased questioned and abused him, accused A1 pushed the deceased and his head hit the wall, due to which the deceased was in an unconscious state and while pulling him by putting a towel around his neck, he died, which proves that the act of the accused was done unanimously and in furtherance of their criminal conspiracy to murder the deceased. 20. Thus, the prosecution has been fully successful in proving that the the appellants by participating in the criminal conspiracy on the fateful night, conspired to murder the deceased at the place of incident located at the house of the deceased and in furtherance of common intention, by pushing the deceased hitting his head against the wall and by putting a towel around his neck and pulling it, caused the intentional murder. 21.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, we do not find any illegality in the order and judgment passed by the trial Court and therefore, we affirm the same. 22. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 23. It is stated that the appellants are in jail, they shall serve out the remaining sentence. 24. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along 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 appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing 10 CRA No. 1149 of 2024 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. 25. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/Rahul