1 - Ramu Gajpal @ Golu S/o Late Ghasiyaram Gajpal Aged About 22 Years v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Thropugh P.S. Anda, Distt. Durg C.G. , Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 09.09.2025 Order passed on : 26.09.2025 CRA No. 999 of 2014 1 - Ramu Gajpal @ Golu S/o Late Ghasiyaram Gajpal Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Kuthrail, P.S. Anda, Civil And Revenue Distt. Durg C.G. , Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh S/o Thropugh P.S. Anda, Distt. Durg C.G. , Chhattisgarh (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sudhanshu Kumar Singh, Advocate appearing on behalf of Mr. B. P. Singh, Advocate For State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge C.A.V. Judgment 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 30.09.2014, passed in Session Trial No. 203 of 2012, whereby learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) convicted appellants for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 01 year rigorous 2 imprisonment and under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment of 03 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo 06 months rigorous imprisonment. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are that, the deceased, Ghasiyaram, was the father of the appellant, who is also the accused in this case. According to the narrative of prosecution, the deceased was known to be a habitual drinker. His excessive consumption of alcohol frequently led him to engage in quarrels and disputes with
Legal Reasoning
members of his own family. This background of recurring familial discord and tension set the stage for the unfortunate incident in question. On the specific date of the incident, which occurred around 1:00 a.m., the deceased once again was involved in a heated altercation with the family members. It was during this quarrel that the appellant, the accused son, felt harassed and humiliated by the aggressive behavior of deceased. The prosecution contended that due to this ongoing mistreatment and provocation, the appellant was driven to an extreme and tragic response. In a fit of rage and self-defense, the appellant allegedly used a dagger (referred to as a “Hansiya”, a type of curved knife or blade) to attack the deceased. The injury inflicted by the appellant resulted in the death of Ghasiyaram. 3. Following the incident, the police conducted a thorough investigation into the matter. After collecting evidence and statements, the police submitted a charge sheet in the appropriate Court, formally charging the appellant with serious offenses under the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The charges brought against the appellant were under Section 302 of the IPC, which deals with punishment for murder, and Section 201 of 3 the IPC, which pertains to causing the disappearance of evidence or giving false information to screen the offender. These charges were framed by the Trial Court on the basis of the charge sheet submitted by the prosecution. 4. Throughout the trial proceedings, the appellant denied the allegations and abjured guilt. The Court, after hearing the arguments, examining the evidence presented by the prosecution, and scrutinizing the case records, delivered its judgment on 30.09.2014. The trial Court found the appellant guilty of the offenses charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Consequently, the Court sentenced the appellant to life imprisonment, along with a monetary fine, holding him responsible for the murder of his father and the subsequent criminal acts aimed at concealing or misrepresenting the crime. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the findings of learned trial Court are not only legally unsound but also suffer from perversity. The entire judgment is tainted with fundamental errors in appreciation of evidence and the principles of criminal jurisprudence. Therefore, the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court are liable to be quashed and set aside in the interest of justice. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Critical prosecution witnesses, whose testimonies were expected to form the backbone of the case of prosecution, have either turned hostile or have not supported the prosecution story in material aspects. Their depositions lack consistency and do not corroborate the allegations made against the appellant. This serious failure casts a shadow of doubt on the narrative of prosecution, rendering the conviction unsustainable. Further, the so-called 4 memorandum witnesses, who were cited by the prosecution presumably to strengthen their case, have also disowned or failed to substantiate the version of prosecution of events. This further weakens the foundation of the case of prosecution and demonstrates the absence of reliable evidence against the appellant. The learned counsel for appellant draws attention to numerous contradictions and omissions apparent in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses. These inconsistencies concern crucial facts such as the sequence of events, the manner in which the incident took place, and the role of the accused. Such material contradictions are fatal to the credibility of the case and create reasonable doubt about the culpability of appellant. 6. It is further submitted that the FIR lodged by the prosecution is belated, which seriously impairs the credibility of the case of prosecution. The unexplained delay in lodging the FIR is indicative of possible afterthought or manipulation of facts. Such delay casts doubt on the reliability of the complaint and the entire investigation that followed. Lastly, the prosecution has utterly failed to prove the essential ingredient of the offence under Section 302 IPC, namely, the intention to cause death (actus reus) and the accompanying guilty mind (mens rea). The prosecution has not demonstrated beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant had the deliberate intention or premeditation to commit murder. The circumstances and evidence suggest that if any harm was caused, it was not the result of a culpable or intentional act
Decision
by the appellant. In view of the above, the conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. In light of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to set aside the impugned judgment, conviction, and sentence dated 30.09.2014 passed by the 5 learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in S.T. No. 205/2012 and acquit the appellant of all charges leveled against him. 7. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and would submit that the appellant stands rightly convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the heinous crime of murder is just and proper. The accused has been in judicial custody since 23.07.2012, and the trial and sentencing process was duly conducted within a reasonable time-frame, with the judgment delivered on 30.09.2014, ensuring compliance with principles of timely justice. The incident occurred in the early hours of 18.07.2012 at approximately 1:00 a.m. at the house of the deceased, Ghasiyaram Gajpal, who was aged about 50 years and was none other than the father of the accused. The prosecution has placed on record a comprehensive set of documents and evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Among the key exhibits are the inquest report (ExP-2), dated 18.07.2012, and the post-mortem report (ExP-21), which clearly states that the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to multiple incised wounds and injuries to the larynx, pharynx, and neck vessels. The medical opinion unequivocally categorizes the death as homicidal in nature. Additionally, property seizure memos (Ex. P-3) document the recovery of incriminating articles from the crime scene and the accused, while the FSL report (Ex. P-29) confirms the presence of human blood on various articles, further corroborating the case of prosecution. The FIR was lodged promptly on 22.07.2012 by the accused himself, and his memorandum statement (Ex. P-4) and property seizure memo (Ex. P-5) form critical components of the investigation, establishing the chain of events and 6 the involvement of accused. The testimony of prosecution witnesses, including Bisauharam Devdas (PW-1), who identified the crime scene and exhibited the seizure memo and FIR, and Ishwardas Satnami (PW- 2), who supported the prosecution through his deposition, further strengthen the case. The medical expert (Dr. P. Akhtar) PW-9, provided scientific and medical evidence confirming the homicidal cause of death, which remains uncontroverted. The investigating officers, Kunjram Kanwar (PW-11) and Prem Prakash Awadhiya (PW-12) testified regarding the thoroughness of the investigation, the seizure of relevant articles, and the procedural compliance followed during the inquiry. Learned State counsel further submits that the evidence presented forms a consistent and credible narrative of the accused having committed the murder with clear intent, satisfying the requirement of mens rea under Section 302 IPC. The judgment of learned trial Court, therefore, is a well-reasoned conclusion based on the evidence on record, and this Court may uphold the conviction and sentence passed against the appellant in the interest of justice and to serve as a deterrent against such grave offenses. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeal with utmost circumspection. Shiv Kumar Devsas (P.W.-01), the Kotwar of Village Puthrel, identified the accused Ramu Gajpal as a resident of the village and knew the deceased, Ghasiyaram, who died on 18.07.2012. He was a witness to the notice of inquest (Ex.-P/1), inquest report (Ex.-P/2), and the seizure of articles from the crime scene (Ex.-P/3, Ex.-P/4, Ex.-P/5), including the memorandum of seizure and spot map (panchnama). Although he 8. 9. 7 signed these documents, he admitted in cross-examination that his signatures were obtained at the instance of police, several days after the incident. The prosecution declared him hostile, and he denied making incriminating statements against the accused. He confirmed that the deceased was habitually drunk and often abusive toward his wife and children, leading to unhappiness among family members. He also stated that family members were not present in the house at the time of the incident. He learned about the death from appellant the following morning and accompanied him to the police station, where the incident was reported as a suicide. While present during the seizure of evidence, he denied being questioned by police about the incident or witnessing any confession or identification by the accused. His testimony mainly establishes procedural facts and sheds light on the troubled family background of deceased but lacks direct evidence linking the accused to the murder. 10. Ishwar Das (P.W.-02), the witness, identified the accused as his fellow villager and knew the deceased Ghasiya Ram, who was a habitual drunkard and did no work. He saw the body of deceased covered at the scene the morning after the incident on 18.07.2012. He admitted his signature on documents including the memorandum statement (Ex.-P/4), property seizure memo (Ex.-P/5), and spot panchnama (Ex.- P/5A). He stated that the full pant of appellant, seized by the police, had blood-like stains. 11. Kunti Bai (P.W.-03), who is the wife of the deceased Ghasiya Ram and mother of the appellant Ramu Gajpal, testified that on the day of the incident, her husband came home intoxicated and was verbally abusive to her and the children. To avoid the situation, she took her 8 children to the village salon where her son Ramu brought food, and they stayed there overnight. Early next morning, she returned home and found the outer door open and her husband dead inside the house. She reported that appellant / Ramu informed the village official (Kotwar), who then went to the police station. She denied several allegations made against her husband, such as mistreating his children or physically abusing her, and refuted claims that appellant attacked his father with a sickle (hasiya). Kunti Bai was declared hostile by the prosecution as she did not support the case of prosecution and stated that she became unconscious due to the death of her husband. Overall, her evidence portrays a troubled household with a drunken husband but denies physical violence by the accused. 12. Ku. Chandani (P.W.-04) is the daughter of the deceased Ghasiya Ram and sister of the appellant, testified that on the day of the incident, her father, who was an alcoholic, came home drunk and verbally abused the family, asking them to leave. The family then spent the night near a village salon and returned early the next morning to find their father dead inside the house with a cut on his neck. The appellant / her brother informed the village official and the police about the death. The witness described her father as dependent on family money for drinking and verbally abusive. She denied any physical assault by the appellant on the deceased or any attempts to hide evidence. The family admitted to police that they were near the salon at the time of the incident. From the evidence of this witness, it seems that she did not support the claim of prosecution that the accused murdered the deceased. 9 13. Dr. P. Akhtar (P.W.-10), the doctor who conducted the autopsy, testified that he found 11 injuries on the body of deceased, including multiple cut wounds on the face, neck, and hands. The injuries were consistent with a violent assault, and the doctor opined that the death was homicidal, caused by hemorrhage and shock due to multiple cut injuries. The testimony of Doctor and post-mortem report provide crucial evidence in establishing the circumstances of the death. During cross-examination, the doctor clarified that the injuries could have been caused by a sharp-edged object. 14. R. K. Kanwar (P.W.-11) is the Investigating Officer who testified about the partial investigation of Crime No. 88/12. He prepared a draft for sending seized articles for chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur. The draft was prepared through the Superintendent of Police, and the laboratory acknowledged receipt of the articles. The SHO completed the investigation and prepared the final report (PRPI-24), which was sent to the Court. During cross- examination, the SHO testified about sending the draft (PRPI-22) to the Superintendent of Police through a constable and receiving the acknowledgment from the laboratory (PRPI-23). 15. Prem Prakash Awadhiya (P.W.-12) is also Investigating Officer who testified about the investigation of Crime No. 88/12. He stated that he partially investigated the case. During the investigation, he prepared a site plan based on the accused disclosure and conducted a spot inspection in the presence of witnesses. The memorandum statement of accused was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, and a black full pant with bloodstains, nail clippings, and nail scrapings were seized from the accused, however, weapon from which offence was 10 committed i.e. Hasiya, was not produced by him at the time of submission of case diary. The accused was formally arrested and statements from various witnesses were recorded. He admitted that the body of deceased was handed over to the accused after the post- mortem examination for cremation, however, he couldn't say whether the clothes of accused got bloodstains during the cremation. During cross-examination, he stated that he did not find any eyewitness who saw the accused committing the crime and that the guilt of accused was established based on circumstantial evidence. He further admitted that it is possible that people who assisted in lifting the blood-soaked body of deceased, including police personnel, may have gotten bloodstains on their clothes and hands. From perusal of evidence of this witness, it seems that death of homicidal decease is not in dispute, however, author of the crime is concerned, there are variation on the statement of witnesses (most of the important witnesses of the incident being near relatives of the appellant have not supported the case of prosecution and have been declared hostile). 16. From the aforesaid, it seems that the case of prosecution is largely based on circumstantial evidence and the testimony of witnesses who were close relatives of the deceased and the appellant. A critical examination of the evidence reveals serious doubts regarding the narrative set by prosecution and the guilt of appellant. 17. It is profitable here to note following five golden principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in ( 1984) 4 SCC 116 which constitute the ‘panchsheel’ of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and same read as under: 11 “153.…. (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say. they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 18. Reverting back to the case at hand, from the evidence of witnesses, which is primarily circumstantial, it appears that both the appellant and his sister/daughter of the deceased were away from the scene at the 12 time of the incident. The presence and role of the wife of deceased (mother of appellant) have also not been satisfactorily established. Notably, the crucial witnesses, including close family members, have either turned hostile or have failed to support the prosecution story in material respects. The testimonies of key witnesses are riddled with contradictions and omissions relating to the timeline, the sequence of events, and the specific involvement of the appellant. The evidence presented does not conclusively link the appellant as the author of the crime. The delay in lodging the FIR further casts a shadow on the reliability of the case of prosecution. The unexplained and belated filing of the complaint suggests possible afterthought or fabrication. 19. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Nandu Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) reported in (2022) 19 SCC 301 has held in para 9 which reads as under:- “9. In a case based on substantial evidence, motive assumes great significance. It is not as if motive alone becomes the crucial link in the case to be established by the prosecution and in its absence the case of prosecution must be discarded. But, at the same time, complete absence of motive assumes a different complexion and such absence definitely weighs in favour of the accused.” 20. Applying the above principle to the present case, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant had any motive whatsoever to commit the murder of the deceased. The complete 13 absence of motive, coupled with the failure to prove discovery or any other incriminating circumstance, seriously weakens the prosecution and weighs in favour of the accused. The prosecution has failed to establish the essential ingredients of Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt, namely, the intention of appellant (mens rea) and the act of causing death (actus reus). The circumstances indicate that if any injury was inflicted, it may not have been with a deliberate intention to cause death. The medical evidence confirms that the death was homicidal in nature, caused by multiple incised wounds. However, this fact alone does not suffice to hold the appellant responsible in the absence of direct or reliable evidence proving his guilt. The Investigating Officers have admitted that there was no eyewitness to the commission of the offence, and the entire prosecution case rests on circumstantial evidence and confessions recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 21. In view of the above precedents, laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, it is ample clear that the prosecution has not been able to establish the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence primarily consists of circumstantial facts, which do not conclusively link the appellant to the commission of the crime. Key prosecution witnesses, including close relatives of the deceased, either turned hostile or failed to support the case of prosecution, creating serious doubts about the reliability and credibility of the entire narrative. Important facts such as the presence of the appellant at the crime scene and his active participation in the murder remain unproved. Additionally, there are 14 significant contradictions and omissions in the testimonies of witnesses. The delay in lodging the FIR and the failure to prove the essential elements of mens rea and actus reus further weaken the case of prosecution. Given these circumstances, the benefit of doubt must be extended to the appellant, leading to the conclusion that the conviction and sentence are unsustainable in law. 22. Accordingly, this appeal stands allowed. 23. The conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 203 of 2012, dated 30.09.2014, are hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 24. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of CR.P.C., the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Cr.P.C. of sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the trial Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. Registry is directed to transmit the lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Shayna