District Durg, Chhattisgarh (In Jail) v. State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhilai
Case Details
Page 1 of 20 (Cr.A.No.943/2018) SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.06.12 18:44:54 +0530 2025:CGHC:22617-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 943 of 2018 {Arising out of judgment dated 20-4-2018 in Sessions Trial No.92/2016 of the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg} Bhanu Kumar Verma, S/o Bharatlal Verma, Aged about 19 years, R/o Nutan Chowk, Near Gatawa Pond, Bhilai-3, Police Station Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh (In Jail) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhilai-3, District Durg, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. Amicus Curiae : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Deepak Kumar Tiwari, JJ. Judgment On Board (09/06/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1.This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20-4-2018 Page 2 of 20 (Cr.A.No.943/2018) passed by the 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, in Sessions Trial No.92/2016, by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life & pay fine of 500/-, in ₹ default, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2.Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 18- 2-2016, at about 4.30 p.m., in front of the house of Sushma Shrivastava at Ekta Nagar, Police Station Bhilai-3, District Durg, the appellant assaulted Surekha Nirmalkar on her stomach by knife by which she suffered grievous injuries and died, and thereby committed the offence. The incident was witnessed by Deep Kumar @ Chiku (PW- 4) & Dhanu @ Bhanu (PW-8) and immediately, Santosh Kumar Nirmalkar (PW-1) – husband of the deceased, reported the matter to the police vide
Legal Reasoning
merg intimation Ex.P-1 and FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-2. Inquest over the dead body of the deceased was conducted vide Ex.P-5. Spot map was prepared by the Investigating Officer vide Ex.P-3 (Crime Details Form). Patwari also prepared spot Page 3 of 20 (Cr.A.No.943/2018) map vide Ex.P-7. Dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Government District Hospital, Durg vide Ex.P-23. Autopsy was conducted by Dr. N.C. Rao & Dr. A.K. Nagdeve (PW-13) vide autopsy report Ex.P-24 in which cause of death was stated to be severe injury in body and heart injury. Memorandum of the accused was recorded vide Ex.P- 9 pursuant to which knife was seized from him vide Ex.P-10. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the FSL, Raipur from where report Ex.P-21 was received according to which blood was found on knife – Art. C, T-shirt – Art. D, full pant – Art. E, and clothes of the deceased – Arts. F1, F-2, F-3, F-4 & F-5, whereas human blood was found on T-shirt – Art. D, full pant – Art. E and clothes of the deceased – Arts. F1, F-2, F-3, F-4 & F-5, and blood group of ‘A’ was found on T-shirt – Art. D. 3.Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and after usual investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Session, Durg Page 4 of 20 (Cr.A.No.943/2018) from where the learned 8th Additional Sessions Judge, Durg received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law where the trial was conducted. 4.The prosecution, in order to prove the offence against the appellant, examined as many as 14 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents Exs.P-1 to P-24. The defence has examined one witness Shivji Singh (DW-1) and brought on record two documents Exs.D-1 & D-2 i.e. the statements of Santosh Nirmalkar and Shishupal Yadav recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. The accused / appellant was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. 5.The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to convict the appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, against which he has preferred this appeal.
Legal Reasoning
6.Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that Page 5 of 20 (Cr.A.No.943/2018) Deep Kumar @ Chiku (PW-4) & Dhanu @ Bhanu (PW-8) are not reliable eyewitnesses and therefore reliance cannot not be placed upon their evidence. Similarly, Shishupal Yadav (PW-2) & Lachchhu @ Laxmi Yadav (PW-3) are also not reliable witnesses. As such, conviction of the appellant cannot be placed upon the evidence of these witnesses who are not reliable witnesses and therefore the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7.Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable
Decision
doubt and the impugned judgment is well merited. He would further submit that the two witnesses Deep Kumar @ Chiku (PW-4) & Dhanu @ Bhanu (PW-8) are reliable eyewitnesses as they have seen the incident and the matter has duly been promptly reported by Santosh Kumar Nirmalkar (PW-1) – husband of the deceased. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Page 6 of 20 (Cr.A.No.943/2018) 8.Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned amicus curiae, would submit that the spot map Ex.P-7 prepared and proved by the Patwari namely Chandra Shekhar Sahu (PW-5) and the spot map (Crime Details Form) Ex.P-3 prepared by the Investigating Officer clearly show that the witnesses could not have seen the incident from where it is alleged to have taken place and the witnesses were not shown in the spot maps Exs.P-7 & P-3 from where they were standing and have seen the incident. He would rely upon the decisions of the Supreme Court in the matters of Shingara Singh v. State of Haryana and another1, Baldev Singh and another v. State of M.P.2, Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and Deficiencies, In Re v. v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others3 and Pratap Singh and another v. State of M.P.4 to buttress his submission. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed.