Sarguja, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:40756-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1297 of 2023 Chhote Somaru S/o Rijhu Ram Korwa, Aged About 65 Years R/o. Village Gorya Pipar, Thana - Darima, District – Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Darima, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent/State : : Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, Advocate. Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 13 .08.2025 1. Heard Mr. Deepak Kumar Jain, learned counsel for the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
Also heard Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.14 18:16:30 +0530 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is 2 directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.05.2023, passed by the learned Session Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur), District Sarguja (C.G.) in Session Case No. 113 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 302 of the Indian Rigorous imprisonment (for short, Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months R.I. more. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.01.2021, the complainant, Jitan Ram (PW-9), appeared at Police Station Darima and lodged a report to the effect that his brother, Babunath, who resided at Goreya Peepar, had been killed. It was informed to him by Babunath’s son, who had come to their village Khirhir, that his father had been assaulted with an axe by his uncle, Chhote Somaru, in front of the house. Upon receiving the said information, the complainant, along with other family members, proceeded to the house of Chhote Somaru at Goreya Peepar and found the dead body of Babunath lying in the courtyard, with a large quantity of blood present at the scene. A grievous axe injury was visible on the head of the deceased. The complainant was further informed by the wife of the deceased that, earlier in the day, Chhote Somaru had come to call Babunath, whereupon the two of them had gone to his house and consumed liquor. At that time, Somari (PW-3) had also been present there. The 3 accused and the deceased were discussing a land dispute when, all of a sudden, the appellant, Chhote Somaru, assaulted the deceased with an axe and thereafter fled from the spot. On the basis of the said report, a merg intimation was recorded at Police Station Darima vide Ex.P/10. Thereafter, an FIR was registered against the appellant for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC vide Ex.P/11. 4. During the course of investigation, notices were issued to the witnesses as per Ex.P/3, and an inquest panchnama of the dead body was prepared vide Ex.P/4. A spot map of the scene of occurrence was prepared as per Ex.P/12. From the spot, one pair of slippers belonging to the deceased, a blood-stained scarf, and samples of blood-stained soil were seized vide Ex.P/5. The appellant was arrested in accordance with the arrest panchnama, Ex.P/8. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/6), the axe used in the commission of the offence was recovered vide seizure memo, Ex.P/7. The site map, Ex.P/12, was also prepared. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination to the Community Health Centre, Darima through Constable No. 904, Jageshwar, along with a requisition letter, Ex.P/13. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The seized property was forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, through the Superintendent of Police, Sarguja, for chemical examination, and the FSL report was received vide Ex.P/15. 5. The dead body of the deceased was forwarded for postmortem examination to the Community Health Centre, Darima, District Sarguja 4 (C.G.). The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-1), who prepared the postmortem report, marked as Ex.P/1. Upon examination, Dr. Singh opined that the cause of death was failure of the cardiac and respiratory systems, resulting from the incised wound present on the body of the deceased. He further opined that the nature of death was homicidal and that the time since death was within 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. 6. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the competent jurisdictional criminal Court. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Sessions Judge, Sarguja (Ambikapur), District Sarguja (C.G.), for trial, hearing, and disposal in accordance with law. 7. The learned trial Court framed a charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial thereafter commenced. The appellant pleaded not guilty, asserting false implication, and denied any involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 09 witnesses and produced 17 documents, which were duly exhibited. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence, nor did he produce any documentary evidence. 9. Upon conclusion of the trial and after appreciation of the oral and 5 documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by its impugned judgment dated 18.05.2023, convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed in paragraph 02 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant, with considerable emphasis, submitted that the conviction rests predominantly upon the testimony of Somari (PW-3), the wife of the deceased and, therefore, an interested witness, who has been projected by the prosecution as an eyewitness to the incident. It was contended that her testimony is fraught with inherent improbabilities, suffers from material inconsistencies, and lacks the degree of credibility necessary to inspire judicial confidence. Consequently, it was argued, the conviction founded solely or substantially upon such testimony is legally unsustainable, inadmissible, and stands vitiated. Learned counsel further urged that the prosecution’s case, when evaluated in its entirety, is beset with suspicion and fails to meet the stringent standard of proof required to sustain a conviction for the grave charge of murder. On these premises, it was submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside, and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all charges levelled against him. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. It was submitted that 6 the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent, credible, and convincing evidence. Learned State counsel further contended that the material available on record clearly connects the appellant with the commission of the offence, and that the testimony of Somari (PW-3) finds substantial corroboration from the medical and circumstantial evidence. It was urged that the learned trial Court, after a due and proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, has recorded well-reasoned findings culminating in the conviction and sentence of the appellant. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted with the judgment under challenge, and the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, carefully considered their rival submissions, and also perused the original record of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case. 14. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature ? 15. The learned trial Court, while recording its findings, placed reliance on the testimony of Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-1), who had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and prepared 7 the report marked as Ex.P/1. Dr. Singh unequivocally opined that the cause of death was failure of the cardiac and respiratory systems, consequent to the incised wound found on the body of the deceased. He further stated that the nature of death was homicidal. The finding of the learned trial Court in this regard stands firmly supported by the medical evidence on record and is neither perverse nor contrary to the material available. Significantly, this finding has not been seriously challenged by learned counsel for the appellant. We, therefore, see no ground to interfere with the said finding and accordingly affirm it. 16. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in concluding that the appellant was the author of the crime, in light of the following circumstances: (i) The prosecution has successfully proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, as borne out from the postmortem report (Ex.P/1) prepared by Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-1), who conducted the autopsy. (ii) According to the prosecution, the fact of the deceased’s death was within the knowledge of the appellant. However, in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant failed to furnish any explanation with regard to this incriminating circumstance. In such a situation, the burden of offering a plausible explanation, which rested upon the appellant, has remained undischarged. 17. In the present case, the fact that the deceased met a homicidal death, caused by failure of the cardiac and respiratory systems 8 consequent to the incised wound found on his body, has not been substantially disputed by the appellant. On the contrary, the homicidal nature of death stands conclusively established through the ocular testimony of Somari (PW-3), the wife of the deceased and an eyewitness to the incident, as well as through the medical evidence of Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-1) and the postmortem report (Ex. P/1). 18. As regards the complicity of the appellant in the commission of the crime, his conviction rests substantially on the ocular testimony of Somari (PW-3), an eyewitness to the incident, whose evidence finds material corroboration in the medical testimony of Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-1). Her deposition has remained consistent and free from material contradictions, and is found to be trustworthy. The same stands duly supported by the medical evidence and other circumstantial material brought on record. 19. Somari (PW-3), the wife of the deceased and an eyewitness to the incident, deposed that the appellant is her father-in-law and the deceased, Babunath, was her husband. About one year prior to the incident, at around 8:00 a.m., the appellant called her husband to his house, stating that liquor was available and that he would give him some. She also accompanied her husband. In the courtyard of the appellant’s house, the appellant, his wife, the witness herself, and the deceased consumed some liquor. Thereafter, a dispute arose between the appellant and the deceased over land. She further stated that while she was returning to her house with a bicycle and had reached near 9 Kanwar’s house, Babunath shouted that the appellant had attacked him with an axe. She immediately ran towards the spot and caught hold of Babunath, whereupon the appellant again struck him with the axe, causing both of them to fall to the ground. She stated that the appellant continued swinging the axe; she then got up and ran, and the appellant chased her. When she later returned, she found her husband dead. She noticed injuries on the back of his head, his temple, and his cheek, from which blood was oozing. She also stated that she sent her son, Andhu, to inform the deceased’s grandparents about the incident. In her cross- examination, she admitted that it was the appellant who had called her husband to his house. She further stated that she reached the appellant’s house about five minutes after her husband and found both the appellant and her husband sitting together. She denied the suggestion that, when she reached the spot from Kanwar’s house, her husband was already dead; instead, she volunteered that she had caught and shaken him, and at that time he was alive. She admitted, however, that when she tried to speak to him, he did not respond and became unconscious. She admitted that the place where her husband fell was surrounded by the courtyard, but denied that the incident could not be seen from outside. She specifically denied the suggestion that, after consuming liquor, her husband had gone somewhere in a tractor, fallen, sustained severe injuries, and had been brought home by the appellant. She also categorically denied that the deceased’s death was the result of such a fall. 20. From the above testimony, it clearly emerges that it was the 10 appellant who assaulted Babunath with an axe, thereby causing the injuries that resulted in his death. 21. Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-1), who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and submitted the report marked as Ex. P/1, opined that the cause of death was failure of the cardiac and respiratory systems, consequent to the incised wound found on the body of the deceased. He further stated that the nature of death was homicidal. 22. The Investigating Officer/Retired Deputy Superintendent of Police, Salim Tigga (PW-6), stated that after taking the appellant into custody and interrogating him in the presence of witnesses, the appellant disclosed that the axe used in the incident was hidden beneath the thatch roof of his house and that he could produce it. Accordingly, a memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded as per Ex.P/6, and thereafter, from under the thatch roof of the grain storage shed, the appellant produced an iron axe with a wooden handle, which had stains resembling blood. This axe was seized from the appellant under seizure memo Ex.P/7. The fact of recovery of the said axe based on the appellant’s memorandum statement was fully supported by seizure witness Shanichar (PW-2), who testified that upon interrogation, the appellant stated that the axe with which he assaulted Babunath was kept at his house and would be produced, and that the police seized it in his presence. Although the other seizure witness, Ramsay (PW-5), did not support the recovery of the axe, the recovery was nonetheless 11 duly proved through the consistent testimony of Shanichar (PW-2). 23. The Investigating Officer further stated that from the scene of occurrence, he seized one pair of blue-coloured slippers belonging to the deceased Babunath, a green gamchha stained with blood, and both blood-stained and plain soil, under seizure memo Ex.P/5. The seizure witnesses, Shanichar (PW-2) and Ramsay (PW-5), corroborated this recovery, and their testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination. 24. Although the Investigating Officer did not send the seized axe to the Doctor who conducted the postmortem for an opinion on whether it could have caused the head injury, the unshaken testimony of eyewitness Somari (PW-3), wife of the deceased, proved beyond doubt that the appellant used an iron axe to commit the offence. The memorandum statement (Ex.P/6) and the consequent seizure of the axe were duly supported by witnesses, thereby establishing the recovery based on the appellant’s disclosure. The Investigating Officer also sent the axe to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. 25. According to the FSL report (Ex.P/15), human blood was detected on the deceased’s slippers (Article-A), the gamchha (Article-B), and the blood-stained soil (Article-C) seized from the spot, as well as on the iron axe (Article-E) recovered from the appellant. However, owing to decomposition, the origin of the blood on the axe could not be determined. When confronted with these incriminating circumstances during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant 12 merely stated, “I do not know.” In the absence of any plausible explanation, this circumstance also stands proved against him. 26. Upon a careful consideration of the prosecution evidence, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, the absence of any explanation from the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and in particular the consistent and credible testimony of Somari (PW-3), who categorically deposed that the appellant repeatedly assaulted the deceased with an axe, this Court finds that the appellant acted with the clear intention to cause death. The repeated blows with the axe evince a deliberate and conscious design to kill. In the absence of any credible defence, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, as recorded by the learned trial Court, calls for no interference and is affirmed. 27. For these reasons, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is dismissed. 28. The appellant, presently in judicial custody, shall continue to serve the sentence imposed by the learned trial Court. 29. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his sentence. The Superintendent shall serve the same upon the appellant and inform them that he is at liberty to challenge this judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, if so advised. 13 30. Let a certified copy of this judgment, along with the original record, be transmitted to the learned trial Court forthwith for information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan