Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarsinwa, District Ba
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:26106-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 909 of 2021 Dharamdas Manikpuri S/o Mayadas Manikpuri Aged About 45 Years R/o Bhinoda Police Station Sarsinwa, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sarsinwa, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant For Respondent/State For Objector : : : Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, Advocate. Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 20 .06.2025 BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.24 10:40:53 +0530 1. Heard Mr. Mirza Kaisher Beg, learned counsel for the appellant.
Legal Reasoning
Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State and Mr. Pragalbh Sharma, learned counsel, appearing for the objector. 2 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 directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.03.2021, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 18 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Section 302 of the Indian Sentence Rigorous imprisonment (for short, Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year R.I. more. Section 302 of the IPC R.I. for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year R.I. more. Both the sentences shall be run concurrently. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 16.01.2019, in the evening, the complainant, Harvilas Banjare (PW-1), was walking from the village to the main road when a girl named Reena (PW-3) approached him and informed him that Dharmadas Manikpuri was beating a woman near his house with an iron rod. The complainant immediately rushed to Dharmadas Manikpuri's house and saw him hitting a woman (later identified as Laxmin Bai Manikpuri) on the head with a thick iron rod in the alley near his house. Many people around shouted, and Dharmadas fled towards the main road. Upon reaching the scene, the complainant found that Laxmin Bai had severe head injuries. He also saw Basanti Devi lying 3 in her house with severe head injuries and bleeding profusely. They were immediately taken to the hospital, where Laxmin Bai was declared dead. The complainant alleged that Dharmadas had inflicted serious and life- threatening injuries on both women with the iron rod. The incident was witnessed by several people, including Siddhi Agrawal (PW-2). Based on the complainant's report, an FIR (Ex.P/25) was registered for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC, and the investigation began. During the investigation, the dead bodies were subjected to a postmortem examination, and other necessary formalities were completed. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P/26, and his memorandum statement (Ex.P/13) was recorded. The iron rod used in the crime was seized based on the accused's statement. 4. Dead bodies of the deceased were sent for postmortem to the Community Health Centre, Bilaigarh, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.). Dr. Suresh Kumar Khunte (PW-16) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P/20 on Basanti Bai and found following injury:- 1. There was a large lacerated wound on the head, located on the front, back, and left side (Fronto Parieto temporal) of the head, measuring 15 cm in length and 10 cm in width. There were multiple injuries on the head that could not be measured. There was significant bleeding from the affected area. Additionally, there were injuries, including bleeding from the nose and ears. 5. Dr. Suresh Kumar Khunte (PW-16) also conducted postmortem vide Ex.P/19 on Laxmin Bai and found following injuries:- 1. Lacerated wound: 9 cm long, 2.5 cm wide, and 2 cm deep on the forehead. 4 2. Lacerated wound: 10 cm long, 1.5 cm wide, and 2 cm deep on the left side of the face, extending from the nose to the left angle of the mouth. 3. Lacerated wound: 5 cm long, 2 cm wide, and 2.5 cm deep in the mid-parietal area. 4. Lacerated wound: 7 cm long, 2 cm wide, and 2.5 cm deep adjacent to injury 3. 5. Lacerated wound: on the right forearm, measuring 1 cm and 2 cm. Other findings: - Blood clots were present in the nose, mouth, and ears. - Rigor mortis had set in both upper and lower limbs. After examining both the bodies, Dr. Suresh Kumar Khunte (PW-16) opined in his reports (Exs.P/6 & P/7) that the cause of death of the deceased was hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries, which were homicidal in nature. 6. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial from where the learned 3rd Additional Session Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 5 8. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. The appellant has not examined any witnesses in his support nor exhibited any documents. 9. The learned trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 22.03.2021 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. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that although conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidences of Harvilas Banjare (PW-1), Siddhi Agrawal (PW-2), Jagmohan Banjare (PW-4), Damru Tandon (PW-5) and Chandrika Dhritlahre (PW6), who are eyewitnesses of the incident, but their evidence does not inspire confidence and not trustworthy. 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. 6 11. Per-contra, learned State counsel and learned counsel, appearing for the objector 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, after proper appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused, which warrants no interference, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. 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 learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 14. The first question for consideration would be, whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased were homicidal in nature? 15. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Suresh Kumar Khunte (PW-16), who has conducted postmortem on the bodies of the deceased vide Exs.P/19 & P/20, has clearly come to the conclusion that the cause of death of the deceased was hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries, which were homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded 7 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 afÏrm the said finding. 16. The next question for consideration would be, whether the learned trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem reports (Exs.P/6 & P/7) of Dr. Suresh Kumar Khunte (PW-16) who conducted postmortem. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain. 17. In the present case, the homicidal death of the deceased was hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries, which were homicidal in nature which were before death has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidences of Harvilas Banjare (PW-1), Siddhi Agrawal (PW-2), Jagmohan (PW-4), Damru (PW-5) and Chandrika (PW-6), who are the eyewitness of the incident, Dr. Suresh Kumar Khunte (PW-16) and the postmortem reports (Exs.P/6 & P/7) that the death of deceased, namely, Laxmin Bai and Basanti Bai was homicidal in nature. 18. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, 8 conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Harvilas Banjare (PW-1), Siddhi Agrawal (PW-2), Jagmohan (PW-4), Damru (PW-5) and Chandrika (PW-6), who are the eyewitness of the incident and Dr. Suresh Kumar Khunte (PW-16). 19. Smt. Siddhi Agarwal (PW-2), an eyewitness to the incident, testified that she knew the accused, who is from her village and is her neighbour. She also knew the deceased, Laxmin Bai and Basanti Bai, who used to live in her village. On the day of the incident, 16.01.2019, between 4:00 and 5:00 p.m., she was sweeping in front of her house when Chandrika Dhritlahre called out by shouting, “Didi”. Siddhi then saw the accused, Dharamdas, beating the deceased Laxmin Bai. Laxmin Bai had fallen to the ground and was pleading with the accused, saying, “Bhaiya, don't hit her, she will die.” The accused was holding an iron rod and used to hit Laxmin Bai. After hitting her, the accused fled the scene with the rod, stating that he was going to the Police Station. Afterward, when Siddhi entered Basanti's house, she saw that Basanti Bai was lying in a pool of blood. 20. The statement of the witness is corroborated by Chandrika Dhritlahre (PW-6), who testified that she recognizes the accused and knew both the deceased, Laxmin Bai and Basanti Bai, who were murdered. The incident occurred on 16.01.2019, at around 5:00 p.m., when she saw the accused hitting Laxmin Bai with a rod. She called the Siddhi Agrawal, who went screaming towards the scene, while Chandrika herself got scared and retreated inside her house. She witnessed the accused hitting Laxmin Bai twice on the head with the rod. In cross- examination, Chandrika admitted that her house and the accused's house 9 are opposite each other, with the accused's house being divided into two parts - one where Dharamdas lived and the other where Laxmin Bai and Basanti Bai resided. She also stated that Basanti Bai and the accused had separate houses and doors, and the accused's vehicle was parked in front of his house, which obstructed the view of the incident from Siddhi's house. Chandrika clearly stated that she had called out to Siddhi. Chandrika confirmed that she was sweeping on the balcony above her house when the incident occurred. She denied that it was dark at the time, stating that it was evening. She admitted that there was a scufÒe between Dharamdas and Laxmin Bai when she saw them, but denied that Laxmin Bai fell due to the scufÒe, instead stating that she fell after the accused attacked her with the rod. Chandrika also stated that she was unaware of any dispute between the accused and the deceased. 21. Another eyewitness, Jagmohan Banjare (PW-4), testified that he knew Laxmin Bai, Basanti Bai, and the accused. The incident occurred on 16.01.2019, at 4:00 p.m. He saw the accused, Dharamdas Manikpuri, near a house near Ambedkar Chowk in village Bhinoda, hitting Basanti Bai and another woman (whose name he didn't know) with a rod. When they shouted, the accused left the woman and fled away from the scene, throwing the rod into a field on the left side between Peepar Dula and Bhinodi village. The witness stated that the accused had hit both the deceased, Basanti Bai and Laxmin Bai, with an iron rod on the head, chest, and stomach. He saw that both were severely injured and were subsequently taken to Bilaigarh Hospital. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that the accused's vehicle was parked in front of his house and that the houses of Laxmin Bai and the accused were nearby. 10 He also stated that the Gautin Devi temple was approximately 1.5 kilometers away from the incident site. The witness claimed he was unaware that the accused and his family members were at the Gautin Devi temple on the incident date. Jagmohan denied the suggestion that after the police arrived, it was found that Basanti Bai was lying dead in her room and that he didn't see the accused hitting both deceased. 22. Damru Tandon (PW-5), another eyewitness to the incident, testified that he recognizes the accused and knew both the deceased. The incident occurred on 16.01.2019, at around 4:00 p.m. The accused, Dharamdas, hit Laxmin Bai with an iron rod on her head, chest, and side of the stomach. Jagmohan was also present with him at that time. Afterward, Damru and Jagmohan approached Laxmin Bai and attempted to give her water. When they went inside, they found Basanti's head injured, and her entire body was covered in blood. Subsequently, they taken the Laxmin Bai and Basanti to Bilaigarh Hospital in a pickup vehicle, where both were declared dead after examination by the Doctors. They then informed the family members of Laxmin Bai and Basanti Bai, and the dead bodies remained at the hospital until the next day, when postmortem examinations were conducted. In cross-examination, the witness acknowledged that there are houses belonging to Mohanlal, Budhara Bai, Mayadas, and Reena Bai near the incident site, with Nandlal's house situated in front of it. The witness denied the suggestion that the incident site is 1.5 kilometers away from Ambedkar Chowk. He confirmed that when the police arrived, Laxmin Bai was lying outside the house, and Basanti Bai was inside. This witness also denied the suggestion that he and Jagmohan were not present when the police arrived. 11 23. According to the statement of another eyewitness, Harvilas Banjare (PW-1), he knew the accused, who is a resident of his village, Bhinoda. He also knew the deceased, Laxmin Bai and Basanti Bai, with Laxmin Bai being his mother-in-law and Basanti Bai being his wife's aunt. He further stated that on 16.01.2019, at around 4:30 p.m., while he was heading to the shop, he encountered Kumari Reena, who had witnessed the incident and rushed to him, informing him that the accused, Dharamdas, was beating the deceased. Harvilas then ran to the scene with his wife and saw Dharamdas hitting Laxmin Bai's head and chest with an iron rod. The villagers shouted, prompting Dharamdas to flee with the rod while abusing them. Afterward, Harvilas went to Basanti's house and found her lying unconscious on a cot with a head injury and bleeding. Other villagers, including Jagmohan Banjare, Damru Tandon, Siddhi Agrawal, Chandrika, and Reena, had witnessed the incident and informed him about it. Harvilas reported the incident to Sarsiva police station. In his cross- examination, Harvilas denied the suggestion that he had found Laxmin Bai lying unconscious when he reached the scene, instead he stated that he had seen the accused beating her. He confirmed that Basanti was lying unconscious on the cot when he visited her house. Harvilas also denied the suggestion that he was not present at the scene and had lodged a false report. 24. Dr. Suresh Kumar Khunte (PW-16), who conducted postmortem vide Exs.P/19 & P/20 found injuries as stated in paragraphs 04 and 05 of this appeal and he opined that the cause of death of the deceased, namely, Laxmin Bai and Basanti Bai was hemorrhagic shock due to head injuries, which were homicidal in nature. 12 25. Now, the question is, whether the prosecution has discharged its initial or general burden or primary duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 26. In this regard, the learned trial Court observed that according to the prosecution witnesses’ testimonies, it has been proven that Laxmin Bai and Basanti Devi Manikpuri died due to head injuries caused by an iron rod on the date of the incident, which is corroborated by medical evidence indicating a homicidal nature of death. Eyewitnesses, Harvilas (PW-1), Siddhi Agrawal (PW-2), Jagmohan (PW-4), Damru (PW-5) and Chandrika (PW-6) have testified that accused killed Laxmin Bai and Basanti Devi with iron rod. The witnesses’ cross-examination did not reveal any facts that would make their statements unreliable. The Investigating OfÏcer seized the rod based on the accused's memorandum, which was confirmed by the memorandum and seizure witnesses. Human blood was found on the soil, rod, and the victims’ clothes seized from the crime scene. Moreover, the seized articles were sent for FSL examination and the FSL report (Ex.P/35) is found to be positive as the blood was found on all the articles. This indicates that the accused intentionally caused injuries to Laxmin Bai and Basanti Devi Manikpuri with the iron rod, demonstrating their intent to kill and knowledge that striking the head with the rod would likely cause death. Further, there is no explanation could be given by the accused as to how the human blood was found on his clothes. On the basis of all the above circumstances and the statements of the eyewitnesses of the incident etc., it is established beyond doubt that the incident has been committed by the accused. 13 27. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that, 1. death of deceased, Laxmin Bai and Basanti Bai was homicidal in nature; 2. it is the appellant who has murdered the deceased by hitting on the head of deceased with iron rod. 28. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in its judgment, the fact that the appellant has not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the statements of the eyewitness, Harvilas (PW-1), Siddhi Agrawal (PW-2), Jagmohan (PW-4), Damru (PW-5) and Chandrika (PW-6) disclosing the fact that the accused/appellant had killed Laxmin Bai and Basanti Devi with the help of iron rod, therefore, the act of the accused/appellant hitting the deceased on the head with the help of iron rod clearly shows the intention of the accused/appellant to kill the deceased, Laxmin Bai and Basanti Bai. For this reason, it is clearly and reliably established that it was the accused/appellant, who caused the death of the deceased by hitting on the head of the deceased and in this regard, there is no defence on the part of the accused/appellant during 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 learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 and 302 of the IPC. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 14 29.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 30. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 31. 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. 32. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the learned trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan