Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:23767-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 929 of 2021 Anand Prasad Cherwa S/o Alam Sai Aged About 21 Years Occupation Cultivator / Labour, Resident Of Village Balsedi, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja Chhattisgarh., District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh versus ... Appellant State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Gandhinagar, District Surguja Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. J.K.Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent/State : 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 13/06/2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the impugned judgment dated 07.08.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, in Sessions Trial No. 5/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: 2 Conviction Sentence Fine In default of Under Section payment of fine 302 of the Indian Life Rs. 1,000/- 3 months Penal Code (for imprisonment short, the IPC) additional Simple Imprisonment (for short, the SI) 201 of the IPC Rigorous Rs. 1,000/- 3 months imprisonment for 1 year additional SI Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 03.12.2019, Alok (PW-1), son of Rambharosh (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’), appeared at the Gandhinagar Police Station and informed that his father had gone out of the house for a walk in the village on 01.12.2019 which was Sunday at 12:00 noon. After drinking alcohol in the village, in an inebriated state, at around 4:00 p.m., Baudha @ Vivek (PW-8) took the deceased from the Prabhu's house near the Mahua tree to the house of Khatmal @ Anand's house for water, after which the deceased was never seen. He inquired about his father in the neighbourhood, village and among relatives but could not find him. On 03.12.2019 at about 7.00 a.m., he and his mother Munni Bai (PW-3) along with other relatives went to appellant’s house to look for his father but his father was not found there but blood stains were seen on the forest path at some distance from appellant’s house. On seeing this, on going towards the forest, the dead body of deceased was found lying in the forest near Kulhani Chowk with injuries on the head, face and mouth. On the above report filed by the informant, a Merg Intimation (Exhibit P/1) was recorded at Police Station, Gandhi Nagar and the matter was investigated. 3. During the inquest proceedings, the body panchanama was prepared by giving notice of Exhibit P-10 to the witnesses for the body panchanama 3 and Exhibit P-11 was prepared. The body of the deceased was sent to Medical College Hospital, Ambikapur for postmortem with the application (Exhibit P-12). The spot map of the incident was prepared vide Exhibit P- 3. Blood stained soil, plain soil and a plastic bag were seized from the scene of crime in presence of witnesses as per Exhibit P-8 and statements of witnesses were also recorded. 4. On the basis of statements of witnesses and further investigation by the Investigating OfÏcer, when doubt was expressed upon the appellant/accused, on 04.12.2019 the appellant was questioned about the incident. The appellant told that on 01.12.2019 he and Vivek @ Baudha (PW-8), after consuming Hadiya liquor had gone to Ambikapur, Namnakala on Bablu's scooty to collect their outstanding wages. On not getting the money there, the three came back to Balsedi on the scooty where Bablu left them near the school and went away. Then these people were going home on foot. On the way, deceased was found in a drunken state near a Mahua tree and asked for water. Then Vivek (PW-8) took him to his house nearby and gave him water to drink and then went to his home. After some time, the deceased started abusing the appellant and did not listen to him even after his objection. Then in anger he hit the deceased twice on the back of his neck with an axe lying nearby due to which deceased died. Then he put his body in a plastic bag and hid it in the garden and covered the blood that had fallen on the spot with cow dung. Thereafter at 11.00 p.m. he loaded the deceased’s body on a cycle and took it out of the sack and laid it in the Balsedi jungle and folded the sack and hid it in the bushes. After coming home he folded his clothes and jeans and hid the cycle in the house and the tangi in the banana plantation behind the house and fled from the house. On the above information given by the appellant, the memorandum statement of 4 the appellant was recorded as per Exhibit P-6 and on presenting by the appellant, the seizure of the iron tangi, jeans pant and cycle was done in presence of the witnesses as per Exhibit P-7. Thereafter, on finding that
Legal Reasoning
the appellant had committed the crime, an FIR bearing No. 283/2019 was registered against him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code at Police Station, Ambikapur (Dehat) Gandhinagar, as per Exhibit P-14. The appellant was arrested as per the arrest panchnama Exhibit P-9. A site map of the crime scene was prepared by the Patwari. The seized crow bar was examined and sent to the Medical OfÏcer, Community Health Center, Dhaurpur for giving a query report from where a query report Exhibit P-15 was received. The seized items were sent to FSL, Ambikapur, through Superintendent of Police, Surguja for chemical testing from where the report of Exhibit P-17 was received. Thereafter, a charge-sheet was prepared against the appellant for the offences under Sections 302, 201 of the IPC and presented in the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Ambikapur, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 2571/2019, however, the said case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja and the matter was registered as Sessions Trial No. 5/2020, vide order dated 04.01.2020. 5. The learned trial Judge framed charges on 17.02.2020 charging the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The appellant/convict denied the charges and prayed for trial. 6. Amongst others, the prosecution has exhibited as many as 17 exhibits in support of their case and further, to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely, Alok (PW-1), Hublal (PW-2), Munni Bai (PW-3), Tarunkanta (PW-4), Tiger Kanhaiya (PW-5), Manoj 5 Singh (PW-6), Anil Sonwani (PW-7), Vivek @ Baudha (PW-8), Dr. S.K.Bagh (PW-9) and Rahul Tiwari (PW-10). 7. The statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC were recorded on 15.03.2021 and 02.08.2021. He stated that he was innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. 8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 9.
Legal Reasoning
Mr. J.K.Saxena, learned counsel for the petitioner submits that there is no eye witness to the alleged incident. The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence and last seen theory. There are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the witnesses and the chain of circumstances are missing and not complete. The memorandum witnesses have not supported the prosecution and have turned hostile. There was no motive for the appellant to commit murder of the deceased and the learned trial Judge has erred by holding the appellant guilty of the offence on the basis of evidence of interested witnesses. As such, the appellant deserves to be acquitted. 10. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the prosecution has fully established that it was the appellant alone who had committed the crime in question. Minor variations in the deposition of the witnesses cannot shake the credibility of the statement of the witnesses. The medical evidence clearly supports the case of the prosecution. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court being just and proper, needs no interference. 6 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which is evident from the postmortem report (Exhibit P/12B) wherein Dr. S.K.Bagh (PW-9) has found the following injuries: “1. Incised wound present on nape of neck (posterior aspect of neck) at the C5 level 5 c.m. x .5 c.m x 2 c.m. deep. 2. Incised wound on in between inter-scapular region at C7 level. Vertically oblique directed. Size 5x.5x3 c.m. deem Injury No. 3. Chop wound present on back of neck at the level C2, C3, C4, size 5x3x7c.m deep underlying structure cervical spinal cord. Completely transacted esophagus, trachea also got injured. Ecchymosis present on wound margin. Clear cut sharp, slicing effect present upward directed.” 13. The Doctor has opined that the death was due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of chop wound on neck and the duration of injury was within 12 hours prior to death. Injuries No. 1, 2 and 3 were caused with hard sharp object. Injury on neck was sufÏcient to cause death in an ordinary course of nature and the nature of death was homicidal. 14. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Bagh (PW-9) who has conducted postmortem has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded 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 7 not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby afÏrm the said finding. 15. The FIR (Exhibit P/14A) was registered on the basis of the merg intimation (Exhibit P/1) given by Alok (PW-1) son of the deceased, when the dead body of the deceased was found in a forest. This witness has deposed before the learned trial Court that he was informed by Vivek @ Baudha (PW-8) that he had seen the deceased in the house of the appellant where the deceased drank water. He had tried to explain the motive for commission of the crime as this witness had married to a girl who was the neighbour of the appellant and there was animosity between his family and the family of the appellant. 16. Hublal (PW-2) is the witness of memorandum (Exhibit P/6) and seizure of axe and bi-cycle used in commission of the crime and also seizure of plain soil and blood stained soil from the place of incident. 17. Munni Bai (PW-3) is the wife of the deceased. She has also deposed that there was some dispute between her husband and the appellant and because of which she had raised suspicion upon the appellant when the deceased went missing. She had asked the mother of the appellant as to where her husband was as the deceased had consumed water in the house of the appellant. Similar deposition has been made by the witness Tiger Kanhaiya (PW-5) who is the another son of the deceased, that he was informed by Vivek @ Baudha (PW-8) that his father was seen in the house of the appellant who had gone to drink water. 18. The most important witness in this case is Vivek @ Baudha (PW-8) who had deposed that after consuming liquor, he met the deceased on the way who asked him to give him water to drink. Then he alongwith the 8 appellant took the deceased to the house of the appellant and gave him water to drink. The deceased lie there in the verandah and at about 4 p.m. he left the deceased in the house of the appellant and returned to his home. Thereafter, he never saw the deceased. This fact was narrated by this witness to the sons of the deceased when they were searching the deceased as he had not returned back to his home. 19. In the memorandum (Exhibit P/6) wherein the appellant had stated that when Vivek @ Baudha (PW-8) left the deceased at his home, the deceased was in an inebriated condition and was hurling abuses to the appellant. The appellant objected to it but as the deceased was in a drunken condition, he did not stop and in fit of anger, he assaulted the deceased with an axe with and when the deceased died, he kept the dead body in a plastic sack and hid the same in his kitchen garden. He further informed that after commission of the crime, he covered the ground with cow dung to hide the blood stains and in the night, he took the body to the forest and laid on the ground. At his instance, the axe used for commission of the crime, clothes worn and the bi-cycle were recovered and seized vide Exhibit P/7. 20. The seized axe was sent to the Doctor by the Police raising certain queries (Exhibit P/15A) and in response, Dr. Bagh (PW-9) has answered the queries in afÏrmative that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the axe and such injuries were sufÏcient to cause death, vide Exhibit P/15. 21. The seized articles were sent to the FSL for chemical examination and the FSL report (Exhibit P/17) states that human blood was found in Articles A, C1, C2, F and G which are blood stained soil, Shirt and T- Shirt of deceased, Axe recovered from the appellant and Jeans pant of 9 the appellant. The appellant could not offer any explanation as to how blood came to be found in the axe and his clothes. 22. The seizure of weapon of assault from the accused/appellant, presence of blood in that weapon and clothes of the appellant, the query report and the statement of the prosecution witnesses especially Vivek @ Baudha (PW-8) who had seen the deceased alive last alongwith the appellant, and presence of motive for commission of the offence, leads to only one conclusion that has been arrived at by the learned trial Court. 23. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/convict. 24. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 25. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2021. 26. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences 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. 10 27. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) JUDGE Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.13 19:40:12 +0530