Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.04 17:35:23 +0530 2025:CGHC:30459-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1610 of 2024 Dayashankar Shukla S/o Krishna Kumar Shukla Aged About 37 Years R/o Village Korar, P.S. Korar, District - Kanker (C.G.) Present Address - C.A.F., Bne Company Camp, Farsegarh, District - Bijapur (C.G.) versus ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Farsegarh District - Bijapur (C.G.) ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Priya Mishra, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Chief Justice Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.07.2025 1. Heard Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing on behalf of the State/respondent. 2. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of 2 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.52/2020, whereby the trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 months and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months and life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months and it was further directed that both the sentences were run concurrently. 3. The brief description of the prosecution story is as follows : according to the complainant Lalit Gangber, on 01.02.2020, in the camp, between 07:00 - 07:30 PM, there was an argument between two soldiers, namely C/250 Raviranjan Singh and C/412
Facts
Dayashankar Shukla, due to which Dayashankar Shukla fired indiscriminately on Raviranjan Singh with his issued service rifle with an intention to kill him, on account of which, Raviranjan Singh died on the spot. At the same time, another soldier C/489, who was going to eat food, sustained injuries by a bullet below the knee of his right leg and immediately after that Dayashankar Shukla has attempted to commit suicide by shooting himself. On the basis of 3 information given by the Bhaiyo Ekka (PW-4), investigation was started by registering a case intimation (Ex.P/07) and First Information Report (Ex.P/02) at Farsegarh Police Station. During the investigation, a visual map of the crime scene (Ex.P/08) was prepared and the statements of witnesses were recorded. A visual map of the crime scene was obtained from the local Patwari. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted at Pandit Jawahar Lal Nehru Medical College, Raipur, whose postmortem report is Ex.P/24. The medical report of the injured Mohammad Sharif (PW- 13) is Ex.P/21. The medical report of the accused Dayashankar Shukla is Ex.P/22. 100 grams each of plain soil and blood-soaked soil were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/04. On the presentation of witness Narayan Singh, the issued service rifle of the accused was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/03. On the presentation of witness Okesh Mandavi, 01 bullet taken out from the body of deceased Raviranjan Singh from Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital Raipur was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/10. On the presentation of witness Jitendra Sidar, 04 live rounds were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/11. The seized articles was sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical testing and the same were sent to Jagdalpur (CG) and State Forensic Science Laboratory Raipur (CG) and the FSL reports are Ex.P/16 to Ex.P/18, which found to be positive. Thereafter, the accused was arrested in the offence in question. 4. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 4 161 of Cr.P.C. and, after due investigation, the police filed charge- sheet in the concerned jurisdictional Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, which was transferred to the Court of Second Additional Sessions Judge, Dantewada, District South Bastar Dantewada (C.G.) for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 5. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellants for the offence punishable under Sections 307, 324 and 302 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 in the crime in question. 6. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 19 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-19 and exhibited 24 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/24, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 7. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 27.06.2024, acquitted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 307 of the IPC and convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 5 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by him calling in question the impugned judgment. 8.
Legal Reasoning
It is well settled that conviction can be based on the testimony of a sole eyewitness, even without corroboration, if the court finds the witness to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. However, the Court must carefully scrutinize the testimony to ensure it is free from any suspicion or contradiction, and that the witness is credible and consistent with the circumstances of the case. There is no legal requirement that a conviction must be supported by multiple 8 witnesses or corroborating evidence. A single, reliable eyewitness can be sufficient for a conviction. The court assesses the credibility of the witness, not just the quantity of witnesses. 15. In the present case, there are two eye-witness to the incident, in which one is the injured eye-witness namely Mohd. Sharif and his deposition would be of much relevance. The sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. 16. In Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355, the Hon’ble Supreme Court observed as under:- “26. When the evidence of an injured eye- witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an 9 injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.” 17. In the present case, homicidal death on account of hemorrhagic shock due to firearm injuries and the nature of death is homicidal has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Dr. M. Nirala (PW-19) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/24) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 10 18. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Dr. M. Nirala (PW-19) as well as the evidence of eye-witness i.e. Sanjeev Kumar Singh (PW-5) and injured eye-witness Mohd. Sharif (PW-13). 19. Constable Sanjeev Kumar Singh (PW-5) has stated in his deposition that he knew the accused and deceased Raviranjan Singh. He was a constable in Central Armed Force (‘CAF’). The incident took place at about 07:00-07:15 in the night. At that time, after having dinner, the four Soldiers were washing their tiffins near the tank. At that relevant time, Constable Praveen Tiwari came and stated that Raviranjan Singh was calling them and they should go quickly. After keeping the tiffins in the barrack, when he was about 20-25 feet away from the police station, he was going towards Raviranjan Singh's barrack and heard the sound of firing. It was seen that accused Dayashankar Shukla was firing at Raviranjan Singh from a weapon near a tree, Raviranjan immediately fell on the ground and was moving forward on his stomach, then the accused was shooting him, Raviranjan's body was bouncing a little from the ground, the accused was watching the incident from the side behind the pillar of the verandah. After waiting for a few moments, the accused sat with his back near barrack No.04 and then started shooting Raviranjan Singh, after that after 10-15 seconds, he used to put his own rifle on his chin and remove it before firing, he did the same thing 03-04 times, out of which 01 bullet hit his shoulder and 11 the rest of the bullets hit the wall and the last bullet passed through his chin and came out from above the nose. After 01 minute, he became calm and thereafter, he reached to the spot and saw that Raviranjan’s eyes were moving up and down, the accused's rifle was lying there; it was leaning against the wall, covered in blood. At the same time, the people of the camp also came and they lifted Raviranjan from there and took him to the veranda of the camp and checked where all the bullets had hit his body, his undergarment was soaked in blood, when the undergarment was removed and examined, there were 03-04 bullet marks, there were 03 bullet marks on his chest. At the same time, Constable Mohd. Sharif shouted that there was a bullet in his leg. Thereafter, the Doctor came and after examining declared Raviranjan Singh dead. He further deposed that the police came and Raviranjan Singh, Mohd. Sharif and Dayashankar Shukla were taken to Bijapur District Hospital by the Guards of his camp. The accused's used rifle was lying at the scene of the incident which was picked up by the head constable of his camp Amarpal Jangde and kept in the police station, which was confiscated by the police. 20. Likewise, Constable Mohd. Sharif (PW-13) has stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident, he returned to the camp at about 05:00-05:30 PM and accused Dayashankar Shukla came to his barrack. At that time, the deceased Raviranjan Singh was sitting on the cot and was eating and drinking alcohol. The accused asked the deceased to return his Bluetooth speaker. The deceased 12 abused the accused and stated that if he assaulted him like he did earlier, he will die. Hearing this, the accused went to his barrack and after some time, the accused came in front of his barrack. An argument could be heard between the deceased and the accused. At that time, he was eating. He heard the sound of a gunshot. At that time, the boys who were there started running here and there. He was coming out from another door. He was also shot in the right leg due to which he fell down. He was picked up and taken to another barrack. He was taken to Bijapur Hospital for proper treatment. Later, he came to knew that both Dayashankar Shukla and Raviranjan had fired at each other. 21. Dr. Deepika Sinha (PW-17), who examined the injured Mohd. Sharif (PW-13) has stated in her evidence that upon examination, she found following injuries:- “There was a bullet entry mark on his right leg, the size of which was 1×1 cm. There was a bullet exit injury on the opposite side of the same leg. According to her, she advised to send the injured forward for proper treatment. The injuries sustained by the injured were of normal nature. MLC report is Ex.P-21.” 22. On the same day, Dayashankar Shukla i.e. accused was also examined and she has found following injuries:- “The accused had a bullet entry injury from the lower part of the throat passing through 13 his tongue, the exit injury of the said bullet had passed through the upper and lower lips of the accused, there was a bullet entry injury in the left armpit of the accused, the size of which was 1×1 cm. According to her, the injuries sustained by the accused were of serious nature, he advised to take the accused to a higher center for proper treatment. The MLC report is Ex.P/22.” 23. Dr. M. Nirala (PW-19), who has conducted the postmortem of the deceased and gave report vide Ex.P/24 has found following injuries:- “The body was of a normal built male, covered with green cloth and blue vest. The body was cold, there was postmortem stiffness in the body, both eyes were open and mouth was closed, tongue was inside the mouth. More than one contused obturation was present on the left side of the deceased's chest near the nipple, the largest of which was 1 X 1 cm in size. More than one contusions were present on the left side of the deceased's abdomen in the upper and lower quadrants, the two largest of which were 1 × 0.5 cm and 0 × 0 cm in size. A circular torn wound (entry) measuring 1.5 X 1 cm was present in the middle of upper left thigh of the deceased, contusion was present 14 around the entry and blood was oozing from the udder, another circular torn wound (entry) measuring 1 × 1 cm was present in the front part of the testicles of the deceased, 4 cm below the root part of the penis of the deceased, an exit wound measuring 4 X 2 cm was present in the lower part of the ovary, the ovary was ruptured. A circular entry wound measuring 1 × 0.5 cm was present in the ileus part on the left side of the deceased, contusion was present around the entry, an oval lacerated wound measuring 2 × 1.5 cm was present in the back middle part of the thigh of the deceased. A torn wound was present and an oval shaped tear of 1.5 × 1 cm was present 4 cm above the papillary psoas. A torn wound of 6 × 2.5 cm size was present 2 cm outside the anus on the left side, a torn wound of 63 cm size was present on the right and upper part of the thigh through which muscles and bone were visible, fracture was present in the head of femur bone on the left side. A pierced wound was present 2 cm below the nipple in the third intercostal region from the left side of the deceased, a circular pierced wound of 1 × 0.5 × 1 cm size was present in the middle lobe of the left lung of the deceased, hematoma was present in the middle lobe. 15 Right lung was intact and devoid of blood, pericardium, heart and venous vessels were intact, right chamber was empty and intestinal portion. Ecchymosis was present in intestinal wall, blood and blood clots were present in chest and abdominal cavity, stomach was torn, undigested food was present in abdominal cavity which was outside the stomach. Small intestine was torn, ecchymosis was present in large intestine, left lobe of liver had lacerated wound of size 3 x 2 cm, left lobe of liver itself had linear multiple lacerated wound, hematoma was present in both kidneys and entire urinary bladder, uterus was intact, ovary was torn. All injuries were dark red with ecchymosis which were pre-mortem, duration of injuries was within 24 hours of death, one metallic bullet was found in left lobe. Opinion- The death of the deceased was due to excessive bleeding and shock caused by firearm injury, the period of death was within 24 hours of conducting the postmortem examination and the postmortem report is Ex.P/24” 24. Further, according to the FSL report (Ex.P/16) presented by the prosecution in the case, the deceased Raviranjan Singh's shorts, top pants exhibit "A" and underwear exhibit "B", deceased Raviranjan Human blood has been found in the soil from the place 16 of incident Exhibit “C” of accused Singh and in the soil from the place of cutting the accused Exhibit “D”. According to the Chemical Test Report Exhibit P-17, human blood has been found in the swab (cotton) Exhibit “A” of accused Dayashankar Shukla. According to FSL report (Ex.P/18), Exhibit “AM” is 5.56 mm X-caliber rifle which is in working condition and has been fired before. Exhibits “LR-01” to “LR-04” are 5.56×45 mm. Exhibit “LR-04” are live cartridges of 5.56×45 mm caliber manufactured by Indian Ordnance Factory. Exhibit “LR-01” to LR-04 are live cartridges of 5.56×45 mm caliber manufactured by Indian Ordnance Factory. Exhibit “LR-04” are live cartridges of 5.56×45 mm caliber manufactured by Indian Ordnance Factory. Exhibit “LR-04” are live cartridges of 5.56×45 mm caliber manufactured by Indian Ordnance Factory. Exhibit “EC-01” to “EC- 13” are empty shells of fired cartridges of 5.56×45 mm caliber manufactured by Indian Ordnance Factory. As per FSL report, Exhibit “EC-01” to “EC-13” are empty shells of fired cartridges Shells and Exhibits Firing pin impression present on empty shells of test fired cartridge "T.C.S-A.M." The specific features were comparatively tested in the laboratory with the help of comparison microscope and were found to be identical. The empty shells Exhibit "EC-01" to "EC-13" were fired from the same 5.56 mm X-caliber rifle Exhibit "AM" and Exhibit "EBR-01" is a fired copper jacketed bullet part and Exhibit "E" is a fragment of the dent mark formed by the impact of the copper jacketed bullet. 25. Thus, it is clear from the above FSL report that the seized 5.56×45 17 mm X-caliber rifle and the empty shells of the fired cartridges seized from the scene of the incident after firing from it and the empty shells of Exhibit "AM". The specific characteristics of the firing pin impression present on the empty shells of the fired cartridges of Exhibit "EC-01" to "EC-13" and the empty shells of the test fired cartridge of Exhibit "AM" "TCS-AM" were comparatively tested with the help of comparison microscope in the laboratory, which were found to be of the same type. The empty shells of Exhibit "EC-01" to "EC-13" have been fired from the 5.56 mm X-caliber rifle of Exhibit "AM". Merely because the finger prints were not found in the said seized rifle, it cannot be said that the accused did not fire any shot from the said rifle at the deceased. Rather, the FSL report and the above statements of the witnesses confirm the fact that the accused had fired from the said rifle to the deceased Raviranjan, due to which he died due to the bullet injury. 26. It is clear from the above evidence that there was some argument between the accused and the deceased Raviranjan Singh regarding Bluetooth speaker and demand of Rs.3000/-, on account of which the deceased abused the accused by using obscene language against his mother and sister, thereafter the accused went back to his own barrack from the deceased's barrack, thereafter he brought his issued rifle and cocked it near the stairs, thereafter, he came to kill the deceased. The deceased informed the Head Constable Jani Ram Dhruv about the above fact and in front of him, the deceased 18 abused the accused, then the bullet was fired. The deceased fell down, Jani Ram Dhruv hid in the wall to save himself, Jani Ram Dhruv saw the INSAS rifle kept near the accused. The said witness informed his officer about the fight between the accused and the deceased, thereafter several rounds of firing and the accused was seen by Sanjeev Kumar Singh (PW-5) firing at the deceased, bullet marks were seen on the chest and thigh of the deceased and the equipment used by the accused in the incident from the scene of incident. The recovery of the empty shell of the rifle and the cartridge, the FSL report matching the empty shell of the cartridge fired from the said rifle from the crime scene with the rifle used by the accused, the deceased died due to excessive bleeding after being shot in the chest, etc. are circumstantial evidences. On the basis of the said evidence, it is proved that the accused caused the death of the deceased Raviranjan Singh by firing from the rifle in his chest and thigh. 27. The working conditions of armed forces personnel can be extremely dangerous and deadly involving exposure to variety of hazards both in combat and peace time situations. These hazards can lead to both immediate and long-term health problems, injuries, and even fatalities. However, the level of discipline is much higher for the armed force personnel than an ordinary civilian. They are adequately trained to face all sorts of pressures. Long working hours without leave and difficult environment does not give right to any person to vent his anger by causing death of 19 his own colleagues. The appellant, being a member of armed force was responsible for the security and safety of the people of the area from the naxalites but instead of performing his duty, the appellant took a drastic measure by opening fire indiscriminately with many assault rifles upon the fellow members, which, goes to suggest that he had premeditation for causing the crime of question as such, by no stretch of imagination, the case can fall under Section 304 Part I or II of the IPC. 28. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that :- “death of deceased Raviranjan Sahu was homicidal in nature; it is the appellant who has murdered the deceased.” 29. For the foregoing discussions, it is clearly and reliably established that it was the accused/appellant, who caused the death of the deceased by firing upon Raviranjan Singh as also caused injuries to Mohd. Sharif (PW-13) 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 trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 324 and 302 of the IPC. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 20 30. From the analysis of the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses, 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.
Arguments
Dr. N.K. Shukla, learned Senior Counsel assisted by Ms. Priya Mishra, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 324 and 302 of IPC, as the learned trial Court has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there is no direct evidence available against the appellant. He further submits that although conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the statements of eye-witnesses i.e. Sanjeev Kumar Singh (PW-5) and Mohd. Sharif (PW-13), but the same does not inspire confidence from independent source and they have turned hostile. He further submits that the appellant is a member of Central Armed Force and was performing his duties in a heavily naxal infested area. The working environment in the said place and the level of stress that a member of the armed force has to undergo, is immense and all these circumstances together made the appellant lose control over himself. It is contended that even if the case of the prosecution is accepted as it is, then also the appellant is said to have caused injuries to the deceased under heat of passion and in anger, therefore, the case of the appellant fall within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and as sicj, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to 6 an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part. 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. 9. Per-contra, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State 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. It is contended that minor variations in the deposition of the witnesses cannot shake the credibility of the statement of the witnesses. The appellant fired indiscriminately upon his own fellow members without any rhyme or reason in a pre-planned manner. There are eye-witnesses and an injured eye-witness to the incident and as such, the judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court being just and proper, needs no interference. 10. 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 trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7 11. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased- Raviranjan Singh was homicidal in nature ? 12. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. M. Nirala (PW-19), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased vide Ex.P/24, has clearly come to the conclusion that the cause of death of the deceased was hemorrhagic shock as a result of firearm injury and the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. The issue with regard to nature of the death of the deceased has been dealt by the learned trial Court from paragraphs 07 to 12 in quite detail. 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 not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 13. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime. 14.
Decision
31. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 32. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 17.03.2020, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 33. 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. 34. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice Anu