Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Of
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:26732-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1797 of 2024 Uttam Ramteke S/o Devendra Ramteke Aged About 18 Years 11 months, R/o Village - Shradha Nagar, Amatalab Road, Dhamtari, P.S. - City -Kotwali, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House OfÏcer, P.S. - City -Kotwali, Dhamtari, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. A.N.Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 23/06/2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) questioning the impugned judgment dated 30.11.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, District Dhamtari, in Sessions Trial No. 2 5/2020 whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Under Section Sentence Fine 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) Life imprisonment Rs. 5,000/- In default of payment of fine months 6 Rigorous imprisonment (for short, the RI) more 27(1) of the Arms Act, 1959 25(1-b)B of the Arms Act, 1959 RI for 3 years Rs. 1000/- 3 months RI more RI for 1 year Rs. 5,00/- 1 month RI more The sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellant/accused was charged for the offences punishable under Section 302, 201 IPC and Section 25, 27 of the Arms Act alleging that in the intervening night of 22.09.2019 at 9.45 p.m. in front of Om Jewelers at Risaipara, Dhamtari Police Station and District Dhamtari, he intentionally caused the death of Nitin Rao Chauhan (hereinafter referred to as, the deceased) by stabbing him with a sharp weapon, a knife, and knowing and having reason to believe that the murder of Nitin Rao Chauhan has been caused, which is punishable with death penalty or life imprisonment. Further, he destroyed the evidence of that crime by hiding the knife used in the murder which was kept by in his possession without any valid licence. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that Nikhil Rao Chauhan (PW-1),
Facts
who is the younger brother of the deceased, lodged an FIR (Exhibit P/2) at City Kotwali Police Station, Dhamtari to the effect that about a month ago, there was a dispute and fight between his elder brother i.e. the deceased and the appellant, a resident of Shraddha Nagar Amatalaab Road, Dhamtari. Due to this, appellant had earlier threatened the deceased. On 22.09.2021, at around 09.45 p.m., he was eating food in 3 his house, at the same time, his father Narayan Rao Chauhan (PW-5) came home from Risaipara Chowk and told that the appellant, in front of Om Jewelers, had a dispute with the deceased and with the intention of killing him, attacked the deceased with a sharp weapon on his stomach and hands and legs and fled. The deceased ran towards Risaipara Chowk to save his life. Keshav Soni @ Bablu Soni (PW-03) took him on his motorcycle to the Government Hospital for treatment. Complainant- Nikhil Rao Chauhan (PW-1) reached Government Hospital Dhamtari and saw that deceased’s left cheek, left rib, left hand, stomach, left thigh and right hand were injured. There was a deep wound on the arm as if it was caused by a sharp weapon, from which blood was oozing. After examination, the Doctor declared the deceased dead. On the report that the appellant Uttam Ramteke, due to old enmity, killed his elder brother by attacking him with a sharp weapon several times with the intention of killing him, Inspector Gagan Bajpai (PW-17) of City Kotwali Police Station, Dhamtari registered First Information Report (Exhibit P/2) against the appellant under Crime No. 411/19, for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and further investigation proceedings were taken in the case. 4. During course of investigation, Inspector Gagan Bajpai (PW-17) prepared the site map of the incident as per Exhibit P/3, as informed by PW-1. Panchnama notice (Exhibit P/4) was given to Nikhil Rao Chauhan, Naveen Diwan, Krishna Kumar Sahu, Krishna Kumar Tandon under Section 175 Cr.P.C at District Hospital Dhamtari for Panchnama of the dead body of deceased and inquest (Exhibit P/5) was prepared. Thereafter, Constable Poon Singh Sahu (PW-9) was sent alongwith duty certificate (Exhibit P/22) for the postmortem of the deceased alongwith the application (Exhibit P/19). 5. The memorandum statement (Exhibit P/7) of appellant was recorded by 4 Inspector Gagan Bajpai (PW-17) in presence of witnesses, and on pointing out of the appellant, one piece of steel butt knife used in the incident was seized as per seizure memo Exhibit P/8. At the instance of the appellant, one piece of blue, grey and red colour printed full sleeve T- shirt worn at the time of the incident was recovered from Century Garden, Ramsagari pond, Dhamtari vide Exhibit P/9. From the house of Ravi Kumar Nayak’s uncle Gopichand Nayak, situated at Post OfÏce Ward, Dhamtari, a button knife was recovered at the instance of Ravi Kumar Nayak and seized in presence of witnesses vide Exhibit P-10. 6. From the place of incident i.e. in front of Om Jwellers, Risaipara, Dhamtari, the police seized blood stained asphalt and pebbles and plain asphalt and pebbles, a pair of black slippers vide Exhibit P/11. The sealed packets (Exhibit P/9) given by the Doctor after postmortem was seized by the police vide Exhibit P/23. 7. Inspector Gagan Bajpai (PW-17) issued notice under Section 160 Cr.P.C to the witnesses for cooperating in police proceedings. The appellant was duly arrested in presence of witnesses and arrest memo (Exhibit P/17) was prepared and information of arrest (Exhibit P/31) was given to his family members. Statements of witnesses were recorded. Regarding providing query report of seized articles, letter (Exhibit P/20) was sent to Medical OfÏcer Dr. S.A. Naseem (PW-8) query report Exhibit P/21 were obtained. Regarding preparation of Patwari map of the incident site, letter (Exhibit P/34) was sent to Tehsildar Dhamtari and Patwari map (Exhibit P/13) of the incident site was obtained from Prakash Sahu (PW- 10) Halka Patwari. The articles seized in the case were sent for chemical examination vide letter (Exhibit P/35) to the Director, State Forensic 5 Science Laboratory, Raipur and its report was obtained vide Exhibit P/36. 8. The statements of the prosecution witnesses were recorded as per their statements. After thorough investigation, when evidence of crime was found against the appellant, charge-sheet was presented before the court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Dhamtari for trial which was committed to the court of Sessions vide order dated 09.01.2020. 9. After perusing the charge sheet and the attached documents and hearing
Legal Reasoning
the arguments of the prosecution and the defence, prima facie charge was found to be made out against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Accordingly, charges were framed on 20.01.2020. When the charges were read out and explained to him, the appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 10. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution had examined as many as 17 witnesses namely, Nilikh Rao Chauhan (PW-1), Jagesh (PW-2), Keshav Soni (PW-3), Anamika Chouhan (PW-4), Narayan Rao Chauhan (PW-5), Vikrant Sahu (PW-6), Mukhtar Ahmad (PW-7), Dr. M.A.Nasim (PW-8), Punsingh Sahu (PW-9), Prakash Sahu (PW-10), Sachin Yadav (PW-11), Narsingh Thakur (PW-12), Subhash Yadav (PW-13), Gajju @ Kachara (PW-14), Komal Singh Netam (PW-15), Sagar Mishra (PW-16) and Gagan Bajpai (PW-17), and exhibited as many as 36 exhibits. 11. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the appellant/accused expressed ignorance about the circumstances proved by the prosecution and stated that he would not 6 give evidence in his defence and that he had been falsely implicated in the case because of previous animosity. 12. 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. 13. Mr. A.N.Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to the facts and evidence available on record. Even the prosecution witness Keshav Soni (PW-3) who had admitted the appellant in the hospital, has turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. Nikhil Rao (PW-1) who is the informant of the incident, stated that his father (PW-5) had informed him about the incident but he himself had not seen the incident. Even Narayan Rao Chauhan (PW-5) who is the father of the deceased, had not seen the incident and only on the basis of old enmity, the name of the appellant has been dragged in this case. Further, there are various material omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and as such, the conviction cannot be based on the basis of statement of the interested witnesses. The seizure and memorandum witnesses Jagesh (PW-2) and Vikrant Sahu (PW-6) have also turned hostile. Further, as per the FSL report, no human blood was in the seized articles. The prosecution has failed to establish that the appellant had any motive to cause death of the deceased. Hence, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 14. On the other hand, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that the prosecution has fully established that it was the appellant alone who had 7 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 and the appeal deserves . 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 16. 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 19) wherein Dr. M.A.Nasim (PW-8) has found (i) an incised wound in the epigastric region of the abdomen. The size of the wound was 2 cm x 1 cm. The injury extended deep upto the intestines. (ii) an incised wound measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm was found on the left side of the chest at the joint of the 8th rib. The depth of the injury was up to the inside of the spleen. (iii) incised wound measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm on the outside of the middle of the left arm. The depth of the injury was up to the bones (iv) Linear abrasion starting from left temporarl region of scalp passing downward from left pre auricular area upto left angle of mandible. Stains of blood clot on the injuries was present. (v) incised wound wound measuring 3 c.m. x 1 c.m. was found on the medial aspect of the left elbow. The depth of the injury was up to the bones, (vi) incised wound measuring 3 c.m. x ½ c.m. was found on the middle side of the left thigh. The depth of the injury was upto the muscles. On internal examination, there was injury to the walls of the stomach, and injuries were also found to the adjoining membrane and small intestine. Spleen was broken due to which internal bleeding was found, 8th rib on the left 8 side was broken. Due to the above injuries, there was excessive bleeding in the internal part of the abdomen. The Doctor opined that the cause of death in the case was shock and coma due to excessive bleeding which was caused by intra abdominal hemorrhage due to injury in the stomach and chest. The time of death was likely to be within 12 to 24 hours before postmortem examination. The nature of death was homicidal. 17. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. M.A.Nasim (PW-8) who had conducted postmortem has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the learned 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 disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby afÏrm the said finding. 18. The question for consideration for this Court would be, whether the appellant is the author of the crime? 19. PW-1, Nikhil Rao Chauhan is is the brother of younger brother of the deceased. He stated that on the date of incident when he was having his meals, his father Narayan Rao Chauhan (PW-5) came running and informed him that on account of old animosity, the appellant had stabbed the deceased who was taken to hospital by Bablu Soni upon which he reached the Government hospital where he saw the deceased lying on a stretcher and the Doctor informed him that his brother was no more alive. On the basis of his information, merg intimation (Exhibit P/1) was registered and he had lodged the FIR (Exhibit P/2). 20. Jagesh (PW-2) has deposed that the deceased and the appellant had some animosity. On the date of incident at 9:00 to 9:15 p.m. he got the information that the deceased has been murdered upon which he went to 9 the place of incident where he saw that blood was there on the ground and when they reached the hospital, he saw that there were number of injuries on the body of the deceased. He is the witness of inquest (Exhibit P/5) and body supurdnama (Exhibit P/6). He is also witness to memorandum (Exhibit P/7) of the appellant and the seizure of knife (Exhibit P/8) and clothes (Exhibit P/9) as well as the seizure of blood soaked asphalt and also seizure of one knife from one Ravi Nayar (Exhibit P/11). 21. Keshav Soni (PW-3) is the witness who had taken the deceased to the hospital on his motorcycle. However, he has expressed his ignorance with regard to other facts and as such, he was declared hostile. Vikrant Sahu (PW-6) is also one of the resident of the locality who is the witness of dead body supurdnama (Exhibit P/6), memorandum (Exhibit P/7), property seizure memos (Exhibits P/8, P/9 and P/10), however, he has turned hostile. Sachin Yadav (PW-11) and Subhash Yadav (PW-13) Gajju @ Kachara (PW-15) have also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case as they stated that he knew nothing about the incident. 22. Anamika Chauhan (PW-4) is the wife of the deceased. On 22.09.2019, when the deceased came home after plying his autorickshaw at 7:30 p.m. he informed that the appellant had threatened him that he would burn his autorickshaw on the said night. Thereafter, after having the dinner, the deceased went to check his autorickshaw which was parked in an open area which was at a distance of about 40-50 feet. She was standing at the door when she saw that the appellant came running and took out something from his pocket and thereafter assaulted upon the deceased with that article because of which the deceased sustained injuries on hand, cheek, stomach because of which he was profusely 10 bleeding. The deceased made a hue and cry for help. She immediately ran and woke up the father of the deceased. When the father of the deceased went to the spot and tried to pick him, he fell on the lap of this witness. Thereafter, Keshav Soni @ Bablu (PW-3) took him to the District Hospital and the father and the brother of the deceased followed them. Narayan Rao Chauhan (PW-6) is the father of the deceased who has also made similar deposition before the learned trial Court. Though it appears that this witness has not seen the incident, however, he had reached the place of incident immediately upon being informed by her daughter in law Anamika Chauhan and neighbour (PW-7) Mukhtar Ahmad. 23. Mukhtar Ahmad (PW-7) stated that he when he saw the deceased bleeding profusely, he was informed by the deceased that the appellant had caused those injuries with knife. Upon seeing this, he ran towards the house of the deceased and called his father. This witness has also turned hostile. However, he has admitted that earlier there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and that the appellant had informed this incident to the Collector and the Police. 24. In the present case, Anamika Chouhan (PW-4) is the sole eye witness. 25. 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 witnesses or corroborating evidence. A single reliable eyewitness can be sufÏcient for a conviction. 11 The court assesses the credibility of the witness, not just the quantity of witnesses. 26. The weapon of assault has been seized at the instance of the appellant himself vide Exhibit P/8 and Jagesh (PW-2) and Vikrant Sahu (PW-6) are the witnesses of the said seizure. The said knife was sent by the police raising certain queries in response to which Dr. M.A.Nasim (PW-8) has deposed that on 30.09.2019 at 12.25 p.m., Constable No. 847, Ankush Nanda of City Kotwali Dhamtari brought before him a stainless steel knife which was sharp from one end and had a plastic handle from the other end. The total length of the above knife was 09 inches. The length of the sharp part was 04 inches and the length of the handle was 05 inches. Blood stains were found on the surface of the above knife. A pair of black coloured slippers which were made of resin material, size 09 and of the company Diamond was brought before him for investigation. Blood stains were found on both the slippers. Both the above items were sealed again and handed over to the same Constable for chemical examination. The query report given by this witness is Exhibit P/20. On the next day i.e. 01.10.2019 at 11.55 a.m., the same Constable brought a T-shirt with red, black, blue and orange splashes along with blood stains before him for examination. The above mentioned T-shirt was handed over to the said constable for chemical examination. 27. In the FSL report, blood has been found on Articles A-cotton, C-blood stained asphalt and pebbles, E-slippers, F-T Shirt, G-knife, H-knife, I1- towel, I2-baniyan, I3-underwear and I4-lower, and no blood has been found on Articles B-cotton and D-plain asphalt and pebbles. So far as Articles E-slipper, G-knife, H-knife, I1-towel and I3-underwear are concerned, human blood has been found. 28. In the memorandum statement (Exhibit P/7), the appellant has disclosed 12 that 1 ½ months prior to the incident, he had some dispute with another person in which the deceased intervened and slapped the appellant. Thereafter, he had again some argument with the deceased upon which the deceased had threatened him and was having a grudge against him and wanted to kill him. On the date of incident, when the appellant alongwith Saurabh Soni went towards Risaipara, he met the appellant where they started arguing and thereafter, Saurabh Soni went to his house. Thereafter, he alone thought to kill the deceased and went towards the deceased and took out two button knives and assaulted indiscriminately upon the deceased on his stomach, hand, thigh and ran from the spot and thereafter cleaned the knives with water and threw the blood stained T-shirt near the century garden. On the basis of this memorandum statement, the knives and the blood stained clothes of the appellant has been recovered. 29. There was a motive for the appellant to commit the crime in question as he had threatened the deceased that he would burn the autorickshaw of the deceased and both of them had previous animosity. The wife of the appellant-Anamika Chauhan (PW-4) is the eye witness. The FSL report duly proves the use of knives in the crime in question which was seized by the police at the instance of the appellant himself and as such, we are of the considered view that the learned trial Court was fully justified in holding the appellant guilty of the offence. 30. 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. 13 31. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 32. 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 30.11.2021. 33. 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. 34. 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 Anu / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.26 20:34:10 +0530