Balod, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Pachpedhi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR NAFR CRA No. 1611 of 2019 Reserved on 10.07.2025 Delivered on 24/07/2025 1 - Khoman Lal Sahu S/o Faguram Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Newarikala, District- Balod, Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer Pachpedhi, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1713 of 2019 1 - Domendra S/o Rajju Lohar, Aged About 26 Years R/o Malighori, Khapari, District Balod Chhattisgarh, District : Balod, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Pachapedi, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1758 of 2019 1 - Thanuram S/o Vijay Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Nevarikala, District Balod Chhattisgarh., District : Balod, Chhattisgarh ---Appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Pachpedi District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 --- Respondent(s) For Appellants : Mr. Sandeep Yadav, Advocate, Mr. Anurag Khatri, Advocate, Mr. Anupam Dubey, Advocate and Ms. Akansha Mishra, Advocate on behalf of Mr. Dhirendra Prasad Mishra, Advocate for their respective appellants.
Legal Reasoning
For Respondents : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. C A V Judgment 1. Since the appeals are arising out the same impugned order, therefore, they are being clubbed together, heard together and decided by this common order. 2. These criminal appeals are preferred by the appellants under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 26.06.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No. 157/2018 by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge Bilaspur, District Bilaspur, C.G., whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Appellant :- Khoman Lal Sahu (CRA No.1611 of 2019) Under Section 302/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment & fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 02 months. Under Section 201/34 of IPC Under Section 397/34 of IPC 3 Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years & fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 02 months. Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years. Appellant :- Domendra (CRA No.1713 of 2019) Under Section 302/34 of IPC Under Section 201/34 of IPC Under Section 397/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment & fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 02 months. Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years & fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 02 months. Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years. Appellant :- Thanuram (CRA No.1758 of 2019) Under Section 302/34 of IPC Under Section 201/34 of IPC Under Section 397/34 of IPC Life Imprisonment & fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 02 months. Rigorous Imprisonment for 03 years & fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 02 months. Rigorous Imprisonment for 07 years. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.08.2018, at around 10:00 AM, the deceased, Ramesh Kumar Paikra, who was a driver and operating a Scorpio vehicle Bearing Registration 4 Number CG 22-J0-7714, owned by one Amit Soni, was hired by three unidentified individuals for travel to Gidauri. Between 12:00 PM on 14.08.2018 and approximately 9:00 PM on 15.08.2018, near or in the vicinity of the Semradih reservoir, the accused persons are alleged to have murdered Ramesh Kumar Paikra by forcibly pressing his mouth shut and tightening a cloth noose around his neck, thereby causing his death. In an attempt to conceal the crime and destroy evidence, the accused
Decision
subsequently disposed of the deceased’s body in the Semradih reservoir and looted the vehicle. The matter came to light when Kotwar Manharan Gandharv of village Chilhat reported the sighting of an unidentified body floating in the reservoir, which led to the registration of a Merg intimation. A post-mortem was conducted on the deceased's body, and through the course of investigation, his identity was confirmed as Ramesh Kumar Paikra. Following this, a formal case of murder, robbery and screening of evidence and associated offenses was registered. During the investigation, the identities of the accused were established, and various items and properties connected to the crime were recovered and seized. Additionally, records of prior criminal conduct by the accused were obtained, and relevant documentation related to those offenses was collected and appended to the case. The investigation concluded that the motive for the crime involved both the wrongful acquisition of the vehicle and the intentional destruction of evidence to evade 5 detection. 4. Based on the initial information received regarding the sighting of an unidentified body in the Semradih reservoir, a Merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-13. Subsequently, upon confirmation of foul play, a First Information Report (FIR) was lodged against the accused persons vide Ex.P-25. In the course of the investigation, the spot map and panchnama were prepared and marked as Ex.P-14. The deceased’s body was formally handed over through a Dead Body Supurdnama (Ex.P-21), and an inquest report was prepared vide Ex.P-03. The body was then sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by PW-14, Dr. S.K. Sinha. He duly proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-21), which opined that the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from pressure applied to the neck using an object, confirming that the mode of death was homicidal in nature. During the ongoing investigation, the appellants/accused were taken into custody, and memorandum statements of relevant witnesses were recorded. Several incriminating articles—labeled as Articles A, B, C, and D were seized and sent for forensic examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) at Bilaspur. As per the forensic report, marked as Ex.P-42, scientific analysis confirmed the presence of blood on some of the seized items, further corroborating the prosecution's version of events. After completion of all other necessary investigation procedures and formalities, the final 6 charge-sheet was submitted before the competent Court for trial. 5. The accused were formally charged under Sections 302/34 (murder with common intention), 201/34 (causing disappearance of evidence with common intention), and 397/34 (robbery or dacoity with attempt to cause death or grievous hurt, with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code. The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons in the language understood by them, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied all incriminating evidence brought against them and asserted their innocence. However, they did not choose to examine any witnesses in their defense, nor did they produce any documentary evidence in support of their claims. 6. During the course of the trial, in order to bring home the offences against the accused persons, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 48 documents in support of its case. The witnesses included the investigating officers, medical examiner (PW-14), seizure witnesses, and other persons connected to the incident and investigation. The statements of the accused/appellants were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied all incriminating circumstances put to them, pleaded innocence, and claimed to have been falsely implicated in the matter. In support 7 of their defense, the accused examined one witness, however, no documentary evidence was exhibited on their behalf. 7. The learned Trial Court, after duly appreciating the oral and documentary evidence brought on record, delivered its judgment on 26.06.2019, whereby it convicted and sentenced the appellants in accordance with the charges, as detailed in paragraph one of this judgment. The conviction was based on the cumulative effect of the prosecution's evidence, including witness testimonies, medical and forensic reports, and other material exhibits. Aggrieved by the said judgment of conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeals, assailing the findings and conclusions of the Trial Court as erroneous, and seeking their acquittal by this Hon’ble Court. 8. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. They would submit that the conviction against the appellants are bad in law and the same is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. They would further submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court had failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The appellants also challenge the admissibility and reliability of the memorandum statements and alleged recoveries, arguing that these were obtained in violation of procedural safeguards and do not inspire 8 confidence. According to the learned counsel only to harass the appellants false case has been foisted against them and without there being any cogent and clinching evidence and, as such, the conviction of the appellants are bad in the eyes of law. 9. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants is well-merited which does not call for any interference. There is clear evidence regarding murder, theft and dacoity, therefore, these appeals deserve to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 11. The first question for consideration before this Court is whether the death of the deceased, Ramesh Kumar Paikra, was homicidal in nature. 12. Based on the evidence available on record and the statement of Dr. S.K. Sinha (PW-14), who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, it has been categorically stated that the cause of death was asphyxia resulting from pressure applied to the neck using some object. The doctor opined that the nature of death was homicidal and estimated the time of death to be 9 approximately 18 to 36 hours prior to the autopsy. The post- mortem report is exhibited as Ex. P/21. 13. Having heard the learned counsel for the parties and upon due consideration of their submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court regarding the death of Ramesh Kumar Paikra, being homicidal in nature, is supported by the evidence on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to the material available on record. Accordingly, the finding of the Trial Court with respect to the homicidal nature of the deceased's death is hereby affirmed. 14. The second question for consideration would be in respect of involvement of the accused appellants in the crime in question. 15. At the instance of Police Constable Gambhir Sonwani, a dead body was found near the reservoir. The Trial Court has relied upon the Merg Intimation (Ex.P/13), which was registered by Police Constable Gambhir Das Sonwani (PW-12) at the instance of the complainant, Manharn (Kotwar) (PW-08), who had seen the dead body lying near the Semradih reservoir. The Merg was reported against an unknown person. The deceased was later identified as Ramesh Kumar Paikra, who was employed as the driver of a car owned by Amit Soni (PW-05). It was found that three unknown persons had booked the said vehicle on 14.08.2018 at about 10:00 a.m., and thereafter, they murdered 10 the deceased and took away his mobile phone and other belongings. After the lodging of the First Information Report (F.I.R.), the police recorded the statements of witnesses during the course of the investigation. The accused persons were arrested based on the evidence provided by the witnesses. A Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted, their memorandum statements were recorded, and several articles were seized. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) for examination. In the present case, there is no direct evidence. The entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, including the "last seen together" theory, memorandum-led recovery of articles, FSL reports, and CCTV footage clips. 16. Shankar Lal (PW-01), the uncle of the deceased Ramesh Kumar Paikra, stated in his testimony that the deceased was employed as a driver by Amit Soni, who used to rent out his Scorpio vehicle. On the date of the incident, i.e. 14.08.2018 the deceased had gone out for driving but did not return. On 17.08.2018, the Kotwar of the village, namely Neerdas Manikpuri, informed the authorities that the dead body had been cremated. However, it was subsequently exhumed in his presence, and he identified the deceased as Ramesh Kumar Paikra, his nephew. 17. Paras Tiwari (PW-02) is the inquest witness, however, he denied about seizure Ex.P/3 and P/4, further, he was not identified the deceased present in the trial Court. 18. Tanvir Khan (PW-03) is also a driver of its own Scorpio, which he 11 usually rents out and drive itself. He categorically stated that on the date of the incident, he and the deceased went to a nearby tea shop to have tea. During that time, all three accused persons arrived and took away the Scorpio along with the driver, namely, Ramesh Kumar Paikra (deceased). On 15.08.2018, when the owner of the vehicle, Amit Soni, enquired about the whereabouts of the deceased, Tanvir Khan informed him that on the date of the incident, three persons had taken the Scorpio along with the deceased, who was driving the vehicle. This witness acknowledged receiving the notice marked as Ex. P/5 and identified the accused persons during the Test Identification Parade (T.I.P.) as recorded in memorandums Ex. P/6, P/7, and P/8, by which all three accused were identified. In cross- examination, this witness reaffirmed his identification of the accused persons. 19. Amit Soni (PW-05), the owner of the vehicle that was being driven by the deceased, Ramesh Kumar Paikra, stated in his evidence, at around 10:00 a.m., he was informed by the deceased via mobile phone that he was going to Girdhari along with some passengers who had rented the vehicle and told him that he would come back till 04:00 pm, but from 05:00 pm to around 10:00 p.m., he tried to contact the deceased, but the phone was out of the coverage area. On the following day 15.08.2018, he 12 went to the deceased’s residence to inquire about his whereabouts from the family members. Thereafter, he went along with police personnel to make further inquiries. It was then that two drivers, namely Maniram and Santosh, informed him that three persons had taken the vehicle on rent. 20. Khemchandra Mahilang (PW-06) is another driver who saw the accused persons taking the said vehicle on rent, with the deceased as the driver. He accepted the notice Ex. P/5 and the Test Identification Parade (TIP), in which he also acted as a witness. He correctly identified all three accused persons during the TIP. 21. Manharan (PW-08), the Kotwar, stated that he first saw the dead body on 15.08.2018 and registered the Merg Intimation (Ex. P/13) based on that. He is also the witness to the inquest and the preparation of the dead body handover report (supurdnama), marked as Ex. P/15. 22. Ramayan Yadav (PW-11) is the seizure witness for the recovery of one garland and one slipper, which were seized as per documents Ex. P/17 and Ex. P/18. 23. From the evidence available on record, the “last seen together” fact was duly affirmed by witnesses PW-03, namely Tanvir Khan, and PW-06, Khenchand Mahilang, who also duly identified the 13 accused persons during the Test Identification Parade (TIP). Based on the memorandum, one white handkerchief with blood stains was seized. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL), where it was found that the blood was human in origin. In the evidence of Dataram Sonwani (PW-15), who was working as a watchman at a liquor shop, he stated that the accused persons came to purchase liquor late at night, around 9:30 p.m. Therefore, he recorded their presence using his mobile phone. The said recording has been produced and affirmed in court. He also identified the accused Thanuram as the person driving the vehicle. 24. From the aforesaid evidence, it is established that the deceased was last seen together with the accused persons, who were identified during the Test Identification Parade (TIP). Articles seized from the accused, such as a handkerchief, were found to have blood stains, and according to the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report, the blood found was human blood. Additionally, video recordings show that the Scorpio was being driven by these persons on the date of the incident at around 9:30 p.m. The cumulative effect of all this evidence forms a chain of circumstances which is established according to various judgments passed by the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. Recently, in the case of Ramakirat Munilal Goud vs. State of 14 Maharashtra etc. 1 , the Hon’ble Supreme Court has reiterated the law with regard to proving a case on circumstantial evidence, the relevant portion of the said judgment is reproduced below:- 31. … The law with regard to conviction, based on circumstantial evidence has been crystalized by this Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra wherein it was held: “155. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793 :(AIR 1973 SC 2622)] where the observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807] "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely 1 AIR 2025 Supreme Court 3186 15 may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 26. In the present matter, the links in the chain of circumstances have been satisfactorily established, and all the circumstances point to the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt. It is well-established that the accused are the authors of the crime in question and that they murdered the deceased by strangulation in the course of committing the offense of dacoity. Furthermore, they have attempted to screen the evidence. Accordingly, the Trial Court has rightly convicted them for the offenses punishable 16 under Sections 302/34, 397/34, and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 27. On a careful marshaling of the aforesaid evidence, there is nothing to indicate that the Trial Court committed any error of law in convicting the accused persons. Consequently, the appeal fails, and the conviction and sentence awarded by the Trial Court are hereby confirmed. Consequently, the appeals filed by the appellants are hereby dismissed. 28. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and action. 29. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellants informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by the Division Bench of this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge ABHIGYA SAXENA Digitally signed by ABHIGYA SAXENA Saxena