Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh v. 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra- Civil Line, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:7202-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2009 of 2023 1 - Arman Khan S/o Saleem Khan Aged About 19 Years R/o Chantidih, Behind Of Pathan Mohalla Masjid, Rajja Gali, Thana Sarkanda, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra- Civil Line, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2146 of 2023 1 - Akash Saoundhiya @ Sonu@ Kodoo S/o Rajendra Singh Saoundhiya @ Pappu Aged About 19 Years R/o Chantidih, In Front Of Soni Dharamshala, Thana Sarkanda District Bilaspur (C.G.) ---appellant Versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Civil Line Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2287 of 2023 1 - Firoz Khan @ Golu S/o Saleem Khan Aged About 24 Years R/o Mini Basti, Near House Of Sheela Sarthi, Police Station Civil Line, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh 2 Versus ---appellant 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Lines, District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For appellant : Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, Advocate (in CRA No. 2009/2023) Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, Advocate ( In CRA No. 2146/2023)
Legal Reasoning
Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate (In CRA No. 2287/2023) For Respondent(s) : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.02.2025 1. All these three criminal appeals are arising out of same crime number, same sessions trial and common judgment, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. 2. The present criminal appeals have been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 24/08/2023 passed by learned 10th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG) in Sessions Case No. 309/2021 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:- S.No Conviction Sentence 1. Under Section 302 r/w 34 of R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- each, in IPC default of payment of fine, further undergo 2. U/s 323 r/w 34 of IPC R. I. For 30 months with fine of Rs. 1000/- simple imprisonment for two months. each, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo simple imprisonment for one month. (both the sentences shall run concurrently) 3 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 13.11.2020 at about 12.50 hours, the injured Maniram Yadav has lodged an FIR (Ex-P/28) to Police Station Civil Lines, Bilaspur with the allegation that one year back an offence of committing theft was registered on his complaint against the accused Firoz Khan for which he was giving threatening to him and his son Roshan Yadav and having enmity with him. On 13.11.2020 when they were running their Rangoli Shop at Kargil Chowk, at about 12 at the noon, the appellant Firoz, Arman and Akash came there by their motor cycle, armed with sword and knife. They started abusing them and the appellant Firoz started assaulting his son Roshan by sword and Arman and Akash started assaulting his son by knife and giving multiple blow on his chest and all over the body. When he tried to intervene, he too have been assaulted by the accused persons and received injuries. His son Roshan was taken to CIMS hospital, Bilaspur where he died. The incident is witnessed by Jugnu Sarthi, Raju Sarthi and others. The FIR under Sections 294, 323, 302 and 34 of IPC has been registered against the accused persons. Merg intimation (Ex-P/27) was also registered, inquest (Ex-P/2) of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses and the dead body was sent for its post mortem to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur where PW/8 Dr. R.K. Markam has conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave his report Ex-P/20. During the post mortem, the doctor has found the following injuries on his body:- • Stab injury 3.5X1.5X10 cm deep placed in right side of chest oblicly between 4-5 intel costal place. • Superficial scratch over the right fore arm 4X3 cm • Superficial scratch over the right forearm 3X2 cm • Abrasion in right foot, first big toe, second and third big toe 4 On internal examination, perforeted injury on right lobe of lung was found 3X1 cm, as a result of stab injury. After conducting the post mortem the doctor has given his opinion that cause of death is due to stab injury over the chest and excessive bleeding, it seems to be homicidal in nature. 4. The injured Maniram Yadav was also sent for his medical examination to District Hospital, Bilaspur where he was being medically examined by PW/11 Dr. Manoj Kumar Singh who gave his report (Ex-P/26). While examining the injured Maniram, the doctor has found the following injuries on his body. • Superficial liniar abrasion on right side of forehead with contusion 0.5X0.1 cm and 5x 0.1 cm respectively. • Abrasion over right side of palm between hand and index finger 5. For injury no. 1, the injured was referred for surgical opinion and X-Ray of scull and injury no. 2 is found to be simple in nature and his report is (Ex-P/26). The spot map (Ex-P/31) was prepared by the Police. Blood stained and plain soil and motor cycle of the accused persons have been seized from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex-P/19). The accused persons have been arrested on 13.11.2020 and their memorandum statement have been recorded. From the memorandum statement of the appellant Firoz Khan (Ex-P/3), one sword having blood like stains has been seized vide seizure memo (Ex-P/4), one full shirt, jeans pant having blood like stains have been seized from the appellant Firoz Khan vide seizure memo (Ex-P/10). From the memorandum statement of the appellant Arman Khan (Ex-P/5), one knife having blood like stains have been seized vide seizure memo (Ex-P/6) and one t-shirt and jeans pant having blood like stains have been seized from appellant Arman Khan vide seizure memo Ex P/11. From the memorandum statement of appellant Akash Singh Sondhiya (Ex-P/7), one knife having blood like stains have been seized vide seizure memo (Ex- P/8) and one full t-shirt and one lower has been seized from the appellant 5 Akash Singh Sondhiya vide seizure memo (Ex-P/9). The lower, underwear and Gamchha belongs to the deceased has also been seized vide seizure memo (Ex-P/25). The seized weapon of offence were sent for its query report to the doctor, at CIMS Bilaspur who gave his query report (Ex-P/38) and all these weapon of offence were sent for its chemical examination for confirmation of blood in it. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL Bilaspur from where report (Ex-P/40) was received and according to the FSL report except the plain soil (Article-B) and underwear of the deceased (Article-I-2), blood has been found in all the other articles. In lower of the appellant Akash (Article-D), swrod seized from the appellant Firoz (Article-G) and Gamchha belong to the deceased (Article- I-3), “A group” of human blood has been found, however, the human blood was found on blood stained soil (Article-A), T-shirt and lower of the appellant Akash Singh Sondhiya (Article-D 1 and D 2), Sword seized from the appellant Firoz Khan (Article-G), jeans pant of the appellant Firoz (Article-H2) and Gamchha and t-shirt belongs to the deceased (Article- I 3 and I 4) and the origin of the blood could not be determined on rest of the articles as the same were disintegrated. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the present appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 294, 323, 120-B and 34 of IPC and Section 25 and 27 of Arms Act before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur. 6. The case was committed to the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Bilaspur from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 7. Learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellants for the offence under Section 294 (two counts), 302 read with Section 34 and 323 read with Section 34 of IPC. The appellants denied the charge and claimed trial. 6 8. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 9. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 10. Mr. Abdul Wahab Khan, learned counsel for the appellant - Arman Khan in CRA No. 2009/2023 would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omission and contradiction in the evidence of prosecution witnesses and their statements are inconsistent. There are material discrepancies in their evidence with respect to the assault made by the appellants, only one stab wound has been found on the body of the deceased whereas the allegation is levelled by the prosecution that all the three accused persons have assaulted the deceased by sword and knife but there is no corresponding injuries on the body of the deceased. Had there been the case that all the accused persons were assaulted the deceased, the number of injuries must be more than one, but only one stab injury have been found on the body of the deceased. The alleged eye witnesses have not supported the prosecutions case and their evidence is not believable. In absence of any connecting evidence with respect to the blood group report, even if the blood has been found on the cloths of the appellants, it cannot be connected with the offence in question. 11. Mr. Abdul Moin Khan, learned counsel for the appellant Akash Saoundhiya @ Sonu@ Kodoo in CrA No. 2146 of 2023 would submit that there is no allegation against the present appellant that he was also liable to cause murder of the deceased and given knife blow on his body and injury found 7 on the body of the deceased is not corresponding with the allegation leveled by the witnesses, blood has not been found on the weapon of offence allegedly seized from him. He would also submit that only on the ground that the present appellant is the friend of the other accused Firoz, his name has been included as the accused persons. There is no motive against the present appellant proved by the prosecution to commit the offence. He would also submit that the evidence of alleged eye witnesses are not corroborating with each other and therefore, there is lack of cogent and clinching evidence against the present appellant and he is also entitled for acquittal. 12.Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant Firoz Khan @ Golu in CRA No. 2287/2023 would submit that there is no sufficient evidence against the present appellant in the case that he is also guilty for the offence of murder of the deceased. The injured witness has not been examined in the case. The other witnesses are interested witness and the distance from which they are said to have been witnessed the incident, it is quite impossible to see the assault made upon the deceased. The witnesses are being planted witnesses and they have not seen the actual incident. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have also not duly supported the prosecutions case and the seizure of knife and cloths from the present appellant has not been proved in accordance with law. Therefore, in absence of any cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant, he too is entitled for his acquittal. 13.On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the respective appellants and has submitted that there are overwhelming evidence available in the case against the appellants. The incident is occurred in a broad day light and on the busy road. Eye witnesses have duly supported the prosecution’s case that the present appellants have assaulted the decease by sword and knife. 8 Even if the number of injuries is not correspond the number of accused persons but that itself does not makes the prosecution’s case doubtful. Since, the Maniram Yadav who was injured in the case has died during pendency of the trial, he could not be examined. The eye witnesses to the incident duly supported the prosecution’s case. The involvement of the appellants in the offence in question have further been proved by their memorandum statement and recovery of weapon of the offence and cloths of the accused persons in which human blood has been found, further in the FSL report (Ex-P/40) “A group” of blood has been found on the lower of the appellant Akash, sword seized from the appellant Firoz and Gamchha belongs to the deceased whereas in other articles, human blood was found for which the appellants have not afford any explanation in their 313 Cr.P.C. statement. The motive to commit murder is also there that the appellant Firoz Khan was prosecuted on the complaint made by the Maniram Yadav and Firoz Khan was giving threatening to Maniram and his son. The appellant Arman Khan is the brother of the appellant Firoz Khan and the appellant Akash is their friend and all of them have armed with sword and knife, went to the shop of the deceased and started assaulting him by the said weapons by which the deceased received stab wound on his chest which caused his death, therefore, the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question have duly been proved and the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and their appeals are liable to be dismissed. 14.We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 15. The homicidal death of the deceased has been proved by the prosecution by leading evidence of the witnesses to the inquest PW/1 Subham Sonwani, PW/2 Suraj Yadav, PW/4 Juganu, PW/5 Shiv Shankar Yadav and also the 9 witness PW/8 Dr. R.K. Markam who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased. 16.PW/1 Subham Sonwani has stated in his evidence that when he received information about the incident. He went there and saw the deceased Roshan having deep injury on his chest and the blood was coming out from the injury. Except the chest injury, he also received injuries on his hand and legs. He proved his signature in the inquest (Ex-P/2). 17. PW/2 Suraj Yadav has also stated that when he received information about the incident and thereafter he had gone to CIMS to see the deceased Roshan and till that time he has already died. The inquest was prepared in his presence. 18.PW/4 Jugnu Sharthi has stated that he witnessed the incident that the accused persons have assaulted the deceased Roshan and thereafter from his chest, blood was coming out. He went to the deceased Roshan with piece of cloths and tried to stop the bleeding coming out from his chest and saw that the accused persons were fled away. He had taken the deceased to the hospital where he was declared brought dead. He also proved the inquest ( Ex-P/2). 19.PW/5 is also the witness to the injury to the deceased Roshan inflicted by the accused persons and he was being taken to the hospital where he was declared dead. He too has proved the inquest (Ex-P/2). 20.PW/8 Dr. R.K. Markam, who conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased has stated that on 13.11.2020, he conducted the post mortem of the dead body of the deceased and found one stab wound on his chest which was situated in between 4th and 5th ribs, blood was coming out from there, abrasion on right hand and left hand and lacerated wound on right leg. On internal examination, he found that due to stab injury, the right lobe of lung was cutted off. He opined that the deceased died due to the stab injury over the chest and excessive bleeding and it seems to be homicidal in 10 nature. Nothing could be extracted from this witness by the defence so that his evidence could be disbelieved. 21.PW/8 has duly proved the post mortem report (Ex-P/20) and the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence available on record that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and due to the stab injury inflicted on his body. 22.So far as, the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question are concerned, the case of the prosecution is based on eye witness account. 23.PW/3 Rajesh Khute, PW/4 Juganu Sarathi, PW/5 Shiv Shankar Yadav are eye witnesses to the incident. There was another eye witness Maniram Yadav (father of the deceased) who was the injured in the incident but during trial he died and therefore, he could not be examined before the learned trial Court. 24.PW/3 Rajesh Khute, has stated in his evidence that on 13.11.2020 at about 11.30 am when he was going to his friend’s house, near LIC Office, Magarpara, he saw a mob near Kargil Chowk and when he went there he saw that three accused persons repeatedly assaulting the deceased Roshan by which he fell down near the shop. Even after his falling on the ground, the accused persons continuously assaulting him. After seeing the blood coming out from the body of the deceased, the accused persons fled away. The father of the deceased had also intervened but he too have been assaulted by the accused persons. The accused persons were having sword and knife by which they have assaulted the deceased. The persons who were present on the spot have taken the deceased to the hospital and he subsequently came to know that Roshan has died. In cross-examination, he stated that the place from where he was seeing the incident, the deceased was visible. He further stated that he had seen the accused persons first time on the place of incident and at that time, he was not in knowledge of their names. He could know the names of the accused persons from the news paper on 11 the next day and he disclosed that the names of the accused persons are Firoz, Arman and Akash. Since he was in the back side of the mob, he could not tried to catch the accused persons. Nothing could be ellicitate from this witness in his cross-examination to rebut the allegation made by this witness that the accused persons have assaulted the deceased by sword and knife and he witnessed the incident. 25.PW/4 Juganu Sarathi has stated in his evidence that he knew the accused persons as well as the deceased. One year before, the date of incident, Roshan had lodged a report of theft against accused Firoz, when Firoz released from jail, he made assault by knife upon Roshan in the Goddess Durga procession by which Roshan had received injury in his body. At the time of Diwali festival, the deceased Roshan and his father Maniram Yadav have started Rangoli Shop at Kargil Chowk. Two days back from the date of incident, Firoz, Arman and Akash regularly came to there shop and giving threatening that they will kill them. On the third day, all the accused persons, Arman, Akash and Firoz came by their motor cycle, armed with knife and sword and started assaulting the deceased. By which the deceased received injuries on his chest, hand and legs. He also witnessed the incident, when he by-passing the place. He went on the spot along with a piece of cloth and tried to stop bleeding from the body of the deceased and saw that all the accused persons were fled away. He took the deceased to the CIMS hospital where he was declared brought dead. The father of the deceased Maniram has also received injuries on his body. In cross-examination, he stated that the accused persons have fled away from the place of incident in different directions. Arman has fled away towards Sindhi Colony, Akash fled away towards Kasturba Nagar and Firoz fled away towards Mandir Chowk. He came there by his auto from Balram Talkies side. From the evidence of this witness also the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question has duly been proved and he also remain firm in the occurrence of alleged 12 incident that the accused persons have assaulted the deceased by knife and sword. 26.From these two eye witnesses, the prosecution is able to prove that the accused persons came on the spot, armed with sword and knife and started assaulting the deceased Roshan and when his father Maniram has tired to intervene, he too was assaulted by them. Therefore, involvement of the appellants in the offence in question has also been proved which has rightly been considered by the learned trial Court in its impugned judgment dated 24.08.2023. 27.So far as, the motive to commit murder is concerned, although, motive is the culpable state of mind and is insignificant when the case of prosecution is based on direct evidence. In the present case, the direct evidence of PW/3 and PW/4 are available on which the offence has been proved by the prosecution, however, in the case there are evidence of motive is also available. 28.PW/4 Jugnu Sarthi has stated that one year before from the date of incident, the deceased Roshan has lodged a report against the appellant Firoz in which he was remained in jail and when he was released from jail, he made an assault on the deceased Roshan in procession of goddess Durga and in which Roshan has received injuries. He also stated that since last two days, the accused persons given threatening to the deceased Roshan that they will kill him and ultimately on the third day, they came to the shop of the deceased Roshan with sword and knife and assaulted him by which the deceased died. It is not specifically denied by the defence that the appellant Firoz was not prosecuted for commission of the offence of theft on the report made by the deceased. It is alleged that the accused Arman is the brother of the appellant Firoz and the accused Akash is their friend. Thus, the motive has also been proved by the prosecution to commit the murder of the deceased in the case. 29.On the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant Firoz, one sword, 13 full shirt and jean pant has been seized. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Arman Khan, one knife, t-shirt and jeans has been seized and from Akash, one knife, t-shirt and lower have been seized. The memorandum statement of the accused persons and seizures made from them have been proved by PW/2 Suraj Yadav and PW/9 Shiv Shankar Yadav. Although, on some minor discrepancies appears in their evidence but the same are trivial in nature and does not affect their credibility and to hold that they are not the witnesses of memorandum and seizure made from the accused persons. The weapon of offence as well as cloths seized from the accused persons have been sent for its FSL examination to regional FSL, Bilaspur and according to the FSL report (Ex-P/40), “A group” of human blood was found on the lower of the appellant Akash (Article-D/2), sword seized from the appellant Arman (Article-G) and Gamchha belonging to the deceased (Article-I/3) whereas blood has been found on all other articles except the plain soil and underwear of the deceased. Therefore, the use of the weapon of offence for committing murder of the deceased has been duly proved by the prosecution. 30.Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that on the date of incident, the appellants went on the spot, armed with sword and knife and started assaulting the deceased by which the deceased received stab injury on his chest and due to the stab injury, he died. It is not the case that the incident is occurred in a heat of passion or all of sudden, but the accused persons went there, armed with weapon of offence. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly considered the evidence available on record and found the appellants guilty for the offence of commission of murder of the deceased Roshan Yadav. We are also in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and does not found any ground to interfere with the finding of 14 conviction and sentence of the appellant for commission of murder of deceased Roshan. 31.So far as, the injuries caused to the injured Maniram Yadav is concerned, the PW/3 Rajesh Khute has stated in his evidence that during the incident, the father of the deceased Roshan has tried to intervene but the accused persons have also assaulted him. PW/4 Jugnu Sarathi has also stated in his evidence that by the assault made by the accused persons, the father of the deceased Maniram was also received injuries on his hand, legs and knees. The injured Maniram was medically examined by Dr. Manoj Kumar (PW/11) and has stated in his evidence that on 13.11.2019, he medically examined the injured Maniram and found one lacerated wound on his right side of head and right cheek, one another lacerated wound has been found on right and left palm which are simple in nature and therefore, the injuries found on the body of the injured Maniram has been proved by the doctor, who medically examined him. The eye witnesses (PW/3) and (PW/4) have proved that when the injured Maniram intervened in the incident, he was being assaulted by the accused persons and therefore, the causing simple injuries on the body of the injured Maniram has also been proved by the prosecution that they caused simple hurt to the injured Maniram and their conviction under Section 323/34 of IPC is also affirmed. 32.For the foregoing reasons, we are of the opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants and there is no scope for any interference in the impugned judgment of their conviction and sentence. Consequently, all the appeals filed by the respective appellants are hereby dismissed. 33.The appellants are reported to be in jail. They shall serve the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 34.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 15 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. 35.Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Sagrika SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2025.02.24 17:42:50 +0530