Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:21259-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1633 of 2019 Sanjay @ Pekdi @ Biskut, S/o Sukhnath Manjhi, aged about 27 years, R/o Kuniya Dhabpara, P.S. Kamleshwarpur, District Surguja Ambikapur (C.G.). versus ... Appellant State of Chhattisgarh : Through The Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District Surguja (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Y.C. Sharma, Sr. Advocate with Mr. Mohit Kumar and Ms. Pooja Lonia, Advocates. For Respondent : Mr. Devesh G. Kela, P.L. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput (Judgment On Board) Per Rajani Dubey, J 08.05.2025 1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2019 passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Digitally signed by VIJAY BHARATRAO PEKDE 2 District Surguja (C.G.), in S.T. No.35/2017 whereby and whereunder appellant Sanjay @ Pekdi @ Biskut has been held guilty for commission of offence and sentenced as described below :- CONVICTION SENTENCE Under Section 302 IPC (5 times) R.I. for life with fine of Rs.100 - 100/- (total 500/-), and in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for 02 months. 2. The prosecution story, leading to conviction of the appellant is that on 13.05.2017, Ku. Janki’s (PW-4) father Ramgadhiya (PW-5) and her mother had gone to village Sapnadar Bardih to attend the list ritual programme of their relative. Janki (PW-4) was in her house and her niece was in Anjoli Ghutal’s house. At around 8.00-9.00 PM, accused/appellant and his wife deceased Maanmati came to Janki’s home to drop her niece Anjali and there they started quarreling among themselves. When Janki asked them not to quarrel and to leave her house, the accused/appellant and deceased Maanmati went to the field near her house, where accused/appellant assaulted deceased Maanmati on her head with a wooden stick (Gedi). At the same time, when deceased Maanmati shouted, her father Ghuthal and neighbour Mangal Korwa also came for her rescue whom the accused/appellant also assaulted them by wooden stick 3 as a result of which they fall on the ground. Seeing the above incident, Ku. Janki (PW-4) got scared and went inside her house, closed the door and remained inside the house whole night due to fear. Thereafter, next day i.e. on 14.05.2017, Ku. Janki (PW-4) went to Shivshankar’s house and narrated the incident to him and his wife Rajmaniya (PW-1). Thereafter, on being told about the incident by Ku. Janki (PW-4) and Rajmaniya, Sundar Korwa (PW-6), Bandhu Korwa and other people went to the place of incident and saw the dead bodies of deceased Maanmati, Ghutal and Mangal and on going to Guthal’s house, they saw the dead bodies of Ghutal’s wife deceased Ropni and mother-in-law Piyaso Bai, who also had serious head injuries. Further case of the prosecution is that on being informed to Police Station Kamleshwarpur by Sundar Korwa (PW-6) about the incident, Inspector R.C. Nishad (PW-12) registered the merg intimation Nos. 10, 11, 12, 13, 14/2017 in respect of death of deceased Ghuthal, Ropni, Maanmati, Piyaso and Mangal Korwa respectively. Inquest on the bodies of deceased were prepared under Ex.P-2, 4, 6, 8 and 10 & dead bodies of deceased were sent to Primary Health Center, Kamleshwarpur for postmortem examination vide Ex.P-30 to P-34, where Dr. Suyash Tiwari (PW-13) conducted postmortem examination on the bodies of 4 deceased Ghuthal, Maanmati, Mangal, Ropni and Piyaso & gave his report under Ex.P-40, P-41, P-42, P-43 and P-44 respectively, noticing following injuries/symptom. In respect of deceased Ghuthal :- The body of Ghuthal was lying on the ground on its back. Head was completely destroyed with skull vault wide open on front, brain splattered out. Left eye and nose was destroyed. Maxilla/palate had fracture with multiple fragments. Jaw fractured at left angle and dislocated at left. The Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death to be head trauma and the death was homicidal in nature. In respect of deceased Maanmati :- The dead body of deceased Maanmati was lying on ground on its left side. There was laceration on skull behind right ear in 5 x 5 cm with depth reaching brain tissue and damaging brain. Right ear was also lacerated dividing ear into upper and lower half. Blood came out of ear and clotted. Laceration on lateral canthus of right eye in 4 x 2 cm with depth reaching to bone. The Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death to be severe head trauma and the death was homicidal in nature. In respect of deceased Mangal :- The dead body of deceased Mangal was 5 lying on ground on its left side. Blood was filled in a puddle nearby. His head had a laceration on parieto occipital and right temporal region measuring 20 cm in length and 5 cm in width. Skull was craked and brain tissue can be seen. Nose and mouth were blood stained. Abrasion on right shoulder. Rigor mortis was present in jaw and limbs. The Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death to be severe head trauma and the death was homicidal in nature. In respect of deceased Ropni :- Dead body of Ropni was lying on ground on its left side. Her head had curved laceration in right occipital region with 15 cm x 1 cm dimension and depth showing brain tissues. Blood stains and clots present all over head and face along with clotted blood with bled from right ear. The Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death to be severe head trauma and the death was homicidal in nature. In respect of deceased Piyaso :- Dead body of Piyaso was lying on right side. There was laceration in the size of 20 x 4 cm deep to brain on left temporo parietal part of skull. Bleeding (clotted) from nose and ears present. The Autopsy Surgeon opined the cause of death to be severe head trauma and the death 6 was homicidal in nature. 3. On the basis of report made by complainant Sundar Korwa, named F.I.R. (Ex.P-25) under Crime No.35/2017 was lodged against the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC. Plain soil and blood stained soil were seized from the spot under Ex.P-11 to P-15. The weapon of offence wooden stick used in the commission of crime was seized under Ex.P-16. Memorandum statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Ex.P/17 and blood stained clothes of accused/appellant were seized under Ex.P-18. Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-21. The weapon of offence wooden stick was subjected to query from Dr. Pranaw (PW-11) who gave his query report under Ex.P-29 opining that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the said wooden stick. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination to FSL Raipur vide Ex.P-38 and FSL report was obtained by the prosecution under Ex.P-39, according to which, blood was found on article soil (Article – A,C,E,G,K), wooden stick (Article -J), Full Shirt (Article – N), Panty (Article – O), piece of saree (Article – P), Piece of Kambal (Article – Q), Piece of Lungi (Article – R), Blouse (Article – R) and piece of Saree (Article – T). 4. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed 7 against the accused-appellant under Section 302 IPC and charge was framed against him under Section 302 (on 5 counts) to which the accused-appellant abjured his guilt and pleaded for trial. 5. So as to hold the accused-appellant guilty, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the accused-appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6. The learned trial Court after hearing counsel for the respective parties and considering the material available on record, has convicted and sentenced the accused-appellant as mentioned in para 1 of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is bad, illegal, perverse, erroneous, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, and therefore, is liable to be set aside. It is apparent from the statement of the prosecution witnesses that in all 14 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but none of the prosecution witness has supported the case. The conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence but none of the circumstances from which the inference of guilt of appellant can be drawn 8 has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, there can be no inference that it was the appellant who
Legal Reasoning
committed the murder. Learned counsel further submits that the learned trail Court has failed to see that only small dispute arose with the wife of accused/appellant, and killing of 05 person in such a small dispute, is at all, not believable. Learned counsel also submits that Janki (PW-4), who said to have seen the incident, has admitted in her evidence that she left the spot due to fear, as such, the evidence of this witness is not reliable and trustworthy but the learned trial Court did not appreciate oral and documentary evidence and recorded wrong finding of conviction. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is liable to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned State counsel supporting the impugned judgment of conviction submitted that the learned trial Court minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. As regards credibility of evidence of eye-witness Janki (PW-4), it has been submitted that her statement was not rebutted in cross- examination and her evidence gets well corroborated by the medical evidence. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant. So, this appeal being without any merit deserves to be dismissed. 9 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 10. It is apparent from the record of the learned trial Court that charge under Section 302 of IPC (on 5 counts) was framed against the appellant for commission of murder of Ghuthal, Maanmati, Mangal, Ropni and Piyaso & after appreciating oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court convicted the appellant accordingly & sentenced him as described in para 01 of this judgment. 11. Admittedly, the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence and in order to prove the complete chain of circumstances, we have first gone through the evidence of R.C. Nishad (PW-12), who is the Investigating Officer of the case and Dr. Suyash Tiwari (PW-13), who conducted postmortem examination of the deceased. 12. According to the prosecution, on 14.05.2014 at around 8.30 AM, complainant Sundar Korwa (PW-6) informed R.C. Nishad (PW-12), Inspector at Police Station Kamleshwarpur about the murder of Ghuthal S/o Sukhu Manzi, Ropni W/o Ghuthal Manzi, Maanmati W/o Sanjay Manzi, Piyaso W/o Bitul Manzi and Mangal S/o Bade Chamru Korwa, all resident of village Sapnadar – Kerajobla, and on the basis of said information, R.C. Nishad (PW-12) registered merg intimation Nos.10/17, 11/17, 12/17, 13/17 and 14/17 under 10 Ex.P-24 & has admitted his signature on ‘B to B’ part. This witness has also stated that on the basis of aforesaid complainant, he registered FIR (Ex.P-25A) under Crime No.35/2017 against the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and issued notices to witnesses for inquest and prepared separate - separate inquest memo. He prepared inquest on the body of deceased Maanmati under Ex.P-2, inquest on the body of deceased Ghuthal under Ex.P-4, inquest on the body of deceased Mangal under Ex.P-6, inquest on the body of deceased Ropni under Ex.P-8 and inquest on the body of deceased Piyaso under Ex.P-10 & has admitted his signature on all inquest memo on ‘C to C’ part. He has also stated that after inquest memo, he sent the dead bodies of the deceased for postmortem examination to P.H.C., Kamleshwarpur under Ex.P-30, P-31, P-32, P-33 and P-34 to ascertain the exact cause of death. 13. Dr. Suyash Tiwari (PW-13) is the Autopsy Surgeon. He has stated that on 14.05.2017 he conducted postmortem examination of the bodies of deceased Ghuthal, Maanmati, Mangal, Ropni and Piyaso & gave his report under Ex.P-40, P-41, P-42, P-43 and P-44 respectively, and opined the cause of death of deceased to be severe head trauma and the death was homicidal in nature. In cross-examination, this witness has admitted that all the injuries sustained by 11 the deceased were antemortem and can be caused by hard and blunt object. 14. Thus, from the aforesaid testimonies of PW-12 and PW-13, the prosecution has successfully proved this fact that the death of all the 05 persons were homicidal in nature and injuries were antemortem caused by hard and blunt object. 15. Now we have to consider whether the accused/appellant is author of crime in question or not. 16. To sum up this, we have gone through the evidence of Janki (PW-4), who has stated that she does not remember the date of incident today, but it has been about 9-10 months since the incident. On the date of the incident, her parents had gone to Sapnatikra area in Sapnadar to attend the funeral of her maternal uncle. At that time, she was at her home and her niece Anjali was at Ghuthal's house. Her house and Ghuthal's house were adjacent to each other. She has also stated that the accused/appellant was assaulting his wife Maanmati with a wooden stick. She went and saw him and said that don’t beat Maanmati near her house, take her to his house. When Manmati started going towards her house, the accused/appellant was still beating her there, holding her and Manmati was shouting for help. Upon hearing Maanmati's screams, Ghuthal and Mangal came for her rescue, whom the accused/appellant also 12 assaulted with a wooden stick due to which Maanmati, Ghuthal and Mangal fell down and died. She has also stated that she went to her house in fear thinking that the accused/appellant would also kill her. Before the incident, the accused/appellant and Maanmati brought her niece Anjoli to her house. Then she and Anjoli stayed in her house whole night with the door of the house locked from inside. After waking up in the morning, she went to the house of Shivshankar, husband of Rajmaniya, and told Shivshankar and his wife Rajmaniya that the accused/appellant has killed his wife Maanmati, his father-in-law Ghuthal and neighbour Mangal Korwa near her house. Thereafter, Rajmaniya and Shivshankar went to Mangal's house and she told Mangal's son Sundar and Bandhu about the incident. 17. This witness has also stated that on receiving the information, Mangal's sons Sundar, Bandhu and Rajmaniya & Shivshankar came to the place of occurrence and she went to Sapnatikra to inform her parents where her parents had gone to attend the funeral ceremony, and there she informed the incident to her parents also. This witness has also stated that when they went to Ghuthal's house, they found that the accused/appellant had also killed Ghuthal's wife Ropni and his mother-in-law Piyaso. The bodies of his wife Ropni and his mother-in-law Piyaso were lying in 13 Ghuthal's house. She has also stated that prior to this, her statement regarding the incident was recorded before the Magistrate, Ambikapur where she had given details about the incident. Her statement is Ex.P-23, on which she had put her thumb impression. This witness remained firm in her cross-examination and denied this suggestion of defence that she has not seen the incident and she was not eye- witness. 18. Rajmaniya (PW-1), Rameshwar Yadav (PW-2) and Sundar (PW-6) all the witness have stated that they were informed about the incident by Janki (PW-4), and Sundar (PW-6) has stated that he informed about the death of all five persons Ghutal, Maanmati, Mangal, Ropni and Piyaso to Police Station – Kamleshwarpur and merg was recorded vide Ex.P-24, on which he has admitted his signature on ‘A to A’ part. Sundar (PW-6) has also admitted his signature on FIR (Ex.P-25) on ‘A to A’ part. In cross-examination, PW-6 has admitted this suggestion of prosecution that he had not seen the incident and Janki (PW-4) narrated the whole incident to him. 19. Naihar Sai (PW-8) is the son and brother of deceased Piyaso and Ropni respectively. Shriram (PW-9) is cousin of deceased Ghuthal, Ropni and cousin brother of deceased Maanmati. Both have stated that upon receiving the 14 information about the incident, they went to the place of incident and saw the bodies of deceased Ghuthal, Mangal and Maanmati in the field of Ramgadhiya and bodies of deceased Piyaso and Ropni in the house of Ghuthal Manjhi. They have also stated that there were injuries on the bodies of deceased and their heads were broken and blood was oozing from the head. 20. R.C. Nishad (PW-12) has stated in para 10 of his examination-in-chief that he seized bloodstained wooden stick (Geda) from the spot i.e. the house of deceased Ghuthal and prepared seizure memo under Ex.P-16 and to identify the said item he marked the same as Article-A. He has also stated that on 11.06.2017, he sent the bloodstained wooden stick to Dr. Pranaw (PW-11) for examination and query, who had examined the wooden stick (Geda) and gave his query report under Ex.P-29 opining that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by this wooden stick. That apart, the seized article including the weapon of offence was sent for their chemical examination to FSL, Raipur and a report of FSL was obtained vide Ex.P- 39, according to which, presence of human blood was confirmed on the weapon of offence wooden stick i.e. Article – J. 21. In order to link the further chain of circumstantial evidence, 15 we have gone through the evidence of Sanmati (PW-14), who is the sister-in-law of the accused/appellant. She has also stated that deceased Maanmati was her elder sister and she (this witness) was in love relation with the accused/appellant and prior to some days of incident, the accused/appellant had made her as his wife. She has also stated that the accused/appellant caught hold of her hand, took her behind the house and told that he has killed her sister Maanmati, her father Ghuthal, her mother Ropni, her grand-mother Piyaso and neighbour Mangal Sai at village Kerajobla. In cross-examination, this witness remained firm to what has been stated in her examination-in-chief. 22. The main objection of the defence is that Janki (PW-4) is not an eye-witness to the incident and after quarrel she left the spot, went inside her house and remained in house the whole night due to fear, as such, her statement is not reliable and cannot be made basis for convicting the accused/appellant, but when we delve in to the evidence of Janki (PW-4) what transpired is that the accused/appellant first assaulted his wife Maanmati, thereafter when deceased Ghuthal who was his father-in-law and neighbour Mangal came to rescue of Maanmati, whom he also assaulted and done to death. It is also apparent from her statement that thereafter, the accused/appellant also killed her mother-in- 16 law Ropni and grand-mother Piyaso who were found dead in the house of Ghuthal. Thus, looking to the act of the accused/appellant that he killed his father-in-law Ghuthal and neighbour Mangal who came to rescue of Maanmati, it was natural for any witness like Janki (PW-4) to go inside the house out of fear and only on this ground her testimony cannot be discarded and doubted particularly when there are other substantive piece of evidence to corroborate the testimony of eye-witness Janki (PW-4) much less the medical evidence and testimony of investigating officer PW- 12. All that apart, in cross-examination also no such suggestion was put to this witness so as to make her whole testimony unreliable and doubtful. Further, other prosecution witnesses (PW-1, PW-2, PW-6, PW-8 and PW-9) have also supported the statement of Janki (PW-4) that Janki had informed whole incident to them and when these witnesses reached the spot they saw that all five persons were lying dead and there were injuries on their bodies and their heads were brutally broken. 23. Dr. Suyash Tiwari (PW-13), Autopsy Surgeon, has also supported the prosecution story that all the five deceased died due to fatal head injuries, which were antemortem and death was homicidal in nature. Sanmati (PW-14) has also supported the prosecution case that it is the 17 accused/appellant who himself told the incident to her that he killed his wife Maanmati, father-in-law Ghuthal, mother- in-law Ropni, grand-mother Piyaso and Mangal Sai & the Investigating Officer (PW-12) has also promptly lodged merg intimation and FIR and had also prepared inquest memo on next day 14.05.2017. 24. Close scrutiny of the evidence of all prosecution witnesses and documents connecting the chain of circumstantial evidence goes to show that on the date of incident, it is the accused/appellant who killed his wife Maanmati, father-in- law Ghuthal, mother-in-law Ropni, grand-mother Piyaso and neighbour Mangal Sai. The prosecution has proved this fact beyond all reasonable doubt that all the five deceased died due to injuries caused by the accused/appellant with wooden stick (Geda). 25. At this point, learned counsel for appellant submits that the incident occurred all of a sudden when he was provoked by his wife, therefore, the act of the accused/appellant does not travel beyond the scope of Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of IPC. 26. To sum up this argument of learned counsel for the appellant, we have carefully gone through the evidence of autopsy surgeon PW-13 and postmortem reports (Ex.P-40 to 44), according to which, the deceased had sustained 18 laceration, fracture and fatal injuries over their heads. Thus, the aforesaid injuries sustained by the deceased makes it clear that the appellant was not only having intention but also knowledge that by his act the deceased may die, as such, the act of the appellant does not come under any Exception to Section 300 of IPC and the appellant is held guilty for commission of offence under Section 302 of IPC (on 05 counts). 27. The learned trial Court also minutely appreciated oral and documentary evidence and has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. We do not find any illegality or infirmity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence warranting any interference by this Court. The learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting the appellant. 28.
Decision
In the result, the appeal is dismissed. 29. The trial Court records along with copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 30. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present 19 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. Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) Judge Sd/- (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge pekde