Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:2157-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1298 of 2023 1 - Govind Mandavi S/o Buddhuram Mandavi Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Ghota Uparpara, P.S. Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) --- Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station, Bhanupratappur District Kanker (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. K. Tripti Rao, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. CRA No. 646 of 2023 1 - Mansingh Nureti S/o Madansingh Nureti Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Korar, Police Station Korar, District - Kanker, Chhattisgarh, Current R/o Singaarbhaat Kanker, Near Balak Chhatravas, Police Station Kanker District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bhanupratappur, District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate 2 CRA No. 97 of 2024 1 - Narendra Nag S/o Late Ratiram Nag Aged About 24 Years R/o Sakeen Tedaikondal, Darpatti Para, Police Station - Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) ---Appellant(s) Versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Bhanupratappur, District Kanker (C.G.) --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, along with Mr. Anmol Verma, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 14/01/2025 1.
Legal Reasoning
These appeals are arising out of the same crime number, same sessions trial, therefore, they are being heard and decided together. 2. All these appeals have been filed by the respective appellants under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (for short the, Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 28.01.2023 passed by learned Special Judge (Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes Prevention of Atrocities) Act, North Baster Kanker (C.G.) in Special Criminal Case No. 65/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 34 & 460 of I.P.C. and sentenced for RI for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months and RI for 10 years with fine of Rs. 5,000/- in default of payment of fine further RI for 6 months respectively to all the appellants and directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 3 3. The appellant Narendra Nag (CRA No. 97/2024) is also convicted for the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the Scheduled Castes and Schedules Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short 'SC/ST Act') and sentenced for RI for life with fine of Rs. 10,000/- in default of payment of fine further RI for 06 months. 4. Brief facts of the case are that Heeralal Hidko (PW-1) gave a merg intimation Ex.P/1 to the police that his son Bivan Hidko along with his wife Sukmai Hidko had gone to his agricultural field on 17.04.2021 in the night and at about 11:30 p.m. the wife of the deceased came to his house and informed that at about 11:00 p.m. two unknown persons having covered their faces by mask armed with axe took her husband towards the threshing field and after a short while, she heard the noise ''A Dayi O' due to fear she ran from the place and informed him about the incident. When he along with other villagers had gone to the field, in the torch light he saw that his son is lying dead in the field in injured condition. Based on the merg intimation Ex.P/1, the FIR Ex.P/2 was registered for the offence under Section 302, 34 of I.P.C. against the two unknown masked persons. Inquest Ex.P/44 of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses and dead body was sent for its post-mortem to Community Health Centre, Bhanupratappur, where PW-11 Dr. A. K. Dhruw has conducted the post- mortem of the dead body and gave report Ex.P/27. During the post-mortem the doctor has noticed the following injuries on the dead body:- (i) Lacerated wound left side of face from nose to lateral angle of left eye size 3x1/2 inch 1x1/2 inch x4 inch depth couple disfigurement of eye & elbow. (ii) Lacerated wound left side of ear 2inch x 2 inch x 1inch injury are seen. (iii) Abrasion before 1cm x 1cm above 1cm of the left ear. (iv) Swelling present on right ear upper side. On internal examination fracture of nasal, lacrimal & Zygomatic bone of left side were found and the doctor has opined the cause of death is Hypovolemic shock, mode of death 4 of Hypovolemic shock due to bleeding from injuries and nature of death is homicidal. Blood stained and plain soil has been seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/7. Spot map Ex.P/34 and Ex.P/42 was prepared by the Police and Ex.P/10 was prepared by the Patwari. The numbered merg intimation Ex.P/47 was registered at Police Station, Bhanupratappur and the numbered FIR is Ex.P/48. The Social Status certificate of the appellant Govind Mandavi has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/61, social status certificate of the deceased Bivan Hidko has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/62. Statement of the wife of the deceased Sukmai Hidko PW-2 has been recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. on 21.04.2021 and then the appellants were taken into custody on 22.04.2021 and their memorandum statements have been recorded. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the appellant Govind Mandavi Ex.P/14, one mobile phone, axe which has been used in the commission of offence having blood like stains, one half t-shirt having blood like stains, one lower having blood like stains, one black towel having blood like stains and one pair of shoes having blood like stains and Rs. 500/- cash has been seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P/15. From the memorandum statement of the appellant Mansingh Nureti Ex.P/16. One motorcycle which is used in the offence, one t-shirt having blood like stains, one full pant having blood like stains, one towel having blood like stains, and Rs. 200/- cash has been seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P/17. From the memorandum statement of the appellant Narendra Nag Ex.P/18, one full shirt having blood like stains, one half jeans pant having blood like stains, one towel having blood like stains, and Rs. 500/- cash has been seized from him vide seizure memo Ex.P/19. From the wife of the deceased Sukmai Hidko (PW-2), a carbon copy of agreement and copy of the compromise deed has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/20. One motorcycle and its registration and RTO papers have been seized from 5 Ramluram Mavde vide seizure memo Ex.P/24 the clothes of the deceased have also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/26, the appellants were arrested. The seized articles and clothes were sent for its query report to the doctor from where the query report Ex.P/28 was received by the police. The doctor has opined in the query report that the injuries found on the body could have been caused by the said axe and for confirmation of the blood, the articles were sent to Forensic Lab for its chemical examination. 5. The appellant Govind Mandavi put to test identification parade which was conducted by Moksha Dewangan, Tahsildar, on 22.04.2021 at Tahsil Office, Bhanupratappur and the appellant Govind Mandavi was identified by Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) and the identification memo Ex.P/65 was prepared. The police has also called the call detail report from the Superintendent of Police, Cyber Cell North Baster, Kanker with respect to the mobile numbers 8103377622, 8435041553, 6265140289, 7647034275, 9770575399, 7646803093, 7587421674, 9098273538, 6260147542 and 946014285. The seized articles were sent to regional FSL, Jagdalpur (Baster) from where FSL report Ex.P/40 was received and human blood was found on axe seized from the appellant Govind Mandavi (Article-C) Shoes seized from the appellant Govind Mandavi (Article-E), t-shirt and full pant from the appellant Mansingh Nureti (Article-F-1 and Article F-2) full pant and towel seized from the appellant Narendra Nag (Article G-1 and Article G-3) and full shirt and half pant of the deceased (Article- H-1 and Article H-2) however, no blood group could be detected for the reason that the same was disintegrated/result inconclusive. 6. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned trial Court for the offence under Sections 302, 34, 120-B and 460, of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, against the three accused persons who are the appellants in the present appeals. 6 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellants Govind Mandavi and Mansingh Nureti for the offence under Sections 302, 34 and 460 of I.P.C. whereas the charge against the appellant Narendra Nag has been framed for the offence under Section 302 and 34 of I.P.C. and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The accused persons denied the charge and claimed trial. 8. In order to prove the case against the appellants, the prosecution has examined as many as 16 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C, of the appellants have also been recorded in which they denied the circumstances appears against them, plead innocence and have submitted that they are innocent and 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 and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment, Hence this appeal.
Legal Reasoning
10. Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Narendra Nag (CRA No. 97/2024) would submit that in the merg intimation the appellant is not named. The prosecution has projected the wife of the deceased Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) as the eye-witness to the incident and it is on her information the father of the deceased (PW-1) Heeralal Hidko came to know about the incident. But it is not there in the merg intimation that she disclosed the name of the present appellant as the assailant. From the merg intimation, it clearly reveals that two persons came there having covered their faces and she could not identified them, whereas after about 3 days of the date of incident her 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded in which also the appellant Narendra Nag is not named. However, after about 3 months her another statement was recorded in which she disclosed the name of the present appellant Narendra Nag. Had she been seen the appellant on the place of occurrence, there was no reason to conceal his name as the deceased was her husband and she could have informed her father-in-law 7 that the present appellant is involved in the offence. The appellant Narendra Nag was also not put for test identification parade. He would also submits that no any weapon of offence has been seized from the appellant Narendra Nag. Although the human blood was found in the clothes of the appellant the same itself is not sufficient to hold him guilty for the alleged offence in absence of any corroborative or clinching evidence against him. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses with respect to the involvement of the appellant Narendra Nag. Even no motive has been proved by the prosecution against the present appellant. Since there is no sufficient evidence against the appellant, he cannot be convicted for the alleged offence and by giving benefit of doubt, he may be acquitted from the offence. 11. Mr. Priyank Rathi learned counsel appearing for the appellant Mansingh Nureti (CRA No. 646/2023) by adopting the submissions made by learned counsel appearing for the appellant Narendra Nag have submitted that there is no involvement of the appellant Mansingh Nureti for the offence in question as alleged eye-witnesses to the incident (PW-2) Sukmai Hidko has not named him as the assailant. His name has also not there the merg intimation and the FIR. His name is not comes in the initial statement of the PW-2 Sukmai Hidko which was recorded on 21.04.2021. Had she been seen the present appellant Mansingh Nureti also on the place of incident when her husband was murdered, she would have informed his name as the assailant. The appellant Mansingh Nureti was also not put to test identification parade. He would also submits that although in the clothes of the appellant Mansingh Nureti blood was found in the clothes but in absence of blood group of the blood found on the clothes as well as the blood group of the deceased, it is not sufficient to connect him with the murder of the deceased, when the other evidence does not supports the prosecution. There is no motive against the present appellant Mansingh Nureti proved by 8 the prosecution and he too is entitled for the benefit of doubt and acquittal in the present case. 12. Ms. Tripti Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Govind Mandavi (CRA No. 1298/2023) apart from the arguments advanced by learned counsel for the other co-accused persons, would submit that Sukmai Hidko (PW-2) is the first wife of the deceased and the appellant Govind Mandavi is the brother of the second wife of the deceased. The PW-2 Sukmai Hidko was well acquainted with the appellant Govind Mandavi as he was the brother of the second wife of the deceased. Despite having allegedly seen on the place of spot, she has not named him in the merg intimation and have not disclosed that the appellant Govind Mandavi is involved in the commission of the offence rather she disclosed to PW-1, Heeralal Hidko that two unknown persons having covered their faces by mask committed murder of the deceased. It is only when her 161 Cr.P.C. statement was recorded on 21.04.2021 she disclosed the name of the present appellant Govind Mandavi. In her 164 Cr.P.C. statement recorded on 21.04.2024 when she stated that while taking the deceased towards threshing field, they were in hurry and mask of one of them was opened and she saw that he was Govind Mandavi. If she has seen the appellant Govind Mandavi at the time of incident, she would have informed her father-in-law that it is Govind Mandavi who committed murder of the deceased but she has not informed the same to PW-1 Heeralal Hidko. Since the present appellant Govind Mandavi has already been seen by the PW-2 Sukmai Hidko, and she was well acquainted with him as he is the brother of the second wife of the deceased, the test identification parade conducted by the prosecution and the test identification parade memo Ex.P/65 looses its efficacy as the appellant Govind Mandavi was well known to the witnesses. She would further submits that although human blood was found on the axe, his clothes and shoes seized from him, but in absence of any blood group on the seized 9 articles match with the blood group of the deceased, the same cannot be connected that the appellant Govind Mandavi has committed murder of the deceased. Delayed disclosure of the name of the appellant Govind Mandavi is fatal to the prosecution which has not been considered by the learned trial Court while passing its judgment. The motive has also not been proved. She would also submits that the inconsistencies in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses makes the case doubtful. The incident was of night time and there is no source of sufficient light and considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as the evidence available on record, the appellant Govind Mandavi is also entitled for benefit of doubt and he may also be acquitted from the alleged offence. 13. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective appellants and have submitted that but for minor omissions and contradictions the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are fully reliable. There are overwhelming evidence against the appellants that they committed murder of the deceased. Although the appellants were not named in the merg intimation which has been lodged by the father of the deceased PW-1 Heeralal Hidko, but there is sufficient explanation in the record that the witness PW-2 Sukmai Hidko was suffering from ailment and after seeing the incident of murder of her husband, due to fear and ill health she went for a sleep. She was suffering from high fever and shortness of her breathing, she was afraid of by the incident and could not inform the names of the assailant to her father-in-law and after about 2 - 3 days when she recover from her ailment she disclosed the names of the assailants which cannot be said to be against the normal behaviour. Delayed disclosure of the names alone is not sufficient to discard their evidence particularly when the merg intimation and the FIR has not been lodged by her but it is lodged by her father-in-law Heeralal Hidko (PW- 1). He would further submits that the appellant Govind Mandavi was having 10 motive to commit murder of the deceased as the relations between his sister and the deceased was not good due to the relation between the deceased and his two wives. Human blood was found on the axe seized from the appellant Govind Mandavi, his clothes and shoes for which he has not offered any explanation in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Govind Mandavi was put to test identification parade by Tahsildar in which PW-2 Sukhmai duly identified him. Even in absence of any blood group on the seized articles, there are sufficient evidence available on record which corroborates the FSL report and framed an additional evidence in the case to connect the appellant in the offence in question. After considering the entire evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidences in the case and has convicted the appellants and sentenced them which is absolutely justified and all the appeal of the respective appellants are liable to be dismissed. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 15. So far as the homicidal death of the deceased Bivan Hidko is concerned which has been proved by the witnesses by inquest Ex.P/44 i.e. PW-1 Heeralal Hidko, PW-4 Serve Ram Hidko, PW-7 Sahdev Kadiyam, all of them have stated that on the date of incident they saw the dead body lying in the threshing field of the deceased having injuries on his body and he already died due to the injuries. 16. PW-12, Shatrughan Singh Shyam, who is the Scientific Officer regional FSL, Jagdalpur have stated in his evidence that he along with his team has visited the place of incident and found the dead body of the deceased was lying in his threshing field. Certain injuries have been found on the head of the deceased and he taken its photographs which is Ex.P/32 and Ex.P/33 and he submit spot inspection report Ex.P/29 to discover the exact cause of death he also opined for post-mortem examination. 17. PW-11, Dr. A. K. Dhruw, have conducted the post-mortem of the dead body 11 of the deceased who stated in his evidence that on 18.04.2021 the dead body of the deceased Bevan Hidko was produced before him for its post- mortem and on post-mortem he found lacerated wound on face left side of ear and fracture of nasel lacerarted and zygomatic bone and have opined that the cause and mode of death is hypovolemic shock due to bleeding from injuries and the nature of death is homicidal. The defence could not extracted any material from examination of this witnesses, so that it can be hold that death of the deceased is not homicidal and thereby this Court is not in hesitation to hold that the deceased died due to homicidal death. The learned trial Court has also considered the evidence of PW-1 Heeralal Hidko, PW-2 Sukmai Hidko, PW-3 Kushal Ram Kavde, PW-4 Sarve Ram Hidko, PW-7 Sahdev Kadiyam and PW-9 Lengda @ Binda Ram, the inquest Ex.P/44 and the post-mortem report Ex.P/27 and has comes into conclusion that death of the deceased is homicidal in nature and this Court is also in agreement with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court about homicidal death of the deceased. 18. So far as the involvement of the appellants in the offence in question is concerned, we again examined evidence of the witnesses. 19. PW-2, Sukmai Hidko is the wife of the deceased who was there along with him at the time of incident and she is the eye-witnesses to the incident. She stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, she along with her husband were sleeping in her threshing field. When they were sleeping in the night, the appellant Govind Mandavi along with two accused persons entered into their threshing field asked her husband to came out and when he refused to go with them, the appellant Govind Mandavi took him towards threshing field and he assaulted her husband by axe. When he shouted 'A Dayi O' she immediately informed it to her father-in-law and then the persons came there. She informed the police whatever she had seen on the 12 fateful night. Although she has been declared hostile for some part of her evidence and thereafter she stated that since she could not procured child, therefore, the deceased had performed second marriage with Binda Bai from her one son was born. She voluntarily stated that Binda Bai used to go her parents’ house frequently for which the Community meeting was convened 2 - 3 times and in Community meeting the appellant Govind Mandavi committed marpeet with the deceased and threatened that he will see him. After 4th Community meeting, the appellant Govind Mandavi again threatened to see him. Since she was not feeling well on the date of incident, after informing the incident to her father-in-law she went to bed. She identified the persons who came there on the date of incident and one of them have called her “Didi” then she identified that person that he was Govind Mandavi. In cross-examination she stated that when the police persons asked her she disclosed that Govind Mandavi has assaulted her husband. In cross-examination she stated that two persons have came to their varanda and one person was standing near the Gate. She denied that due to their face mask, she could not identified those persons. She voluntarily stated that she identified the appellant Govind Mandavi. She further stated that they took her husband towards threshing field and assaulted him and when her husband shouted 'A Dayi O' thereafter, she had gone to inform the incident to her father-in-law. She denied that suggestion that she has not witnessed the incident and she voluntarily stated that from the gate she had seen incident of assault to her husband. She admitted in her cross-examination that since she could not procure child, her husband had performed second marriage with Binda Bai from whom one son has been born. She denied that after birth of his son, there was a quarrel between her and her husband. She voluntarily stated that Binda Bai was keeping her son away from her and quarrel was usually took place between them on that issue. She also denied the suggestion that 13 due to the dispute between her and Binda Bai she went to her parents’ house and since she was at fault, the Community has expelled them from their society. She also denied that due to the dispute between her and Binda Bai, she falsely implicated her brother Govind Mandavi. She admitted that the appellant Govind Mandavi was in favour of his sister Binda Bai in the Community meeting. She also proved the test identification parade conducted by the Tahsildar at Tahsil Office although she stated that she identified all the 3 accused persons and remain firm in saying that she identified the accused persons at Tahsil Office. She further admitted that she was well acquainted with Govind Mandavi as she used to come to his sister Binda Bai prior to the date of incident. She specifically stated in her evidence that her husband was being assaulted by appellant Govind Mandavi. In further cross-examination she stated that due to their face mask she could not identified the other two accused persons except Govind Mandavi, further admitted that two other co-accused persons have not assaulted her husband. 20. PW-1 Heeralal Hidko, is the father of the deceased have stated in his evidence that on the date of incident his son and his daughter-in-law were sleeping in the threshing field and at about 11:00 in the night, his daughter- in-law Sukmai Hidko came to his house and informed the incident that Govind Mandavi and Mansingh Nureti took her husband towards threshing field and assaulted by the axe when he along with other persons of the vicinity went on the spot they saw the dead body of the deceased having injuries on his body. Thereafter, he lodged the merg-intimation to the police. This witness have been declared hostile on some part of his previous statement and in cross-examination by the prosecution, he admitted that his son was having two wives and since two months back from the date of incident, his second wife Binda Bai was residing in her parents’ house and in the Community meeting Binda Bai have threatened his son that she will see 14 him. His daughter-in-law Sukmai Hidko have informed that due to removal of the face mask of one person she identified Govind Mandavi. She also admitted that Govind Mandavi was having knowledge of the fact that the deceased was used to go his threshing field for sleeping. He also admitted that the Govind Mandavi had come along with his two friends and two persons including Govind Mandavi came to their varanda and his one friend has hide himself in the cattle shed. When Govind Mandavi was taking the deceased towards threshing field, all the three persons gathered and near the threshing field gave axe blow on the deceased. He also admitted that his daughter-in-law was not feeling well and due to her ailment she went to bed. After funeral, his daughter-in-law disclosed that the 3 persons have committed murder of her husband and she named 3 persons. In cross-examination also he admitted that Binda Bai is the second wife of his son Bivan Hidko and he identified as he used to come to his house. He seen the other two accused persons first time in the Court in cross-examination. He admitted that he disclosed before the police that two masked persons have caused the murder of his son. He also admitted the quarrel between Binda Bai and Sukmai Hidko on the issue of taking the child on the lap. The Community meeting was also convened on that very issue and, thereafter, Binda Bai used to reside with her parents’ house. In further cross-examination he further admitted that except Govind Mandavi, he seen other two accused person first time before the Court. Her daughter-in-law have not disclosed about name of the other two accused persons and he also named the other two accused persons in the police statement. 21. PW-4, Sarve Ram Hidko have stated in his evidence that he knew the appellant Govind Mandavi but did not know the other two accused persons. The deceased Bivan Hidko was his cousin brother. On the date of incident the wife of Bivan Hidko namely Sukhmai Hidko has informed him that Govind has took her husband towards threshing field and committed his 15 murder. In the night of the incident itself when he had gone to the police an incident he saw the dead body of the deceased in injured condition. He has also declared hostile on his part of his police statement and then he stated about the incident whatever informed to him by Sukmai Hidko. He also admitted that Sukmai Hidko has disclosed that the face mask of one person was removed and thereby she identified that he was Govind Mandavi. In cross-examination he too have admitted the dispute between the Sukmai Hidko and Binda Bai in the community meeting. 22. PW-5, Manish Darro is the Patwari who prepared the spot map Ex.P/10 and panchnama Ex.P/11. 23. PW-6, Binda Bai Hidko is the second wife of the deceased have stated in her evidence that the deceased had performed Chudi marriage with her from whom one son has been born. After birth of her son, there was a dispute between her and Sukmai Hidko, therefore, her husband had asked her to reside in her parents' house and he used to come to her parents’ house. After declaring her hostile, she was cross-examined by the prosecution and then she admitted that her father-in-law Heeralal Hidko asked her husband and Sukmai Hidko to reside at the house situated at threshing field and raise quarrel with her. She also admitted that her father-in-law has suspected that she is having illicit relation with her brother-in-law Legda alias Binda Bai and he sent him to her parents’ house. She also admitted the dispute between her and Sukmai Hidko. She admitted that Sukmai HIdko and her father-in- law were not liking of her brother Govind Mandavi and used to raise quarrel with him. 24. PW-7, Sahdev Kadiyam have stated in his evidence that there was quarrel between Sukami Hidko and Binda Bai on the issue of their son. Community meeting was also convened 2 – 3 times on the issue of quarrel between them and in that Community meeting the father of Binda Bai have assaulted the deceased Bivan Hidko and fine was also imposed upon the father of the 16 Binda Bai for the reason that he assaulted the person in the Community meeting. After coming to knowledge about the incident he also went on the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased. The police has inquired from the appellant Govind Mandavi, Mansingh Nureti and Narendra Nag the appellant has disclosed that he assaulted the deceased by axe and informed that the axe has been kept in his house and his clothes and shoes also in his house. The police has seized the clothes, shoes and axe from the house of the appellant Govind Mandavi and in all the articles spot like blood stains were there. His memorandum statement is Ex.P/14 and seizure memo Ex.P/15. He also disclosed about his other friend Mansingh Nureti. Mansingh has also admitted in his memorandum statement that he killed the deceased and his memorandum statement is Ex.P/16 and his clothes have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/17. The police has also seized the clothes of the appellant Narendra Nag form his house. The memorandum statement of Narendra Nag Ex.P/18 and seizure memo Ex.P/19. In cross- examination he too have admitted that the dispute between the Binda Bai and Sukmai Hidko on the issue of his son of the deceased born from Binda Bai. He also proved the fact Community meeting. He also admitted his signature in the memorandum and seizure documents. From the cross- examination of this witness nothing could be elicited against his statement about recording the memorandum statement and seizure made from the accused persons. Although he seen the eye-witness but he had duly proved the memorandum and seizure of weapon and clothes of the accused persons. 25. PW-8, Ramlu Ram Kavde has met the appellant Mansingh Nureti at Gramin Bank and he asked Mansingh Nureti to left his motorcycle in his house because head light of the motorcycle was not functioning and left his motorcycle in the house of Mansingh Nureti. 2 – 3 days thereafter when he went to the house of Mansingh Nureti to take his motorcycle back then his 17 wife informed him that the police has taken his motorcycle and Mansingh Nureti is also in jail. The police has seized the RTO papers of the motorcycle from him vide seizure memo Ex.P/24. This witness is only stated about ownership of the motorcycle and seizure of the RTO papers from him. 26. PW-9, Ledga @ Binda Ram is the brother of the deceased. He too have stated about the fact whatever he has heard, he neither the eye-witness nor the witness of memorandum and seizure. 27. PW-12, Shatrughan Singh Shyam is the Scientific Officer of regional FSL, Jagdalpur, have stated in his evidence that when they received information about the incident, they visited the place and examined the entire scenario and prepared the report Ex.P/29. The blood stained soil, plain soil, clothes of the deceased were sent for chemical examination and gave necessary instructions for investigation to the investigating Officer. He also proved the photographs of the deceased Ex.P/30 to Ex.P/33. 28. PW-16, Mokshada Dewangan is the Tahsildar had conducted the test identification parade and prepared the identification memo Ex.P/65 she stated in her evidence that on 22.04.2021 she conducted the test identification parade at Tahsil Office, Bhanupratappur. At the time of identification of appellant Govind Mandavi, two independent witnesses were mixed and the witness have duly identified the appellant Govind Mandavi. In cross-examination he remained firm in material point of the identification memo and proved the same. 29. PW-13, Prashant Kumar Singh Paikra is the SDO, Police and Demanlal Bhuarya PW-14 and PW-15 Shashhikala Uike are also the police persons who conducted the investigation. They have duly proved the procedural part of their identification and but for minor variations about timing and procedure, they remained firm in the investigation part. 30. From the aforesaid evidence, it is quite vivid that on the date of incident 18 when the deceased along with his wife Sukmai Hidko were sleeping in his threshing field, the appellant Govind Mandavi along with his two friends came there, took the deceased towards threshing field and committed his murder by giving axe blow on his head. The incident was witnessed by Sukmai Hidko PW-2 and she identified the appellant Govind Mandavi as his face mask got uncovered. In her 161 Cr.P.C. statement Ex.P/5 name of Govind Mandavi appears. On the memorandum statement of Govind Mandavi, an axe , clothes and shoes have been seized from his house and as per the FSL report Ex.P/40, human blood was found on the axe, shoes of the appellant Govind Mandavi, shirt and pant of the appellant Mansingh Nureti, shirt and towel and seized from the appellant Narendra Nag and the clothes of the deceased. The memorandum statement and seizure from the appellant Govind Mandavi has been proved by PW-7 Shadev Kadyam. The appellant Govind Mandavi was duly identified in test identification parade Ex.P/65 by PW-2 Sukmai Hidko who is the eye-witness to the incident and the said test identification parade has also been proved by Tahsildar Mokshda Dewangan PW-16. The motive to commit the murder of the deceased has also been proved which comes in the evidence of all the witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-4, PW-6, PW-7, PW-8 and PW-9 that Govind Mandavi is the brother of Binda Bai, Binda Bai is the second wife of the deceased. The deceased has performed second marriage with Binda Bai. When the first wife of the deceased Sukmai Hidko could not procured child, the deceased performed second marriage with Binda Bai from whom a son was born. There was quarrel between Binda Bai and Sukmai Hidko on the issue of taking the child on the lap. By that reason Binda Bai used to reside at her parents’ house and Community meeting was also convened 3 – 4 times, quarrel took place in that Community meeting and the incident of marpeet as also happened there. The appellant Govind Mandavi have taken favour of his sister Binda Bai and she was unhappy with the deceased and 19 his family, therefore, motive is also there with Govind Mandavi to commit murder of the deceased. 31. The appellant Govind Mandavi have not given any explanation about human blood found on his clothes and axe as well as shoes in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Therefore, there is ample evidence against the appellant Govind Mandavi on record to hold him guilty for commission of murder of the deceased Bivan Hidko. Therefore, from all these evidences the involvement of the appellant Govind Mandavi in the offence of murder of the deceased Bivan Hidko is proved beyond reasonable doubt. However, the involvement of the other two appellants Mansingh Nureti and Narendra Nag could not be proved by prosecution as the witness could not identified them, their memorandum statement and seizures have also could not be proved. Further except the human blood was found on the clothes of the two other appellants no other clinching evidence is available in the case, therefore, the other appellants Mansingh Nureti and Narendra Nag are entitled for benefit of doubt. 32. From the forgoing reasons, the appeal filed by the appellant Govind Mandavi (CRA No. 1298 of 2023) is dismissed. The appeal filed by the appellant Mansingh Nureti (CRA No. 646 of 2023) and Narendra Nag (CRA No. 97 of 2024) hereby allowed. The appellants Mansingh Nureti and Narendra Nag are acquitted from the alleged offences and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence with respect to the appellants Mansingh Nureti and Narendra Nag are hereby set aside. As the appeal of the appellant Govind Mandavi is dismissed, he shall serve the entire jail sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court, however, the appellants Mansingh Nureti and Narendra Nag are reported to be in jail since 22.04.2021. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 33. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik 20 Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellants Mansingh Nureti and Narendra Nag are directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 34. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant Govind Mandavi (CRA No. 1298/2023) is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 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 Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.01.30 11:28:49 +0530