Page No.1 of 8 IN CRA-1925-2019 2026:CGHC:26187-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1925 of 2019 [Arising out of judgment dated 05.08.2029, passed in Sessions Trial No.12/2019 (State vs. Bodya @ Bodiya Manjhi) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (CG)] Bodya Alias Bodiya Manjhi S/o Late Suknaath Manjhi Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Sonepur , Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (On Bail) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh., District : Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Jain and Ms. Kiran Jain, Advocates For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Government Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (29.06.2026) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J (1) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality, validity and SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 8 IN CRA-1925-2019 correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.08.2029, passed in Sessions Trial No.12/2019 (State vs. Bodya @ Bodiya Manjhi) passed by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (CG), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 02 months. (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 12.12.2018, at about 15:00 Hours, at Village Sonepur, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Kapu, District Raigarh (CG), the accused- appellant herein committed murder of his father, namely, Suknath (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) by causing him club injury by means of bamboo stick and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offence. (3) It is further case of the prosecution that when the matter was reported to the police, merg intimation (Ex.P/01) and FIR (Ex.P/02) were registered and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/04 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/05. Spot map was also prepared and the dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Sarju Prasad Rathiya (PW-06) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/12), cause of death of Page No.3 of 8 IN CRA-1925-2019 the deceased is coma due to head injury and intracranial bleeding and nature of death is homicidal. The appellant-accused was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/07. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, weapon of the offence i.e. bamboo stick was seized vide Ex.P/10. Certain other articles were also seized from the spot vide Ex.P/08. One t-shirt of the deceased was also seized vide Ex.P/14. However, the seized articles were not sent for chemical examination for the reasons best known to the prosecution. After statements of witnesses were recorded and due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. (4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 07 witnesses and exhibited 14 documents, whereas the appellant- accused in support of his defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. (5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this appeal has been Page No.4 of 8 IN CRA-1925-2019 preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (6) Mr. Rajesh Jain, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. There is no evidence available on record to connect the appellant in the present crime. However, the learned trial Court has premised the conviction of the appellant solely on the basis of statements of eye-witnesses, namely, Ramsai (PW-01) and Kishun (PW-02), who have not at all supported the case of the prosecution. They have not uttered a word in their testimony that they have seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased. Therefore, the evidence in shape of their testimony is of no help to the prosecution. Further, though pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, one bamboo stick has been recovered, but there is no FSL report or any other evidence available on record to show that the said bamboo stick was used by the appellant in the instant crime. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. (7) Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by Page No.5 of 8 IN CRA-1925-2019 leading evidence of clinching nature. In view of the statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections Section 302 of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. (8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. (9) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/12), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of the deceased is coma due to head injury and intracranial bleeding and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. Sarju Prasad Rathiya (PW-06). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/12) and the statement of Dr. Sarju Prasad Rathiya (PW-06), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby affirm the said finding. Page No.6 of 8 IN CRA-1925-2019 (10) Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the appellant herein is the author of the crime or not ? (11) In the case at hand, the conviction of the appellant is solely premised on the statements of eye-witnesses, namely, Ramsai (PW- 01) and Kishun (PW-02). However, a careful perusal of the statement of Ramsai (PW-01) would show that in his examination-in-chief at Para-01 he has clearly stated that though he has seen the dead-body of the deceased lying near the door, situated in front of the house of the appellant, and the appellant was trying to administer water to the deceased, but whether the appellant has assaulted the deceased or the deceased died by own due to falling, he has no knowledge about it. Further, in his cross-examination at Para-5 he clearly stated that he has not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased, indeed, he only heard the sound of quarrel. Even, he specifically stated that he has not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased by means of ‘danda’ and has also contradicted his statements recorded under Section 161 of CrPC and as mentioned in the FIR (Ex.P/02). As such, Ramsai (PW-01) cannot be considered to be an eye-witness to the incident. Similarly, Kishun (PW-02) in his cross-examination has clearly stated that he has not seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased by means of bamboo stick, however, when he reached to the spot he saw that the appellant was holding bamboo stick, which belongs to the deceased. Further, he also admitted that Page No.7 of 8 IN CRA-1925-2019 at the time of the incident he was not in the village where the incident took place i.e. Sonpur, as he used to reside in another Village, namely, Jobi and he visited village Sonpur, where incident took place, after 1-2 days of the incident. As such, Kishun (PW-02) also cannot be considered to be an eye-witness to the incident. Accordingly, the learned trial Court committed grave legal error while relying upon the testimonies of Ramsai (PW-01) and Kishun (PW-02), being eye-witnesses to the incident, as from their statements it is quite clear that they have not seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court to that extent is liable to be and is hereby set aside. We hereby hold accordingly. (12) Furthermore, though pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P/07, one bamboo stick has been recorded vide Ex.P/10, but there is no evidence available on record to show that the appellant used the said bamboo stick in commission of the instant crime at any point of time and, even, there is no FSL report to show that any blood stains of human origin are present on the said bamboo stick, for the reasons best known to the prosecution. As such, the recovery of said bamboo stick from the appellant is also of no help to the prosecution. We hereby hold accordingly. (13) In view of foregoing analysis, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove their case beyond all reasonable Page No.8 of 8 IN CRA-1925-2019 doubt and, in absence of which, the learned trial Court is unjustified in convicting the appellant for offences under Sections 302 of IPC being the author of the crime in question in light of the evidence culled out in the impugned judgment and same are liable to be set aside. (14) Accordingly, we hereby set aside the conviction so recorded and the sentence so awarded by the trial Court to the appellant vide the impugned judgment dated 05.08.2019. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. The appellant is reported to be on bail, therefore, he need not to surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in force for a further period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. (15) This criminal appeal is allowed. (16) Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge s@if