Page No.1 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 CGHC010444932019 2026:CGHC:38280-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 2011 of 2019 [Arising out of judgment dated 08.11.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No.09/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Julfekar Beg) by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (CG)] Julfekar Beg, S/o Late Rehmat Beg, aged about 41 years, R/o Golbazar Khairagarh, Police Station and Tehsil Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Akhilesh Mishra, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate and Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (31.08.2026) 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 Page No.2 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.11.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No.09/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Julfekar Beg) by the Addl. Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District Rajnandgaon (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, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 24.01.2018, at about 06:45 PM, at Ward No.07, Panchsheel Kirana Store, Golbazar, Khairagarh, the accused-appellant herein assaulted his Julkekar Ahmed Khan (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) by means of iron rod, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died 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/04) and FIR (Ex.P/01) were registered and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/05 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/06. Spot map was also prepared vide Ex.P/07, whereas Panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P/11 & P/12. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. PS Parihar (PW-16) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/26), cause of death of the deceased is coma and hemorrhage and nature of death is homicidal. Page No.3 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 The appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/17 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/10. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, iron rod was seized vide Ex.P/08. Certain other articles were also seized vide Ex.P/03 & Ex.P/15 Thereafter, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination, in which, as per FSL report (Ex.P/C-1) it has been opined that stains human blood were found on the iron rod seized from the appellant. 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 17 witnesses and exhibited 27 documents apart from FSL report (Ex.C-1), whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence, though not examined any witness, but 01 exhibited 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 preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned Page No.4 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (6) Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel argued that Juber Ahmad Khan (PW-01), Dileep Futani (PW-04) and Sanjay Walecha (PW-07) are hearsay witnesses and there testimonies could not be relied upon to base the conviction. Even otherwise, it is not established that the iron rod, which the appellant was holding, as per the statements of the aforesaid witnesses, was actually used in commission of the offence in question. So far FSL report is concerned, though it is opined that stains of blood was found on the iron rod, seized from the appellant, but there is nothing available on record to show that the said blood is of human origin or having same blood group to that of the deceased. Therefore, the recovery aforesaid is also of no help to the prosecution. 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 leading evidence of clinching nature. In view of the statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on Page No.5 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under 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/26), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of the deceased is coma and hemorrhage and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. PS Parihar (PW-16). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/26) and the statement of Dr. PS Parihar (PW-16), 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. (10) Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the appellant herein is the author of the crime or not, which the learned trial Court answered in affirmative on the following evidence i.e. (i) Page No.6 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 statements of Juber Ahmad Khan (PW-01), Dileep Futani (PW-04) and Sanjay Walecha (PW-07), whereby they have seen the appellant holding the blood stained iron rod immediately after the incident; and (ii) pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P/10, iron rod has been seized vide Ex.P/08, in which, as per FSL report, stains of blood were found. (11) We shall now consider each of the above-mentioned evidence/circumstances one by one in order to ascertain whether the learned trial Court has rightly relied upon it or not to hold the appellant guilty for the offence in question. As regards testimonies of Juber Ahmad Khan (PW-01), Dileep Futani (PW-04) and Sanjay Walecha (PW-07): (12) Juber Ahmad Khan (PW-01) is son of the petitioner. He has stated that at the relevant point of time he was in the bathroom washing his hands and mouth and on being call made by Dileep Futani (PW-04) he came out of the house and saw his father suffered injuries and appellant was holding iron rod and going towards his house. Immediately thereafter he informed the Government Hospital for calling ambulance and reported the matter to the police. However, a careful perusal of the statement of Juber Ahmad Khan (PW-01) would show that at the time of incident he was in the bathroom, which is adjacent to the place of occurrence and came out Page No.7 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 after the incident and he had not seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased and, therefore, he cannot be treated to be an eye-witness to the incident. As such, his statement cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilt for the offence. (13) Dileep Futani (PW-04), who called Juber Ahmad Khan (PW-01) at the spot is a nearby shopkeeper. He has stated that he was informed by Sanjay Walecha (PW-07)) that the deceased has suffered injuries and, thereafter, he came out from his shop and saw that the deceased and the appellant was holding the iron rod and then immediately thereafter he called Juber Ahmad Khan (PW-01) [son of the deceased]. Further, in Para-05 he has also stated that at the relevant point of time, in the shop of the deceased no one was present accept the deceased. Even, in Para-10 he has also stated that the iron rod which the appellant was holding is usually available in the market. As such, from the statement of Dileep Futani (PW-04) it is quite clear that he has also not seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased. Therefore, he cannot be treated to be an eye-witness to the incident. As such, his statement cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilt for the offence. (14) Sanjay Walecha (PW-07) has firstly informed about the incident to Dileep Futani (PW-04) and he clearly stated that he has not seen the appellant causing injuries to the deceased. As such, this Page No.8 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 witness is also not an eye-witness to the incident. Even, he has clearly made a statement that he did not state before the police that at the time of incident the appellant was standing holding the iron rod. As such, his statement cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilt for the offence. Consequently, all the aforesaid witnesses have neither seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased by means of iron rod on the date of incident nor they were present at the spot at the time of incident and they have only seen the appellant holding the iron rod. Even, the statements of aforesaid witnesses do not fall within the meaning of Section 06 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. Hence, their statements cannot be relied upon in shape of eye-witnesses to the incident to hold the appellant guilt for the offence in question, which the leaned trial Court has committed grave legal error while relying upon the same. We hereby hold accordingly. As regards recovery of iron rod pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant: (15) True it is that pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P/10, iron rod has been seized vide Ex.P/08, in which, as per FSL report, stains of blood were found. However, there is no evidence available on record to show that the appellant herein has used the said wooden stick in commission of the offence in question and, therefore, the recovery aforesaid is not a Page No.9 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 reliable piece of evidence in the present case (See: Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen vs. State of Rajasthan 1 . Furthermore, though in the FSL report it has been opined that stains of blood were found on the said iron rod, but the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Nayka v. State of Chhattisgarh 2 by relying upon its earlier decision rendered in the matter of Mustkeen (supra) has further held that sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained article cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated with other piece of incriminating circumstances. Accordingly, for the aforesaid reasons, the recovery of said wooden stick is also of no help to the prosecution. We hereby hold accordingly. (16) In view of foregoing analysis, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, in absence of which, the learned trial Court is unjustified in convicting the appellant for offences under Section 302 being the author of the crime in question in light of the evidence/circumstances culled out in the impugned judgment and same are liable to be set aside. (17) 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 08.11.2019. The appellant is acquitted of 1 (2011) 11 SCC 724 2 2024 SCC Online SC 67 Page No.10 of 10 IN CRA-2011-2019 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. (18) This criminal appeal is allowed. (19) 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