Page No.1 of 8 IN CRA-1420-2015 CGHC010288312015 2026:CGHC:30833-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1420 of 2015 [Arising out of judgment dated 29.07.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No.14/2015 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Dhunesh Sahu) by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG)] Dhunesh Sahu S/o Banshi Lal Sahu Aged About 23 Years R/o Village- Bami, P.S.- Sahashpur Lohara, District- Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant/ (On Bail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Sahaspur Lohara, District Kabirdham (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Ayachi, Advocate For Respondent : Dr. S.K. Dewangan, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, and Hon'ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (21.07.2026) 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 correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 8 IN CRA-1420-2015 sentence dated 29.07.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No.14/2015 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Dhunesh Sahu) by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) (CG), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 15.02.2015, at Village Bami, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Sahashpur Lohara, District- Kabirdham (CG), the accused-appellant committed murder of his mother- Bindabai (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) by causing her injuries by means of spade 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 by Sarpanch of the village, namely, Top Singh Sahu (PW-01), 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/03 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/04. Nazari Naksha was also prepared vide Ex.P/12. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Sanjay Kharsan (PW-07) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/15), cause of death of the deceased is hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding. The appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/11 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/07. Pursuant to the Page No.3 of 8 IN CRA-1420-2015 memorandum statement of the appellant, spade (weapon of the offence) was seized vide Ex.P/08. Certain other articles were also seized vide Ex.P/09 to Ex.P/14. However, though the seized articles were sent for chemical examination vide Ex.P/22, but no FSL report has been brought on record for the reason 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 8 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents, whereas the appellant- accused in support of his defence has 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 preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (6) Mr. Ajay Ayachi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant Page No.4 of 8 IN CRA-1420-2015 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. He vehemently argued that the testimonies of Topsingh Sahu (PW-01) and Dhamsingh (PW-02) are not reliable piece of evidence in shape of eye-witness to the incident, as they have not seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased and committing her murder. So far as recovery of spade (weapon of the offence) vide Ex.P/08 pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P/07 is concerned, there is no evidence available on record to show that it is the appellant herein who has used the said spade in commission of the offence and, even, there is no FSL report available on record to show that any blood stains of human origin is present on it. Further, witness to the memorandum (Ex.P/07), namely, Dham Singh (Pw-02) has stated that his statement has been recorded by the police in Police Station and signed the same in Police Station and, as such, the same is also no reliable piece of evidence in the eyes of law. 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 Page No.5 of 8 IN CRA-1420-2015 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/15), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of the deceased is hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. Sanjay Kharsan (PW-07). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/15) and the statement of Dr. Sanjay Kharsan (PW-07), 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 has answered in affirmative on the basis of: (i) Page No.6 of 8 IN CRA-1420-2015 statements of eye-witnesses to the incident, namely, Topsingh Sahu (PW-01) and Dhamsingh (PW-02) and (ii) recovery of spade pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant. (11) In the case at hand, the first evidence that has been relied upon by the learned trial Court to hold the appellant guilty for the offence is the statements of eye-witnesses to the incident, namely, Topsingh Sahu (PW-01) and Dhamsingh (PW-02). However, as bare perusal of the statement of Topsingh Sahu (PW-01), who has lodged merg intimation (Ex.P/01) and FIR (Ex.P/02), would show he was informed by Dham Singh (PW-02) that the appellant has killed his mother (deceased) and, as such, it cannot be said that he is the eye- witness to the incident. In the considered opinion of this Court, Topsingh Sahu (PW-01) is only lodger of FIR (Ex.P/02) and merg intimation (Ex.P/01) and he is not the eye-witness to the incident and, therefore, reliance placed by learned trial Court on the statement of Topsingh Sahu (PW-01) being an eye-witness to the incident is no in accordance with law and liable to be discarded. Similarly, Dham Singh (PW-02) was informed about the incident by Rajkumar and Rajkumar has not been examined for the reasons best known to the prosecution and, therefore, Dham Singh (PW-02) has also not seen the incident of appellant assaulting or committing murder of the deceased and, consequently, he is also not an eye- witness to the incident in the present case. As such, reliance placed Page No.7 of 8 IN CRA-1420-2015 by the learned trial Court on the testimonies of Topsingh Sahu (PW- 01) and Dhamsingh (PW-02) as eye-witness to the incident in order to hold the appellant guilty for the offence is totally bad in law and, therefore, the findings recorded in this behalf are liable to be and are hereby rejected. We hereby hold accordingly. (12) So far as the second piece of evidence with regard to recovery of spade pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant is concerned, the same has also not been proved in accordance with law. The reocvery of said spade has been found proved by the learned trial Court on the basis of statement of Dham Singh (PW-02), but, Dham Singh (PW-02), who is witness to the memorandum statement (Ex.P/07) and seizure memo (Ex.P/08), has stated that the police has recorded his statement in the Police Station and he signed the same in the Police Station, whereas, according to seizure memo (Ex.P/08), the said spade has been recovered/seized from Village Bami and, therefore, it creates a doubt on the seziure of spade and same cannot be relied upon to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. Even otherwise, there is no evidence on record to show that the appellant herein has used the said spade in commission of the offence and further there is no FSL report available on record to show that any blood stains of human origin is present on it or not. Consequently, for the aforesaid cumulative reasons, the recovery of said spade is of no help to the prosecution. We hereby hold accordingly. Page No.8 of 8 IN CRA-1420-2015 (13) In view of foregoing analysis, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable 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 findings 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 29.07.2015. 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