1 2025:CGHC:7227-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 834 of 2023 Panewa Manjhi S/o Jageshwar Manjhi Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Narmadapur Bihipara, P.S. Kamleshwarpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ...Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Kamleshwarpur, District Sarguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr.Ashok Kumar Swarnkar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Nitansh Kumar Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/02/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.03.2023 passed by learned Fifth Additional BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.02.13 10:11:28 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja in Sessions Trial No.85/2020 by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further ₹ undergo rigorous imprisonment for one month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.05.2020 at about 3 P.M., Dalsai had left the house with a tangi to look for his cattle, at the same time, the appellant came from behind and snatched Dalsai’s tangi and assaulted him two-three times on the head and temporal region, due to which, Dalsai suffered serious head injury and fell unconscious there. Thakur Prasad, Bhagirathi and Naihar Sai were present at the time of incident and on getting information about the incident, complainant Dabel Manjhi, Manraj, Suresh and Ganwar Manjhi reached near garden and took Dalsai to Community Health Center, Narmadapur for treatment with the help of 108 ambulance where Dalsai died during treatment. On the complainant giving information about the above incident, merg No.19/2020 was registered at Kamleshpur Police Station vide Ex.P-1. FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2. The spot map was prepared by the investigating Officer vide Ex.P-5. Panchnama was prepared in presence of the witnesses vide Ex.P-6. Inquest over the body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-7. Memorandum statement of the appellant was taken vide Ex.P-8 and on the basis of his memorandum, tangi and shirt of the appellant stains with blood were seized vide Ex.P-9. Bloodstained and plain soil were seized vide Ex.P-10. Statements of the witnesses were recorded vide Exs.P-11 3 to P-16. Postmortem of dead body of the deceased was conducted by Dr.Priyanka Singh (PW-14) vide Ex.P-17 and found following injuries:- “both eyes close, lips apart, teeth shouing outside. facial swelling, with presence of dried blood clots over whole face. Mouth cavity, Nostrile B/L filled with dried Blood & also Bath external meatus. Blood in dried form present over Both thighs & hand Both side. Small Abrasion wound present over both knee. Head soaked with blood, hairs stick together with dried blood. Multiple deep incised wound present over scalp. Brain tissue without meningeal wall protruded out from skull. Its a damage brain matter of around 150-200gm. Hand, feet & other parts look pale. Single Laceration wound present over Left earpinna. A deep Lacerated wound present over left side of upper cheek over maxilla bone of left side. No other injury found over other part of body. Rigor mortis present all 4 Limbs.” After having careful postmortem examination, the doctor came to the conclusion that cause of death is massive haemorrhagic shock with brain damage and nature of death is homicidal. Query was made with regard to tangi vide Ex.P-18 and query report is Ex.P-19 Patwari also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-20. The appellant was arrested on 30.05.2022 vide arrest memo Ex.P-31. Seized articles 4 were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-34), human blood was found in bloodstained soil (Article A), tangi (Article C), shirt (Article D1) seized from the appellant, lungi (Article F) and piece of lungi (Article G) of the deceased. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the accused / appellant was charge- sheeted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court, who in turn committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Surguja (Ambikapur), from where the Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur received the case on transfer for trial. 4. The accused / appellant abjured the guilt and entered into witness. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. The defence has examined none and no document has been exhibited. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who has caused the murder of deceased Dalsai Manjhi, proceeded to convict and sentence him under Section 302 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred. 6. Mr.Ashok Kumar Swarnkar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment dated 03.03.2023 is perverse, erroneous, contrary to law, facts and circumstances of the case, therefore, liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court failed to 5 appreciate that there is no cogent or clinching evidence to show the involvement of the present appellant in the instant case. He further submits that learned trial Court failed to observe that the prosecution has completely failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, hence, the impugned conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court wrongly convicted the appellant only on the basis of assumption and presumption. He also submits that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statement/deposition of the prosecution witnesses, falsifying the case of the prosecution. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 7. On the other hand, Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submit that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court and as such, the criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Dalsai Manjhi was homicidal in nature ? 10. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr.Priyanka Singh (PW- 13), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased 6 Dalsai Manjhi vide Ex.P-17, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Dalsai Manjhi was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 11. The next question is that the appellant has been convicted on the testimonies of eyewitnesses Bhagirathi Manjhi (PW-2) and Thakur Prasad (PW-7). 12. Bhagirathi Manjhi (PW-2) (nephew of the deceased) has stated in para 2 of his evidence that the incident took place around 2:00-3:00 in the afternoon. At the time of the incident, she was lying beside the house. Deceased Dalsai was going to search for buffalo, at that time he saw that the appellant started assaulting Dalsai with a tangi at a short distance from the house, by the time he reached the appellant had assaulted Dalsai thrice with a tangi. Dalsai had received a wound on his head, his head was torn and blood was flowing. The appellant ran away and was sitting holding the tangi some distance away. In para 3, he has stated that they called 112 to call an ambulance and took Dalsai to the hospital. Dalsai was in a critical condition at that time and was barely breathing. After being taken to the hospital, Dalsai died during treatment. In para 14 of his cross- examination, he has denied that when they reached the place of incident, appellant Panewa was not there, if he had been there, they would have caught him. The witness himself stated that the appellant was running away after hitting, they shouted catch-catch, 7 but they did not catch him out of fear, then the appellant sat down after some time. He has admitted that he was shouting catch-catch while leaving the house. The witness himself stated that the appellant had started running. 13. Thakur Prasad (PW-7) has stated in para 2 of his evidence that the incident is of about 2 years ago. He does not remember the day and date of the incident. He was sitting near the veranda, at that time, he saw Dalsai was going towards the south of the forest in search of cattle, after a while, he heard a shouting sound, when he went out and saw, Panewa Manjhi beating Dalsai after snatching his tangi. He ran to Dalsai shouting and woke him up and shouted for him to bring water. In para 3 he has stated that Panewa hitting Dalsai three-four times near the temporal region of his head. Blood was oozing from near Dalsai’s temporal region and small piece had also come out. Dalsai had become unconscious. In para 6 of his evidence he has admitted that on being questioned by the police, appellant Panewa had told that he has hidden tangi with which he had hit in the garden of his farm and he has hidden the clothes he was wearing at the time of the incident in his under construction PM house and he will get them recovered. In para 11 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he had come out from the veranda and then saw the appellant assaulting the deceased. 14. Statement of the investigating officer of the case Sudhir Minj (PW- 18) is that during his posting as the Station House Officer in Police Station Kamleshwarpur, on 29.05.2020 at 20:15, Dabel Manjhi along with other villagers Dharmu Manjhi, Ramesh Manjhi and Dhiran 8 Ram appeared in Police Station and told that on 29.05.2020 at about 3:00 in the afternoon, deceased Dalsai Manjhi went out of the house with a tangi to look for his buffalo, at the same time, at a distance of about 100 meters, his neighbour Panewa Manjhi came from behind and snatched the tangi from the deceased hand and assaulted him two-three times on the head and temporal region with tangi, due to which, Dalsai suffered serious head injury and he died during treatment at hospital and on the basis of information received regarding the above incident, Merg No.19/2020 (Ex.P-1) was registered in Police Station Kamleshwarpur. On the basis of said case, as per the statement of complainant Dabel Manjhi, First Information Report (Ex.P-2) was registered whose counter nalisi is Ex.P-27. 15. Medical witness of the case Dr.Priyanka Singh (PW-13) has stated that she has examined the seized property, tangi and clothes in the case and submitted the query report (Ex.P-18). According to the opinion of medical witness, the marked marks on the shirt appeared to be bloodstains, for which FSL examination was advised. Similarly, after examining the seized tangi, it was opined that the type of injuries mentioned in the postmortem examination is likely to have been caused by the seized tangi. 16. The Supreme Court in the matter of Rai Sandeep @ Deenu v. State of NCT of Delhi, 2012 (8) SCC 21 held as under:- “22. In our considered opinion, the ‘sterling witness’ should be of a very high quality and caliber whose 9 version should, therefore, be unassailable. The Court considering the version of such witness should be in a position to accept it for its face value without any hesitation. To test the quality of such a witness, the status of the witness would be immaterial and what would be relevant is the truthfulness of the statement made by such a witness. What would be more relevant would be the consistency of the statement right from the starting point till the end, namely, at the time when the witness makes the initial statement and ultimately before the Court. It should be natural and consistent with the case of the prosecution qua the accused. There should not be any prevarication in the version of such a witness. The witness should be in a position to withstand the cross-examination of any length and howsoever strenuous it may be and under no circumstance should give room for any doubt as to the factum of the occurrence, the persons involved, as well as, the sequence of it. Such a version should have co-relation with each and everyone of other supporting material such as the recoveries made, the weapons used, the manner of offence committed, the scientific evidence and the expert opinion. The said version should consistently match with the version of every other witness. It can even be stated that it should be akin to the test applied in the case of circumstantial evidence where there should not be any missing link in the chain of circumstances to hold the accused guilty of the offence alleged against him. Only if the version of such a witness qualifies the above test as well as all other similar such tests to be applied, it can be held that such a witness can be called as a ‘sterling witness’ whose version can be accepted by 10 the Court without any corroboration and based on which the guilty can be punished. To be more precise, the version of the said witness on the core spectrum of the crime should remain intact while all other attendant materials, namely, oral, documentary and material objects should match the said version in material particulars in order to enable the Court trying the offence to rely on the core version to sieve the other supporting materials for holding the offender guilty of the charge alleged.” 17. In the present case, on the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-8, tangi and shirt stains with blood were seized at the instance of the appellant and as per FSL report (Ex.P-34), human blood was found on tangi (Article C) and shirt (Article D1) seized from the appellant. 18. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as under: - “27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.” 19. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. 20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja alias Perumal v. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC 11 OnLine SC 12 has defined the ‘custody’. It held that the expression “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police. 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Boby v State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 held that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. Section 27 puts a bar to use the confessional statement, but the fact that discovery and information which proved to reliable would be a circumstantial evidence. 22. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principle of law laid down by the Supreme Court noticed hereinabove, in the present case, Bhagirathi Manjhi (PW-2) and Thakur Prasad (PW-7) are eyewitness of the incident. Bhagirathi Manjhi (PW-2) (nephew of the deceased) has stated in para 2 of his evidence that the incident took 12 place around 2:00-3:00 in the afternoon. At the time of the incident, she was lying beside the house. Deceased Dalsai was going to search for buffalo, at that time he saw that the appellant started assaulting Dalsai with a tangi at a short distance from the house, by the time he reached the appellant had assaulted Dalsai thrice with a tangi. Dalsai had received a wound on his head, his head was torn and blood was flowing. The appellant ran away and was sitting holding the tangi some distance away. Thakur Prasad (PW-7) has stated in para 2 of his evidence that the incident is of about 2 years ago. He does not remember the day and date of the incident. He was sitting near the veranda, at that time, he saw Dalsai was going towards the south of the forest in search of cattle, after a while, he heard a shouting sound, when he went out and saw, Panewa Manjhi beating Dalsai after snatching his tangi. He ran to Dalsai shouting and woke him up and shouted for him to bring water. They have been subjected to cross-examination, but nothing has been elicited to hold that they were not present at the time when the appellant assaulted Dalsai Manjhi by tangi. As such, testimonies of Bhagirathi Manjhi (PW-2) and Thakur Prasad (PW-7) remained uncontroverted. 23. The trial Court in para 43 of its judgment has held that regarding all the above evidence presented by the prosecution in the case, during the trial under Section 313 CrPC the appellant has stated that he is innocent and that he has been falsely implicated, but even after being given the opportunity, no witness has been examined as a defence witness. During the arguments, learned defence counsel has submitted that there is contradiction in the statements of the 13 witnesses examined in the case and the appellant has been falsely implicated due to personal enmity and animosity. The prosecution’s case is based on possibility and incomplete facts, hence, the appellant should be acquitted. On the contrary, the prosecution submitted that the eyewitnesses in the case have supported the prosecution story, the memorandum and seizure proceedings have been certified and the FSL report also shows the presence of human blood in the clothes worn by the appellant, it has been confirmed, hence, the appellant should be convicted and sentence should be passed. 24. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the statements of Bhagirathi Manjhi (PW-2) and Thakur Prasad (PW-7), considering the material available on record and also considering the finding recorded by the trial Court and postmortem report (Ex.P-17) of Dr. Priyanka Singh (PW-13), we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 25. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 26. It is stated at the Bar that the the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 14 27. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 28. 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 judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu