1 2025:CGHC:33242-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 761 of 2022 Shahrukh Khan S/o Sherkhan, Aged About 22 Years R/o Durga Chowk, Police Station - City Kotwali, Balodabazar, District - Balodabazar- Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, Balodabazar - Bhatapara, District - Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent CRA No. 482 of 2022 Iqbal Khan S/o Ramjan Khan Aged About 22 Years R/o Lohiya Nagar, Baloda Bazar, District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali , District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant (In CRA No.761/2022) : Mr. Shivendu Pandya, Advocate For Appellant (In CRA No.482/2022) : Mr. Hemant Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.17 10:44:55 +0530 2 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 16.07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Shivendu Pandya, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.761/2022 and Mr. Hemant Gupta, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.482/2022. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved being arising out of a common crime vide impugned judgment dated 04.03.2022 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.50/2020, these appeals have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 3. It is an admitted fact that there were total 06 accused persons, namely Shahrukh Khan, Iqbal Khan, Rahul Bharti, Javed Khan, Raza Khan and Suraj Vaishnav. By the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2022, the accused persons, namely, Rahul Bharti, Javed Khan, Raza Khan and Suraj Vaishnav have been acquitted of the charges levelled against them. 4. Appellant-Shahrukh Khan (A-1) has preferred CRA No.761/2022 and Appellant-Iqbal Khan (A-2) has preferred CRA No.482/2022 under 3 Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) questioning the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2022 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.50/2020, by which they have been convicted and sentenced as under :- For appellant- Shahrukh Khan: under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 01 years. For appellant- Shahrukh Khan: under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment of 01 years. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 27.06.2020, Assistant Sub-Inspector Jaiman Lakra (PW-13) of Police Station City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar, received information that Bhagwati Yadav (deceased) and Ishwar Kurre (PW-3) were walking near their house at Lohia Nagar, Baloda Bazar. During this time, Suraj Vaishnav, called the deceased on his mobile and asked him to let him speak to his mother regarding some important matter. Acting upon this request, both Ishwar Kurre and Bhagwati Yadav went to Suraj Vaishnav’s house, where the deceased handed over the phone to Suraj’s mother. She went inside the house 4 while talking on the phone. Meanwhile, accused persons Iqbal Khan, Shahrukh Khan, Javed Khan, Raza Khan, and Rahul Dewar arrived together at the spot. Iqbal Khan and Shahrukh Khan assaulted Bhagwati Yadav with knives, inflicting injuries on his chest and stomach, causing his death on the spot. Upon receipt of this information, Marg Intimation (Ex.P/14) was registered, followed by registration of FIR No.0/2020 (Ex.P/13). Subsequently, the case was registered as Crime No.36/2020 (Ex.P/22) at City Kotwali, Baloda Bazar for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 147, 148, 149 of the IPC and First Information Report was registered vide Ex.P/23. During the course of investigation, it was revealed that the accused had hatched a conspiracy to murder Bhagwati Yadav, hence offences under Section 120-B IPC and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act were also added. 6. During investigation, memorandum statements of the accused Iqbal Khan and Shahrukh Khan were recorded vide Ex.P/1 and Ex.P/2 and at the instance of accused Iqbal Khan and Shahrukh Khan, knife used in the incident was seized vide Ex.P/4 and Ex.P/5. Blood stained and plain soil was seized vide Ex.P/6 and clothes of the appellants Iqbal Khan and Shahrukh Khan were seized vide Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/9, respectively. Inquest was prepared vide Ex.P/19. The dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination vide Ex.P/25, which was conducted by Dr. Waseem Raza (PW-16) and according to the Postmortem Report (Ex.P/37), the cause of death of deceased Bhagwati Yadav appears to be injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged 5 weapon. The injuries were found on vital organs such as the heart, liver, and spleen, resulting in excessive hemorrhage and internal bleeding. The doctor conducting the postmortem opined that the nature of death was homicidal. The appellants were arrested on 28.06.2020 vide arrest memo Ex.P/26 and Ex.P/27, respectively. The seized articles were sent for its chemical examination to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur and according to the FSL report (Ex.P/36), blood was found on the seized knife as well as clothes of the accused Iqbal Khan and Shahrukh Khan and the group of the blood group was disintegrated. 7. Upon completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar for the offence punishable under Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 120-B IPC and Sections 25, 27 Arms Act. 8. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet in the concerned jurisdictional Court and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law, from where the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. The appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated in the crime in question. 6 9. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 18 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-18 and exhibited 40 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/40, whereas the appellants-accused in support of their defence have neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 10. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 04.03.2022, acquitted the accused, namely Rahul Bharti, Javed Khan, Raza Khan and Suraj Vaishnav and convicted and sentenced the appellants-Iqbal Khan and Shahrukh Khan in the manner mentioned in the fourth paragraph of this judgment, against which these appeals under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. have been preferred by them calling in question the impugned judgment. 11. Learned counsel for the appellants jointly submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC, as the learned trial Court has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse, and against the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence as the learned trial Court has recorded conviction of the appellants in complete disregard of the evidence on record and has failed to appreciate the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The judgment is wholly based on conjecture and surmise, not supported by cogent, reliable, or admissible evidence. It has been contended that the 7 prosecution has utterly failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were present at the scene of crime or participated in the alleged offence. There is no eyewitness account or independent corroboration linking the appellants to the commission of the alleged murder. It has been further submitted that the key prosecution witnesses, namely Laxmi Bai (PW-4), Puja Yadav (PW-2), Deepak Sen (PW-6), Vishnu Janghel (PW-7), Dileep Sen (PW-1), and Ishwar Kurrer (PW-3) either turned hostile or did not support the prosecution story as such, their evidence lacks corroboration and cannot be relied upon to sustain conviction. It is submitted that the alleged memorandum and seizure attributed to the appellants are neither proved in accordance with law nor do they connect the appellants to the crime as no incriminating articles were seized from the appellants that could support the prosecution’s case. It is further submitted that though the postmortem report (Ex.P/37) confirms death by sharp weapon injuries, but there is no evidence connecting those injuries to the appellants. Furthermore, no FSL report matching the appellant’s involvement was placed before the Court. The alleged bloodstains and materials do not connect the appellants with the deceased. It has been argued that the learned trial Court has erroneously placed reliance on statements under Section 164 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) despite clear denial by the appellants in their 313 Cr.P.C. statement. In the absence of independent corroboration, such statements cannot form the sole basis of conviction. It has been argued that the prosecution’s case suffers from material omissions, 8 contradictions, and inconsistencies, and has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court failed to adhere to the settled principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. There is no concrete evidence proving the presence of the appellants at the crime scene. In such circumstances, the possibility of false implication by the investigating agency cannot be ruled out. It has been lastly argued that in a criminal trial, the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused. The prosecution having failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 12. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. He further submits that there is ample evidence on record to connect the appellants with the offence in question. It has been contended that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants on the basis of clear, trustworthy, and cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The judgment is well- reasoned, supported by law and facts, and does not warrant any interference by this Court. It has been further contended that that incident was witnessed by PW-3 Ishwar Kurre and PW-4 Pooja Yadav, whose statements have remained consistent and trustworthy. Both witnesses have clearly identified the appellants as the assailants who inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased Bhagwati Yadav by means of a 9 knife. There is no reason to disbelieve these natural and reliable witnesses, who were present at the scene. It is submitted that the postmortem report (Ex.P/37) has established that the cause of death was sharp-edged weapon injuries to vital organs (heart, liver, spleen) resulting in excessive internal bleeding, clearly indicating homicidal death. This medical evidence fully corroborates the eyewitness accounts. The prosecution has proved through oral evidence that there was prior enmity between the appellants and the deceased. The motive for the offence is evident and has been properly considered by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the appellants have failed to lead any evidence in defence despite opportunities given. Their mere denial during Section 313 Cr.P.C. examination holds no evidentiary value against the strong and consistent prosecution evidence. It is argued that the appellants stand convicted for the heinous offence of murder (Section 302 IPC), punishable with life imprisonment. The crime involved brutal assault with a knife causing death on the spot. Such a serious crime against society does not deserve leniency. Hence, they submit that there is sufficient material available on record to connect the appellants with the offence and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted them for the offence aforementioned crime and thus, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10 14. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 15. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased- Bhagwati Yadav was homicidal in nature ? 16. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Waseem Raza (PW-16), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased vide Ex.P/37, has clearly come to the conclusion that the cause of death of the deceased appears to be injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon on vital organs such as the heart, liver, and spleen, resulting in excessive hemorrhage and internal bleeding. The doctor conducting the postmortem opined that the nature of death was homicidal. 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. 17. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are author of the crime. 18. In the present case, homicidal death due to injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon on vital organs such as the heart, liver, and spleen, resulting in excessive hemorrhage and internal bleeding. The doctor conducting the postmortem opined that the nature of death was 11 homicidal has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of eyewitness Pooja Yadav (PW-2), first informant Ishwar Kurre (PW-3) and further the evidence of Dr. Waseem Raza (PW-16) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/37) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 19. As regards complicity of the appellants in crime in question, conviction of the appellants is substantially based on the evidence of Dr. Waseem Raza (PW-16) as well as the evidence of eyewitness Pooja Yadav (PW-2) and the first informant of the incident Ishwar Kurre (PW-3). 20. Dilip Sain (PW-1), the witness of seizure memo Ex.P/8 regarding the said mobile, stated in his examination-in-chief that the police had not seized any item from Suraj Vaishnav in his presence. However, he admitted his signature on the said seizure memo. 21. Pooja Yadav (PW-2) admitted in a leading question that she had stated in her police statement Ex.P/13 that as part of the conspiracy, Suraj Vaishnav had called her husband near his house on the phone. 22. Vishnu Baghel (PW-7) stated in a leading question that the accused Suraj Vaishnav had called the deceased Bhakti alias Bhagwati Yadav to the scene of the incident by deceiving him, but he did not state how he had deceived him. 23. Jammu Manikpuri (PW-8) stated that a day or two before the incident, accused Suraj had asked him for mobile number 12 96699275734 to use. The said mobile was red in colour and of Oppo company. The witness admitted this fact in cross-examination. 24. Ishwar Kurre (PW-3), whom the prosecution has claimed to be an eyewitness, has stated in his examination-in-chief that he knew the deceased Bhakti alias Bhagwati Yadav. The incident took place about 11-12 months before the date of trial, at about 8:30 PM. He and the deceased were walking towards their house in Indira Colony, Balodabazar. At that time, Suraj Vaishnav called on the deceased's mobile and asked him to let him talk to his mother. Then, he and Bhakti Yadav went to Lohia Nagar and Bhakti Yadav called Suraj Vaishnav and gave the mobile to his mother. She took the mobile and went inside the house. He and Bhakti Yadav were standing outside the house. When Suraj’s mother came back to return the mobile, at that time both the accused, Iqbal and Shahrukh, came there and took out knives and stabbed Bhakti Yadav in the chest, stomach, and near the neck, due to which the deceased died on the spot. In the leading question, the witness denied the fact that at the time of the incident, a total of five persons had come and all five together had committed the murder. The witness specifically stated that he had seen only two persons. The above statements of the witness remained unshaken in their cross- examinations. 25. Likewise, Ku. Pooja Yadav (PW-2), wife of the deceased and eye- witness of the incident has deposed in her evidence that on 27.06.2020 at 8:30 PM, she was walking outside her house with her friend Lalli. At 13 the same time, she heard a shout of a fight in front of Suraj Vaishnav's house. Then she went and saw that the accused Shahrukh and Iqbal were stabbing her husband with a knife. The accused Javed, Rahul, and Raza were beating her husband with hands and feet after throwing him into the drain. She returned home and informed her father, who then went to the spot. By that time, her husband had already been taken to the hospital. This witness admitted in cross-examination that the incident took place at 10:30 PM. She also admitted that Suraj was not present at the time of the incident. This witness further stated in paragraph 13 of her cross-examination that she had told the police in her statement that the accused Javed, Rahul, and Raza were beating her husband with hands and feet after throwing him into the drain. If this fact is not mentioned in her police statement (Ex.P/13), she could not explain the reason for its omission. This part of her statement is not recorded in her police statement Ex.P/13, and the investigating officer Vijay Chaudhary has admitted in cross-examination that he recorded the witnesses’ statements as per their instructions. 26. From the above statements, it is clear and proved that at the time of the incident, only two persons, Shahrukh Khan and Iqbal Khan, armed with sharp weapons (knives), committed the assault. 27. Vishnu Baghel (PW-7), the foster father of the deceased, whom the prosecution claims to be an eyewitness to the incident, stated that on the date of the incident, his daughter-in-law, Puja Yadav, told him that a fight was going on in front of Om Prakash's house. He then went 14 to the spot and saw that the accused Iqbal and Shahrukh were stabbing Bhakti Yadav with a knife, while the accused Raza, Rahul, and Javed were holding Bhakti Yadav. The accused fled from the scene upon seeing him. Bhakti alias Bhagwati Yadav died on the date of the incident itself. However, Pooja Yadav (PW-2), daughter-in-law of this witness, stated in her examination-in-chief that she came home and woke up her father and told him that the accused were stabbing her husband, after which her father went to the scene of the incident. By then, her husband had not yet died. 28. The memorandum statements of Suraj Vaishnav and seizure witnesses Ishwar Kurre (PW-3) and Dilip Sen (PW-1) were recorded. Ishwar Kurre (PW-3) stated that his signature is on the memorandum statement Ex.P/1 of accused Iqbal Khan, Ex.P/2 of accused Shahrukh Khan. He further stated that the police seized a knife from bushes near Sulabh Shauchalaya behind Ramsagar pond as per Ex.P/4, based on the memorandum of accused Iqbal and the blood-stained clothes were seized from accused Iqbal Khan as per Ex.P/7. He further stated that the police did not seize any item from accused Shahrukh Khan, but the witness acknowledged his signature on seizure memos Ex.P/5 and Ex.P/9 when shown to him. In response to a leading question, the witness confirmed as true that accused Shahrukh got the knife recovered after giving his memorandum statement, following which seizure memo Ex.P/5 was prepared. Accused Shahrukh also produced his blood-stained shirt and half-pants, which were seized and recorded as per Ex.P/9. The seized articles were sent for its chemical 15 examination and according to the FSL report (Ex.P/36), blood stains were found on the seized knives as well as clothes of both the accused persons namely Iqbal Khan and Shahrukh Khan. 29. Dr. Waseem Raza (PW-16) has conducted the postmortem of the dead body of deceased Bhagwati Yadav on 13.03.2020 and given the postmortem report (Ex.P/19) and found following injuries :- “External examination of the dead body - The body was lying straight on the PM table and its body was stiff. The eyes and mouth of the dead body were closed. The deceased had 7 wounds on his chest and stomach which were stitched and were about 3 cm long. There was a 2 cm deep wound on his left side below the shoulder. There were hyposthesis (small blood spots) on the lower part of the back. Internal examination of the dead body- On internal examination of the dead body I found that the deceased's spine, ribs and colon congested, lungs congested, larynx and windpipe trachea and hyoid bone were fused, right lung, left lung and perion percussion were congested. Cardiac membrane ruptured. The large vessels were 16 congested. The membranes, intestinal membranes, mouth and oesophagus, pharynx were congested. The stomach and its internal contents of the dead body contained undigested food, the small intestine contained digested food, the large intestine contained digested food and faeces. The liver had a 3x2 cm lacerated wound, the spleen had a 4 cm lacerated wound, the kidneys were congested, the urinary bladder and external genitals were empty. According to him, the cause of death was injury to the liver, heart, liver and spleen caused by a sharp weapon and excessive bleeding. He found that the deceased died due to excessive bleeding and injuries to his heart, spleen and liver. It was about 10-16 hours before the body was brought for examination. The nature of death was homicidal.” 30. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that :- “death of deceased Bhagwati Yadav was homicidal in nature; 17 it is the appellants who have murdered the deceased by stabbing into his vital parts with the help of knife.” 31. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the finding recorded by the trial Court in its judgment, it is reflected that the appellants have not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the statements of Pooja Yadav (PW-2) and Ishwar Kurre (PW-3), whose statement too has no reason to be disbelieved and there is also no reason for them to lie as they are main witnesses to the incident disclosing the fact that the accused/appellants had caught hold of Bhagwati Yadav and stabbing into his vital parts with the help of knife, due to which, Bhagwati Yadav died, therefore, the act of the accused/appellants by stabbing the deceased clearly shows the intention of the accused/appellants to kill the deceased. For this reason, it is clearly and reliably established that it was the accused/appellants, who caused the death of the deceased and in this regard, there is no defence on the part of the accused/appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC. 32. 32. From the careful appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, it is established beyond reasonable doubt that the 18 appellant, along with co-accused, with a common intention, committed the murder of the deceased Bhakti @ Bhagwati Yadav by inflicting fatal injuries with sharp-edged weapons on vital parts of his body. The prosecution has successfully proved the charge under Section 302 IPC against the appellant with cogent and reliable evidence. The medical evidence, corroborated by the statements of eyewitnesses PW-2 Pooja Yadav, PW-3 Ishwar Kurre and PW-7 Vishnu Baghel, clearly supports the prosecution's case that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and caused due to injuries inflicted by the accused persons. The seizure of blood-stained clothes, recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused, and the postmortem report further strengthen the prosecution’s case. 33. For the foregoing reasons, the trial court has rightly appreciated the evidence and has recorded a finding of conviction against the appellant, which is based on sound reasoning and legal principles. No perversity or illegality has been found in the impugned judgment. 34. In the result, the criminal appeals being CRA No.761/2022 and 482/2022, being devoid of merit, are hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Sessions Court is affirmed. 35. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants- Iqbal Khan and Shahrukh Khan are in jail, they shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. , failing which they shall be taken into custody by the trial Court. 19 36. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are 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. 37. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu