(Cr.A.No.847/2019) 2025:CGHC:10481-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 847 of 2019 (Arising out of judgment dated 6-4-2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Judge, Ramanujganj to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Sessions Trial No.R 11/2017) Ramayan Sahu, Age about 24 years, S/o Shri Babulal Sahu, R/o Village – Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh (In Jail) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Yogesh Chandra Sharma, Senior Advocate with Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General and Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench: - Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ. Judgment On Board (04/03/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. Invoking the criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, the sole appellant namely, Ramayan Sahu has SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.03.07 17:30:05 +0530 (Cr.A.No.847/2019) called in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 6-4-2019 passed by the 2nd Additional Judge, Ramanujganj to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Sessions Trial No.R 11/2017, by which he has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC (twice) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life (twice) & pay a fine of 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further ₹ undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 25-9-2016 at about 12.30 p.m., besides Baran river, at Village Raghunathnagar, Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, the appellant assaulted his uncle (father’s brother) Budhram Sahu (D-1) and grand- father Ramcharan Sahu (D-2) by axe by which they suffered grievous injuries and died. Gopi Chand Sahu (PW-1) reported the matter to the police pursuant to which marg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-1 on the basis of which FIR was registered against the appellant vide Ex.P-2. The investigating officer prepared spot map vide Ex.P-3 in the form of Crime Details Form and wheels of investigation started running. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex.P-4. Inquest on the dead body of deceased Ramcharan (D-2) was conducted vide Ex.P-7 and inquest on the dead body of deceased Budhram (D-1) was conducted vide Ex.P-8. On the recommendation of panchas, the dead bodies were subjected to postmortem which was conducted by Dr. R.B. Prajapati (Cr.A.No.847/2019) (PW-7) vide postmortem reports Ex.P-12 in respect of deceased Ramcharan (D-2) and Ex.P-13 in respect of deceased Budhram (D-1) in which cause of death was stated to be coma due to head injury and nature of death to be homicidal. The accused was taken into custody vide Ex.P-11 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-9 pursuant to which axe was seized from him vide Ex.P-10. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Regional FSL, Ambikapur, Surguja from where report Ex.P-19 was received according to which blood was found on the axe recovered from the appellant. Query report in respect of the weapon of offence axe has been obtained from Dr. R.B. Prajapati (PW-7) vide Ex.P-14 according to which, injuries found on the body of the deceased persons could be caused by the said weapon axe. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After due investigation, the accused / appellant was charge- sheeted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC (twice) and charge- sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions from where the learned 2nd Additional Judge, Ramanujganj to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj received the case on transfer for trial where the trial was conducted. 4. The accused / appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as (Cr.A.No.847/2019) nine witnesses and exhibited 20 documents along with photograph of the deceased persons Article ‘A’. The defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document in support of its case. The accused / appellant was examined under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC (twice) 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. Y.C. Sharma, learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, motive of the offence has not been established and as per the memorandum statement and evidence available on record, the appellant all of a sudden became agitated and assaulted the deceased persons, as such, it would not be a case of murder and at the most, offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC would be made out against him. Alternatively, he would further submit that the appellant was suffering from insanity therefore, he was not in fit physical and mental state of mind. He would also submit that the eyewitnesses have not seen the incident and in the FSL report Ex.P- 19, blood group has not been found. Therefore, it is a fit case where (Cr.A.No.847/2019) conviction of the appellant can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. As such, the appeal be allowed in full or in part. 7. Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State / respondent, would support the impugned judgment and oppose the appeal and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted him and it is not the case which should be converted to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. He would further submit that Shyam Bihari Yadav (PW-2) & Ram Dulare Yadav (PW-3) are the real eyewitnesses and their evidence is of sterling quality. Furthermore, the doctor who has examined the weapon of offence axe has clearly opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased persons could have been caused by the said weapon seized from the appellant at his instance pursuant to his memorandum statement, upon which blood has been found. In case of direct evidence, motive cannot be extremely relevant and it is not the case where lesser punishment could be awarded to the appellant, even the plea of insanity raised by the appellant has rightly been rejected by the trial Court finding no merit. As such, since the appellant has assaulted his uncle (father’s brother) and grand-father and committed their murder, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. Page 6 of 9 (Cr.A.No.847/2019) 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question whether the death of the deceased persons was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem reports Exs.P-12 & P-13 proved by Dr. R.B. Prajapati (PW-7), which is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 10. The case of the prosecution is based firstly on direct evidence and also incriminating circumstances have been brought on record. 11. First of all, we will discuss the evidence of two eyewitnesses Shyam Bihari Yadav (PW-2) & Ram Dulare Yadav (PW-3). 12. The place of incident has been shown in the Crime Details Form Ex.P-3 duly proved by Gopi Chand Sahu (PW-1) – cousin of the appellant, who reported the matter to the police pursuant to which marg intimation Ex.P-1 has been lodged and FIR Ex.P-2 has been registered. The place / spot noted as “2” in the spot map Ex.P-3 has been shown to be the place from where Shyam Bihari Yadav (PW-2) & Ram Dulare Yadav (PW-3) have seen the incident by which the appellant has assaulted both the deceased persons on the bank of the river. 13. Shyam Bihari Yadav (PW-2) in his statement before the Court has clearly stated that the appellant was crossing Baran river and deceased (Cr.A.No.847/2019) Ramcharan (D-2) was also crossing the river, then all of a sudden, the appellant assaulted Ramcharan (D-2) by axe, which he was holding in his hand, on his neck and temporal part and also pressed the neck and when another deceased Budhram (D-1) tried to intervene, the appellant assaulted him also by axe, and consequently, they both died on the spot. Crime Details Form Ex.P-3 has been prepared at the instance of Shyam Bihari Yadav (PW-2) in which he has shown the place from where he and another eyewitness have seen the incident by which the appellant has assaulted the deceased persons. Shyam Bihari Yadav (PW-2) has been subjected to brief cross-examination, but nothing could be extracted from him to hold that he has not seen the incident and made false statement before the Court to implicate the appellant herein. 14. Similarly, Ram Dulare Yadav (PW-3) has also stated that he has seen the appellant assaulting Budhram. He has also been subjected to brief cross-examination on behalf of the appellant, but nothing has been clearly brought out to hold that he is not the eyewitness and has not seen the incident and made statement before the Court only in order to implicate the appellant falsely. 15. Therefore, on the basis of the statements of these two eyewitnesses Shyam Bihari Yadav (PW-2) & Ram Dulare Yadav (PW-3), it is absolutely clear that it is the appellant who has caused the death of his uncle and grand-father by assaulting them by iron axe in presence of these two witnesses. As such, it is duly established that the appellant (Cr.A.No.847/2019) has assaulted the two deceased persons by means of axe by which they suffered grievous injuries and died. 16. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant Ex.P-9, axe has been seized vide Ex.P-10. Mahendra Prasad (PW-6), who is witness to memorandum & seizure, has not supported the case of the prosecution, but he has admitted his signature on memorandum & seizure. However, Investigating Officer – Sub-Inspector J.R. Kurre (PW-9) has supported the memorandum statement of the appellant and the subsequent seizure of the weapon of offence axe from him. The said axe has been sent for chemical examination to the FSL and in the FSL report Ex.P-19, blood has been found on the said axe. 17. Dr. R.B. Prajapati (PW-7) in his query report Ex.P-14 has clearly stated that the injuries found over the body of the deceased persons Budhram (D-1) & Ramcharan (D-2) may be caused by the iron axe brought before him for examination. 18. In view of the evidence available on record, particularly the statement of Mahendra Prasad (PW-6) before the Court, we do not find any substance in the plea of insanity raised on behalf of the appellant and further, the manner in which the two deceased persons have been murdered by the appellant, we are of the considered view that it is not the case where the offence can be converted to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. Page 9 of 9 (Cr.A.No.847/2019) 19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, the prosecution has been able to prove clearly the following incriminating circumstances:- 1. Death of the two deceased persons Budhram (D-1) & Ramcharan (D-2) is homicidal in nature. 2. Shyam Bihari Yadav (PW-2) & Ram Dulare Yadav (PW-3) are eyewitnesses who have seen the incident by which the appellant has caused the death of his uncle and grand-father by means of axe. 20. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is totally justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC (twice). We do not find any merit in this appeal, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 21. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India 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/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) JUDGE JUDGE Soma