1 Order Reserved on 24.03.2025 Pronouncement on 24.06.2025 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 748 of 2019 Nishant Nayak S/o Lae Bramhdev Nayak Aged About 20 Years R/o Bartoli, Bhagalpur, Jashpur Nagar, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer , Police Station Jashpur, District Jashpur Chhattisgarh., District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu, Advocate For State /Respondent : Ms. Nandkumari Kashyap, PL {Hon’ble (Smt.) Justice Rajani Dubey & Hon’ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput} C A V Judgment This criminal appeal filed by the accused/appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No. 07 of 2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District Jashpur, (C.G.) convicting him for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentencing to undergo imprisonment for life 2 with fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. 2. Facts of the case in nutshell is that on 08.11.2018 at about 8 AM deceased Suman @ Rahul Rajak had gone towards the canal saying that he would return after grazing the goat and also taking bath. After some time, when brother of the deceased namely Suraj Rajak (PW-1) went to see his brother, on the way he saw the accused/appellant going towards canal on a motorcycle hiding something on its tank. At about 10:30 when he reached near the Dhobi Ghat canal, he saw his brother (deceased) sitting at the canal and the goat grazing nearby. It is stated that one Perwa who was already present there, told him that his brother (deceased) was killed. Thereafter, when he got up at the canal, he saw that the accused/appellant had chopped off the neck of his brother with a weapon locally called as Balua. On being asked by this witness as to why he killed his brother, the accused/appellant chased him also with the same weapon. On this, Priyanshu (not examined) and Ganesh (PW-2) who were also present nearby asked this witness to move away or else he too would be killed. After that, this witness ran home and gave information about the incident to his mother namely Gita Bai (PW-3) and neighbors. On the information given by PW-1, FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused/appellant for the offence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. Thereupon, the dead-body was sent for postmortem examination to Government Hospital, Jashpur and after completion of investigation charge- 3 sheet was filed against him under Section 302 IPC followed by framing of charge accordingly. 3. So as to prove the complicity of the accused/appellant in the crime in question, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.PC was also recorded in which he pleaded his innocence and false implication in the case. 4. After hearing the parties and going through the material available on record including the evidence of the witnesses, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant as detailed in paragraph No. 1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 5. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that there is no eyewitness to the incident and the entire case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. He further submits that the chain of circumstances is not complete and therefore it cannot be made basis for conviction. He further submits that the seizure witnesses namely Amardeep Tigga (PW-4) and Santan Bhagat (PW-10) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have been declared hostile. He further submits that one Perwa who is said to have informed PW-1 about the killing of the deceased has not been examined in the Court. He further submits that as there was no intention on the part of the accused/appellant to cause death of the deceased, the conviction under section 302 IPC cannot sustain and at best the act of the accused/appellant may fall within the purview of Exception 4 to 4 Section 300 of IPC. In support of his argument, he placed reliance upon the decision of co-ordinate Bench of this Court in the case of Shyam Bai Vs. State of Chhattisgarh passed in CRA No. 1197 of 2015 dated 18.08.2023. 6. Per-contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and so also the trial Court has gone through and appreciated the same in its proper perspective while passing the judgment impugned, and therefore no interference is called for by this Court in this appeal. 7. Heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and perused the record carefully. 8. Suraj Rajak (PW-1) has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 8 AM his brother Suman @ Rahul Rajak had gone for grazing the goat. At about 9 AM when he had gone towards the river to see him, on the way he met the accused/appellant going on a motorcycle carrying Balua on its tank. After some time, he saw his brother and then he moved away. He has stated that when he came back after relishing Kadam (kind of fruit), one Perwa (not examined) told him that his brother (deceased) was being assaulted by the accused/appellant. Thereafter, when this witness was going to the place where his brother was earlier sitting, the accused/appellant came there and started chasing him, and at that time he (accused) was holding Balua in his hand. He also saw his brother lying there in an 5 injured condition and the injuries on his neck were bleeding. He has stated that when he asked the accused/appellant as to why he killed his brother, Prafulla (not examined) and Ganesh (PW-2) who were already standing there asked him to get away or else he too would be finished. After that, this witness ran home but as at that time nobody was there in his house, he did not tell it to anyone. He has stated that about a year prior to the date of incident father of the accused/appellant had come to his house and there was some dispute between him and the deceased. He has stated that father of the accused/appellant was teasing his mother and after that he fell down there and died. In that matter, the deceased was even jailed and he had come out one month prior to this incident. He has then stated that in order to take revenge for the death of his father, the accused/appellant has killed his brother. He is also the witness to seizure of plain and blood stained soil from the spot made under Ex. P-4. In-cross-examination also he has made the same statement as in the examination-in-chief. Ganesh (PW-2), Amardeep Tigga (PW-4) and Santan Bhagat (PW-10) have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. Smt. Geeta Bai (PW-3) – the mother of the deceased has stated that on the date of incident one Prafulla had come to her and informed that her son (deceased) was killed by the accused/appellant with Balua and that his dead-body was lying near a mango tree. She then went to the spot and saw the dead-body of her son lying there with injuries on his neck. She has stated that they were six injuries 6 on the body of the deceased. As regards the dispute between the deceased and father of the accused and his subsequent death has also been stated by this witness like PW-1. 9. Dr. Mamta Singh (PW-8) is the witness who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and gave her report Ex. P-26. She is stated to have noticed eight injuries – all incised wounds of various diameters on several parts of his body including neck and chest, and the cause of death has been opined to be hemorrhagic shock due to injuries to vital structures of neck, and the cause of death was homicidal in nature. While replying to the query, this witness has clarified that the injuries present on the body of the deceased could be caused by Balua. D. P. Singh (PW-6) is the Investigating Officer has duly supported the case of the prosecution. 10. This Court has considered the evidence of the witnesses and also taken note of the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution at a considerable length. Of course, there is no eye witness to the incident yet the minute analysis of the evidence of PW-1 who put the criminal law in motion lodging the FIR has categorically stated that he has seen the accused/appellant carrying Balua (a kind of weapon) in his hand just after the incident and on being asked by this witness as to why he killed his brother (the deceased), he started chasing him holding that weapon. He has further stated that on the way he met one Perwa though not examined by the prosecution had told him that his 7 brother was assaulted by the accused. The evidence of PW-1 has also been corroborated by that of his mother PW-3. The Balua seized from the spot was sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination has also been found to be stained with human blood that too of group B. This apart, the blood found on the vest of the accused/appellant has also been opined to be of the same blood group. Even the blood found on the shirt of the deceased has also been opined to be human blood. The defence has not been able to explained as to from where the blood on the vest of the accused/appellant has come. Even the motive behind commission of crime in question is writ large because it has come in the evidence of the witnesses that prior to the incident in question the father of the accused had died after some dispute had erupted between the him and the deceased. Since it is a matter of circumstantial evidence, the motive has its own significance while deciding a criminal case. 11. As regards motive, the Supreme Court in number of cases has held that the motive may not be an essential requirement to hold the guilt of the accused/appellant when there is direct evidence in the matter, but it becomes a crucial factor in the cases entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In the matter of Tarseem Kumar vs Delhi Administration reported in AIR 1994 SC 2585, which has subsequently been relied upon in numerous other cases, it has been held as under:- “Normally, there is a motive behind every criminal act and that is why investigating agency as well as the 8 Court while examining the complicity of an accused try to ascertain as to what was the motive on the part of the accused to commit the crime in question. It has been repeatedly pointed out by this Court that where the case of the prosecution has been proved beyond all reasonable doubts on basis of the materials produced before the Court, the motive loses its importance. But in a case which is based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime on the part of the accused assumes greater importance…” 12. Since the FSL report is very specific to the effect that the blood found on the Balua and on the vest of the accused/appellant has been found to be human blood that too of the same group i.e. ‘B’, the judgment relied upon by the counsel for the appellant as referred to above is not of any help to the accused/appellant. Having thus seen the entire evidence, this Court has no hesitation to say that the circumstances put forth by the prosecution such as - just before the incident the accused-appellant was seen going on motorcycle carrying Balua; that the place where the accused was seen with Balua, deceased was also lying in injured condition; that when PW-1 asked the accused-appellant as to why he killed his brother, he was chased by the accused; that one month prior to the incident the deceased had come out from the jail; that on the memorandum of accused-appellant, Balua was seized and that the blood found on the soil, vest and the weapon was found to be the human blood that too of the same group B, have duly been established by the prosecution as per the law of the Supreme Court in respect of circumstantial evidence in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sharda v. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116. 9 13. Learned trial Court does not appear to have misdirected itself while arriving at the conclusion of guilt of the accused and slapping the sentence as mentioned above making this Court take a view other than the one taken by it. Judgment under assail in this appeal is thus maintained and the dismissal of the appeal follows. The appellant appears to be in jail already, and therefore no order to send him to custody is needed. 14. Dismissal of appeal is thus the net result. 15. Appellant be informed accordingly. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Pawan/J