1 2025:CGHC:27144-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 771 of 2021 Shekh Golu @ Sahil S/o Shekh Shahbuddin, aged about 21 years R/o Circus Ground, Station Ward Bhatapara City, District- Baloda- Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station- Bhatapara City, District- Baloda Bazar- Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, C.J . 24.06.2025 1. Appellant- Shekh Golu @ Sahil has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.01.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District – Balodabazar-Bhatapara (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. H-30/2018, by which he has been convicted for offence punishable under BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.06.25 17:07:31 +0530 2 Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/-, in default payment of fine to further undergo RI for 3 months. 2. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 31.08.2018, complainant Chandni Dhruv lodged a First Information Report (Ex.P-2) at Bhatapara City Police Station to the effect that she had a love marriage with accused Shekh Golu alias Sahil about a year ago and she and the accused live with their daughter in Meera Sahu's house in Circus Maidan Station Ward. On 31.08.2018 at about 08:30 P.M., her husband Shekh Golu alias Sahil came home from outside and punched her two-three times in the back for delaying in opening the door and not opening it. At the same time, hearing the sound of quarrel, the house owner Meera Sahu knocked on the door asking what happened. Then the accused came out of the house and said Meera Sahu that they are fighting jokingly, due to which Meera left from there. After some time, the accused again started quarreling and snatched her daughter Kumari Aashiya, who was about eight months old and whom she was holding in her lap, and punched two-three times on the head and thrown on the ground. Seeing Kumari Aashiya bleeding from her nose and mouth, she came out of her room with the child. The people living nearby reached near the room, to whom she informed about her condition and immediately went to the police station on the motorcycle of her neighbour brother Monu Dhruv. After giving the information, she immediately 3 took her to the Community Health Centre Bhatapara. The police followed and on checking by the doctor, declared that she was dead. Her daughter was beaten to death by her husband Shekh Golu alias Sahil. On the basis of the above report, First Information Report (Ex.P-2) was registered against accused Shekh Golu alias Sahil under Section 302 IPC. The case was taken into investigation. During the investigation, the accused was arrested. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr.Rajendra Maheshwari (PW-8) vide Ex.P-9. The statements of the witnesses were recorded and after completion of the remaining investigation proceedings, a chargesheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 of the IPC in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhatapara, wherein criminal case was registered as Criminal Case No. 549/2018. As per the surrender order dated 02.11.2018 passed in the said case, this case has been received by the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge for trial. 3. Charges have been framed against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused has denied the said charges. In the trial under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused has said that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated and when asked for defence, he has expressed his intention to give evidence in his defence and has deposed as defence witness No. 01. 4 4. In this case, witnesses Chandni Dhruv (PW-1), Shivbalak Das Manikpuri (PW-2), Sunil Patel (PW-3), Shyama Masih (PW-4), Meera Sahu (PW-5), Shakun Dhruv (PW-6), Thakur Ram Dhruv (PW-7), Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari (PW-8), Mayank Kumar Agarwal (PW-9), R.K. Sahu (PW-10), N.R. Verma (PW-11) were examined to prove the charges on behalf of the prosecution. 5. During the evidence by the prosecution, Merg Intimation Ex.P-01, First Information Report Ex.P-02, Crime Description Form Ex. P-03, Notice given to witnesses for body panchnama Ex.P-04, Inquest Ex.P-05, Arrest Sheet Ex.P-06, Body Panchnama Ex.P- 07, Body Handover Form Ex.P-08, Postmortem Report Ex.P-09, application written to the Tehsildar Bhatapara regarding panchnama proceedings Ex.P-10, Information about arrest Ex. P-11C have been present and the same were marked as aforesaid exhibits. 6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 22.01.2021, convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred. 7. Mr. Ajay Kumar Chandra, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that there are so many contradictions and omission in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He further submitted that learned trial Court has failed to consider that due to 5 sudden quarrel with his wife, the appellant got annoyed and on the heat of passion, while slapping his wife, Kumari Ashiyana, who was in the lap of his wife fell down and sustained injuries on her head and after some time she died. The appellant has no intention to kill her daughter. Therefore, even if the entire case is taken at its face value, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellant for commission of heinous offence of murder, therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and contends that as per case of the prosecution the appellant / accused, snatched his daughter Kumari Aashiya, who was about eight months old and whom her wife was holding in her lap, and punched two-three times on the head and thrown on the ground, due to which bleeding was started from her nose and mouth and she succumbed. He further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by way of evidence. He also submitted that looking to the seriousness of crime, the appellant is not at all entitled for any sympathy by this Court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Kumari Aashiya was homicidal in nature ? 11. Dr. Rajendra Maheshwari (PW-8), who has conducted postmortem over the body of deceased Kumari Aashiya vide Ex.P-09, has found following injuries : (i) There was swelling on 3x1 cm on the frontal part of head on right side of forehead, (ii) There was 2x1 cm swelling over the right eye, (iii) There was swelling of 4x3 cm above the temple on the right side of the head, (iv) There was swelling of 2x1 cm in the forehead on the left side of the head and swelling of 1x1 cm in the upper lip. Fracture was also found in the right side of the head from the top of temple to the occipital bone at the back. Though the doctor has not given any opinion that about the mode of death whether it was homicidal in nature or not, but has specifically opined that the cause of death was shock due to head injury. 7 12. Considering the age of the deceased and her tender age and considering the fact that injuries inflicted on the deceased were of such a type that were sufficient to cause the death of a minor girl and if the said injuries were inflicted with the intention of causing the death of the girl, purpose was to cause the death of the deceased, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the nature of death of the deceased 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. We hereby affirm the said finding. 13. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is the author of the crime ? 14. Chandani Dhruv (PW-1) is eyewitnesses in this case. She has stated in para 2 of her evidence that the incident is of 31.08.2018, her husband came home at around 8.30 in the night and started beating her, at the same time, the house owner Meera Sahu, in whose house they lived on rent, came and asked why he is beating her, then the appellant told her that he was joking. After pacifying her, the house owner left, then appellant Golu took her daughter Aashiyana out of swing and punched her twice on the head. When the appellant punched the girl twice on the head, the girl stopped crying, then appellant made Aashiyana sit and pushed her, she fell, when she picked her up, the appellant again 8 snatched daughter Aashiyana from her lap and threw her on the ground. The appellant also strangled deceased girl Aashiyana, Aashiyana started struggling, see which she ran outside screaming. Hearing her voice, the house owner Meera Sahu, Shakun Bai, Shyama etc. came, then she told them that the appellant strangled her daughter and threw her on the ground. In para 3 she has stated that she, Shakun Bai and her son took girl Aashiyana to the hospital. By the time the doctor arrived, her daughter Aashiyana had died. The case was registered at the police station on the basis of her report, which is Ex.P-1. On the basis of this, the case was registered at Bhatapara city police station. In para 8 of her cross-examination, this witness has admitted that at the time of incident her husband was drunk. She has further admitted that after marriage there were frequent arguments and fights between her and the appellant. She has admitted that due to fights and assault she did not want to live with her husband. She has denied that at the time of incident the child was in her lap and during the fight the child fell on the ground in the scuffle. In para 9 of her cross-examination, she has admitted that no third person other than her and her husband Shekh Golu saw the girl falling on the ground. She has denied that the appellant did not punch deceased Aashiyana two or three times on the head. 15. The trial Court in para 19 of its judgment has held that from perusal of the record, it has been written in merg intimation 9 (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-2) in essence by complainant Chandani Dhruv (PW-1) that she had a love marriage with appellant Shekh Golu @ Sahil about one year ago and she and the appellant both husband and wife live with the daughter in the house of Meera Sahu in Circus Maidan Station Ward. On 31.08.2018 at about 8.30 P.M. her husband Shekh Golu @ Sahil came home from outside and punched her two-three times in the back for delaying in opening the door and not opening it, at the same time, hearing the sound of quarrel, the house owner Meera Sahu knocked on the door asking what happened. Then the appellant came out of the house and jokingly told Meera Sahu that they are fighting like this, due to which Meera left from there. After some time, the appellant again started quarreling and snatched her daughter Kumari Aashiya, whose age was about eight months, whom she was holding in her lap, and punched her two-three times in the head and threw her on the ground, due to which, seeing blood coming out of Kumari Aashiya’s nose and mouth, she came out of her room with the child. The people around reached near the room, to whom she told about the condition and immediately went to the police station on the motorcycle of her neighbour brother Monu Dhruv. After giving information, she immediately took her to the Community Health Center, Bhatapara. Policemen followed and on checking by the doctor, declared that she was dead. Her daughter was beaten to death by her husband Shekh Golu @ Sahil. 10 16. According to the evidence of Dr.Rajendra Maheshwari (PW-8) and postmortem report (Ex.P-9), a fracture was found on right side of the head of a girl Aashiyana from the above temple to the occipital bone at the back. Considering the age of the deceased and her tender age and also considering the injuries sustained by the deceased, it is concluded that the injuries inflicted on the deceased were of such a nature which were sufficient to cause death of a minor girl. 17. Considering the aforesaid facts and circumstances of the case, material available on record, also considering the evidence of eyewitness Chandani Dhruv (PW-1), evidence of Dr.Rajendra Maheshwari (PW-8), postmortem report (Ex.P-9) and other mitigating circumstances, we are of the considered opinion that the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant for offence under Section 302 IPC. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant-Shekh Golu @ Sahil is dismissed. He is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the concerned trial Court. 19. 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 11 Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- S Sd/-d/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu