1 2025:CGHC:36057-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1099 of 2024 Madhoram Alias Madhav Gond S/o Padman Gond, Aged About 36 Years R/o Village Ghotpani, Police Station Chhura, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh, ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station Officer Police Station Chhura, District Gariaband Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 2 5 .07.2025 1 Heard Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State/respondent. 2 This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.07.26 11:18:12 +0530 2 ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.02.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband, District Gariyaband (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.14 of 2022, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 449, 506 Part-II and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months, rigorous imprisonment for 05 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months and it is directed that all the sentences were run concurrently. 3 The prosecution case, in detail, was as follows: On 12.07.2021 at about 4:00 PM, Bhagwani Ram Kunjam (PW-03), son of deceased Karan Singh Kunjam, resident of Ghotpani, Police Station Chhura, District Gariaband (C.G.), lodged an oral report at Police Station Chhura alleging therein that while he was at his house, the accused Madhav Gond, who lived in the neighborhood, entered into the house of his father Karan Singh Kunjam with a tangia (Axe) in his hand and shouted that he would kill him. Sensing something serious, the informant followed the accused and saw him attacking his father with the help of axe. When he attempted to intervene, the accused threatened him and out of fear, the informant rushed out and informed his wife Shyam Bai 3 (PW-06), his son Pawan Kumar (PW-09), and other villagers about the incident. Shortly thereafter, the accused came out of the house carrying the severed head of Karan Singh Kunjam in one hand and the blood- stained axe in the other hand. He sat in front of the house for some time and then walked off into the nearby forest with both items. Upon entering the house, the informant and others found the headless body of Karan Singh Kunjam lying in the courtyard, surrounded by blood. It was further alleged that the accused had committed the offence due to a long-standing dispute with the deceased, who used to scold him for allowing his pigs to damage the Jimmy Kanda (Yam Curry) crops in the deceased’s farmland. 4 On the basis of the said oral report, Police registered Crime No.91/2021 at Police Station Chhura under Sections 302 and 506-B IPC, and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, the following steps were undertaken: • The First Information Report was registered as Ex.P/06. • The incident was entered in the rural death register as Ex. P/05. • The Panchayatnama (inquest report) of the deceased’s body was prepared as Ex.P/03. • The postmortem of the deceased was conducted and the body was handed over to the family. The postmortem report was marked as Ex.P/17. • The accused was arrested, and intimation was given to his family, 4 marked as Ex.P/21. • The memorandum statement of the accused was recorded, wherein he confessed to the crime and disclosed the location of the murder weapon. The statement was marked as Ex. P/09. • Based on his memorandum, the accused led the police and witnesses to a Jamun tree behind his house, from where an iron tangia with a wooden handle (33.5 inches long) was recovered. The seizure memo was marked as Ex.P/10. • A site map of the place of occurrence was prepared with the assistance of the Patwari, marked as Ex.P/14. • A police-prepared site map vide Ex.P/07. • A letter was written to the Block Medical Officer for expert opinion on the seized weapon, marked as Ex.P/19A. • The seized articles were forwarded to the Director, State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur through the Superintendent of Police, Gariyaband, for chemical examination, but the FSL report has not been received for the reasons best known to the prosecution. 5 After completion of the investigation, the police filed a charge sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Gariyaband on 03.09.2021 under Sections 302, 506 Part-II and 449 IPC. On committal, the case was registered as Sessions Case No.14/2022 before the Sessions Court. On 21.04.2022, after receiving the case, charges were framed 5 against the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed to be tried. 6 After perusal of the case record and evidence prima facie, charges were framed against the accused under Sections 302, 506 Part-II and 449 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial, stating that he has been falsely implicated in the case. In his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the accused reiterated his plea of innocence and denied all incriminating circumstances. 7 The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses as PW-01 to PW-13 and exhibited 24 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/24, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 8 The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 20.02.2024 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by him calling in question the impugned judgment. 9 Mr. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 302, 506 Part-II and 449 IPC, as the learned trial Court has not proved the offence beyond reasonable 6 doubt. He further submits that there is no direct evidence available against the appellant. He further submits that although conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of eye-witness namely Bhagwani Ram Kunjam (PW-03), who is son of the deceased, but his evidence do not inspire confidence as his evidence is not safe for placing reliance in absence of any corroboration from independent source. Thus, the conviction of the accused-appellant herein is unsustainable, inadmissible and bad in law. It has been contended that even if the entire case is taken at its face value, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. It has been further contended that the 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, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and appellant-accused be acquitted/discharged from the said offence. 10 Per-contra, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State 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 accused/appellant with the offence in question. The learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused, which warrants no interference. The learned trial 7 Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Sections 302, 506 Part-II and 449 IPC, as the accused-appellant has caused murder of Karan Singh Kunjam. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11 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. 12 In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 13 The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased- Karan Singh Kunjam was homicidal in nature ? 14 The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Bharat Bhushan Arya (PW-10), who have conducted postmortem on the body of deceased vide Ex.P/20, has clearly come to the conclusion that the cause of death of the deceased was due to massive hemorrhage to lead cardiopulmonary arrest and the death of the deceased 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. 8 15 The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime. 16 In the present case, homicidal deathdue to massive hemorrhage to lead cardiopulmonary arrest and the nature of death is homicidal has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Dr. Bharat Bhushan Arya (PW-10) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/20) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 17 As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the accused-appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Dr. Bharat Bhushan Arya (PW-10) as well as the evidence of eyewitness namely, Bhagwani Ram Kunjam (PW-03). 18 Bhagwani Ram Kunjam (PW-03), who is son of the deceased has stated in his deposition that the deceased Karan Singh Kunjam was his father. They had two houses and he lived in the new one, while his father resided in the old house, where his wife also stayed occasionally. On the date of the incident, at around 4:00 PM, he went to his father's house to give him tea and saw the accused, Madhav Gond, cutting his father's throat with the help of axe (tangia). When he objected, the accused shouted at him to "run away," which frightened him, and he fled from the scene to call his family members. By the time, they returned, the accused had already fled with the severed head of his father and the body of the deceased was lying at the entrance of the house. Thereafter, he informed the Sarpanch and went to Police Station 9 Chhura to lodge the report. In cross-examination, he denied the defence suggestion that a dispute had existed between his father and the accused over land or the courtyard. He also denied knowing that the accused had sought his father’s help for exorcising cattle. He rejected all suggestions that he had not seen the accused attacking his father or fleeing with the severed head. He further denied fabricating the case due to a land dispute. His testimony remained unshaken in cross- examination. 19 Similarly, Pawan Kumar (PW-09), the son of the complainant and grandson of the deceased, supported his father’s testimony. He stated that around 3:00–4:00 PM, his father came home and informed him that the accused had attacked his grandfather with a tangia. He immediately came out and saw the accused holding his grandfather's severed head in one hand and the tangia in the other. He then went back inside the house while his father went to call the villagers. The accused then fled toward the forest with the severed head and the tangia. In cross- examination, he admitted he had not seen the actual assault and thus could not say who had killed his grandfather. Nevertheless, he confirmed the accused’s presence at the scene and the weapon in his possession. 20 Shyam Bai (PW-06), daughter-in-law of the deceased has stated that on the date of the incident, at around 3:30 PM, her husband had gone to deliver tea to her father-in-law. Upon returning, he informed her that the accused had assaulted the deceased with a tangia. She and 10 her son Pawan came outside and saw the accused walking away from their other house holding the severed head in one hand and the tangia in the other. Out of fear, they went back inside. Her husband and son later went to call the villagers. She also saw the accused sitting in the street with the tangia and the head before he fled toward the forest. In cross-examination, she denied that she had not seen the accused carrying the tangia and the head. She refuted the defence suggestion that she and her husband had falsely implicated the accused due to a dispute regarding a garden. 21 Likewise, Sohan Lal Kunjam (PW-04) has deposed t that on the date of the incident, while he was sitting in his shop, the complainant called his name. When he came out, he saw the accused sitting near his house holding the severed head of the deceased and a tangia in his hand. He further stated that after a while, Bhagwani went to call other villagers, and the accused left the place with the tangia and the head. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not witnessed the actual killing but denied the defence suggestion that he had not seen the accused holding the tangia or going toward the forest. 22 Hiralal Netam (PW-05), an Assistant Sub-Inspector, stated that on the date of the incident, the complainant had come to him and informed that the accused had killed his father by cutting his neck with an axe. He took him to the house of village Patel Lal Singh Yadav and in the presence of villagers, he saw the torso of the deceased lying in the courtyard, but the head was missing. The accused had allegedly taken 11 the head. Thereafter, the complainant and the Sarpanch went to Police Station Chhura to report the matter. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen the incident or the accused taking the head of the deceased. 23 Himachal Kumar Sori (PW-01) has stated that on the date of the incident, one Dayalu Ram from village Kothigaon called and informed him that a person had been beheaded in village Ghotpani and someone was roaming with the head. He immediately went to the deceased’s house and saw the headless body lying in the courtyard, with blood all around. Upon inquiry, the complainant informed him that around 4:00 PM, the accused had beheaded the deceased with a tangia and fled with the head. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not seen the incident and had learned about it from the complainant and the Sarpanch. 24 Gangaram Sori (PW-02) stated that he had gone to work in his field on the date of the incident and when he returned at 5:00 PM, he saw a crowd near the deceased’s house. Inside, he saw the headless body of the deceased. The complainant informed him that the accused had killed his father with a tangia and fled with the severed head. He later accompanied the complainant and others to Police Station Chhura, where the FIR was registered. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not witnessed the actual incident and came to know about it from the complainant. 25 Santosh Bhuarya (PW-13), the Investigating Officer has stated 12 that during investigation, he recorded the memorandum statement of the accused in the presence of witnesses (Ex.P/09), based on which an iron tangia was seized from beneath a Jamun tree near the accused’s house (Ex.P/10). Additionally, a red blood-stained T-shirt and a piece of jeans shorts with blood stains were recovered from the accused (Ex.P/12). 26 Dr. Bharat Bhushan Arya (PW-10) who has conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased Karan Singh Kunjam vide Ex.P/20 has found following injuries :- “External examination:- Except one white colour underwear, there was no clothing on the body of the deceased. The body of the deceased was in two parts, the first part was the neck and head and the second part was the torso including both hands and legs. The body had the following injuries:- 1- There was a cut wound measuring 10 x 4 x 6 cm on the back behind the torso, 2- There was a large wound on the chest in front of the torso, measuring 8 x 5 x 6 cm, 3- There was a complete cut wound on the torso apart from the neck. Internal examination:- The membranes, ribs, soft tissues were congested and pale. The lungs, larynx and trachea were congested. The right and left lungs were congested and pale. Heart was empty. The large vessels were cut. The intestinal 13 membrane was congested and the intestinal membrane was also congested. The stomach contained half-digested food. The small intestine and inside it contained feces and gas. The large intestine contained feces and gas. It was distended, congested and pale. The spleen was congested and pale. Both the kidneys were congested and pale. The urinary bladder was empty. Opinion:- The deceased died due to excessive bleeding due to cutting of the throat. The time of death of the deceased was within 12 to 14 hours of postmortem examination. The nature of death of the deceased was homicidal.” 27 Considering the evidences of the aforesaid witnesses as well as from the circumstantial evidence, it is evident that from the statement of Bhagwani Ram Kunjam (PW-03), who clearly stated that he had seen the accused slitting his father's throat with an iron weapon. His statement remained unrefuted in cross-examination. The testimonies of all prosecution witnesses consistently supported the prosecution’s version. No significant discrepancies appeared in their police and judicial statements that could cast doubt on the case. The chain of events was coherently established through evidence. 28 It is also evident that the FIR was promptly lodged by the complainant on 12.07.2021, and his judicial statement was fully corroborated by the contents of Ex.P/06. The presence of the accused at the scene was proven beyond doubt, and no evidence pointed to the 14 involvement of any other person at the time of the incident. The sequence of events clearly established the guilt of the accused, Madhoram alias Madhav Gond, without leaving any room for alternative interpretation. 29 Furthermore, the defence failed to produce any evidence suggesting that the deceased had a dispute with anyone else. No motive on the part of any other person was shown. The prosecution successfully proved that the accused murdered the deceased Karan Singh Kunjam due to enmity. 30 A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that :- “death of deceased Karan Singh Kunjam was homicidal in nature; it is the appellant who has murdered the deceased by cutting his neck from the body with the help of axe.” 31 Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the finding recorded by the trial Court in its judgment, it is reflected that the appellant has not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the statement of eyewitness Bhagwani Ram Kunjam (PW-03), whose statement too has no reason to be disbelieved and there is also no reason for him to lie as he is the main witnesses to the incident disclosing the fact that the accused/appellant had cut the neck of the deceased with the help of axe, due to which, he died, 15 therefore, the act of the accused/appellant by cutting the neck of the deceased clearly shows the intention of the accused/appellant to kill the deceased. For this reason, it is clearly and reliably established that it was the accused/appellant, who caused the death of the deceased by cutting his neck with the help of axe 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. 32 Furthermore, from the detailed analysis of the evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt. The medical evidence of Dr. Bharat Bhushan Arya (PW-10) clearly proved that the death of the deceased Karan Singh Kunjam was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report confirmed that the head and torso of the deceased were separated and that the cause of death was excessive bleeding due to throat being cut. The injury was opined to have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like the tangia seized in the case, which further corroborates the prosecution’s story. 33 The seizure of the weapon was proved through the evidence of Investigating Officer Santosh Bhuarya (PW-13) and was duly supported by the memorandum statement of the accused and the seizure witnesses. The consistent and unshaken testimonies of the eyewitness, particularly Bhagwani Ram Kunjam (PW-03), as well as other prosecution witnesses, established the presence of the accused at the 16 scene of offence and his direct involvement in the gruesome murder of the deceased. 34 The defence failed to produce any cogent evidence or rebuttal to discredit the prosecution version. No alternate theory or plausible defence was established to raise any reasonable doubt. There was no evidence of prior enmity with any other person, nor any material contradiction in the statements of the prosecution witnesses that could benefit the accused. 35 Therefore, in view of the overwhelming and reliable evidence, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity, or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 302, 449, and 506 Part-II IPC by the learned trial Court are upheld. 36 For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 37 It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 13.07.2021, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 38 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence 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 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme 17 Court Legal Services Committee. 39 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