1 2025:CGHC:26258-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 113 of 2024 Ramnath Rajak S/o Rampukar Rajak Aged About 49 Years R/o Rajbandha, P.S. Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Reena Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20/06/2025 1. The appellant has filed this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.11.2023 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, in Sessions Trial No. 15/2019 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment 2 for life with fine of Rs. 200/- and in default of payment of fine, to undergo three months additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. The appellant-accused Ramnath Rajak was charged for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC alleging that in between 14.30 hours of 20.10.2018 and 7.00 hours of 22.10.2018 in Dakin Khaucha forest village Rajbandha under Ramanujganj Police Station, he assaulted his wife Fudni Devi with hands and fists and forcibly made her drink poisonous substance meant for spraying on paddy, causing her death by inflicting fatal injuries on her and thus committed murder. 3. The admitted fact fact in the case is that the accused Ramnath Rajak is the husband of the deceased Fudni Devi. 4. The case of the prosecution in brief is that the informant - Babulal Rajak (PW-1), son of the deceased, lodged a report that there used to be argument between the deceased and his father, i.e. the appellant as her mother used to suspect the appellant of having an illicit relationship with some other woman. On 20.10.2018 at 2.30 p.m., the appellant and the deceased went to the forest to collect wood. When they did not return home at night, they inquired in the neighbourhood, but they could not be traced. On 21.10.2018, Gahania Kodaku told him that the appellant was lying in his house after consuming poison. Appellant was admitted to Ambikapur Hospital for treatment. On 22.10.2018, when Santosh Rajak and other people went to the appellant and enquired about the deceased, the appellant informed them that the dead body of the deceased was lying in the forest. Thereafter, when the complainant went to the spot with the villagers, he saw that the deceased had injuries on her hands, legs and head and there was a smell of poison. 3 5. When the informant reported against the appellant, Sub-Inspector of Ramanujganj Police Station Lalit Kumar Yadav (PW-13) registered the First Information Report (Exhibit P-3) and Merg Intimation (Exhibit P-2). In the course of investigation, a spot map (Exhibit P-3) of the spot was prepared and a spot map was also prepared by the Patwari. Notice was given to the witnesses for the dead body Panchnama (Exhibit P-5) and the inquest (Exhibit P-6) was prepared. The lady constable was given a duty certificate Exhibit P-21 for for getting the post mortem conducted. The postmortem of the deceased was conducted by Dr. P.S. Kerketta (PW-14) and postmortem report Exhibit P-23A was prepared. Memorandum of appellant (Exhibit P-11) was recorded. According to seizure memo (Exhibit P-9), the deceased's blood and vomit was seized from the crime scene by wiping it with cotton. Seizure memo (Exhibit P- 13) was prepared by seizing the pesticide container and towel from the appellant and a memo (Exhibit P-26) was sent regarding the examination of towel, blood and vomit. Exhibit P-27 and Exhibit P-28 memos were issued for conducting forensic tests of the seized items and giving opinion. It was sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Ambikapur. The FSL report received from the Regional Science Laboratory is Exhibit P-29 and the return receipt is Exhibit P-32 and 33. A memo (Exhibit P/30) was sent to the Medical Officer Ambikapur for providing the bed head ticket of the appellant. The viscera collected was sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination, the memo sent in respect of which is Exhibit P-31A. The receipt is Exhibit P-34 and the report is Exhibit P-35. 6. During the course of investigation, on finding reasonable evidence of crime against the appellant, he was arrested as per arrest memo Exhibit P-4 and his family members were informed about the arrest as per 4 Exhibit P-25. After completion of the investigation, charge-sheet under Section 302 of IPC was presented against the appellant in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Balrampur, Ramanujganj, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj Chhattisgarh, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 23/2019 however, it was committed to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, vide order dated 23.02.2019 which was registered as Sessions Trial No. 15/2019. 7. Charges were framed against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC which was denied and the appellant prayed for trial. 8. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined witnesses Babulal Rajak (PW-1), Satendra Rajak (PW-2), Pramila (PW- 3), Sumaniya Rajak (PW-4), Awadhesh Rajak (PW-5), Vinod Kumar Rajak (PW-6), Indradev Rajak (PW-7), Uday Rajak (PW-8), Santosh Rajak (PW-9), Patwari Shailesh Kumar Mehta (PW-10), Ramesh Prasad Kanaujia (PW-11), Dr. Ashok Toppo (PW-12), Inspector Lalit Kumar Yadav (PW-13) and Dr. P.S. Kerketta (PW-14) and exhibited as many as 35 exhibits. In defence, the appellant neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 9. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein the appellant expressed his ignorance to most of the questions and some of them were denied as well. He only stated that he has been falsely implicated in this case. 10. The learned trial Court, after considering the statement of witnesses and evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/ accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 5 11. Ms. Reena Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in this case. There are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and the conviction is based on conjecture and surmises. There is no eye witness to the incident. The appellant could not have been convicted unless and until the chain of circumstances was so complete that it pointed out that the appellant and the appellant alone was the perpetrator of the crime. There is no motive for the appellant to commit murder of his own wife. Hence, the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. 12. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/ respondent submits that the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the convict/appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph. There is ample evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty of the offence. The order passed by the learned trial Court needs no interference and the appeal filed by the convict/appellant be dismissed. 13. There is no doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which is evident from the postmortem report and the deposition of the Doctor who had conducted the postmortem. The Doctor (PW-14) has found the following external injuries - abrasion over left chin 2”x2” left side of forehead, 3”x3” left side corner of eye region 2”x2” hematoma left fronto temporal region 4”x3”, both upper plus lower eye lid swelling. On dissection, the Doctor has found multiple fracture of left fronto temporal bone at injury places of skull, meninges ruptured and big size coagulated blood was present. All the injuries were antimortem and homicidal in nature and the injury was sufficient to cause death. The doctor preserved various pieces of heart, lungs, kidney, spleen and liver for viscera examination and handed over the same to the constable. Dr. 6 P.S.Kerketta (PW-14) in his deposition before the learned trial Court has stated that according to his opinion, the deceased died because of the injuries sustained which were grievous in nature. 14. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. P.S.Kerketta (PW-14), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased was homicidal in nature due to head injury. 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. 15. Babulal Rajak (PW-1) who is the son of the deceased and the appellant, has stated that when the deceased and the appellant did not return home in the night, he alongwith other people went to search and on the next day, his father was found lying in the house of Gahaniya Kodaku. When he asked his father about the deceased, the appellant informed him that he alongwith the deceased had consumed poison and his mother was in the forest. The appellant was sent to the Ambikapur Hospital for treatment and thereafter, they went to the forest in search of the deceased. When they went to the forest, they found the deceased lying dead and smell of poisonous substance was coming out. He saw that there was dragging marks on the ground and one of the eye of the deceased was injured. He further stated that the appellant had illicit relationship with some other woman and therefore, both the deceased and the appellant used to quarrel. Satendra Rajak (PW-2) is the also the son of the deceased and the appellant. He has also made similar deposition. 7 16. Pramila (PW-3) is the daughter-in-law of the appellant who turned hostile. Similarly, Sumaniya Rajak (PW-4), Awdhesh Rajak (PW-5), Vinod Kumar Rajak (PW-6), Uday Rajak (PW-8), have also turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. However, Indradev Rajak (PW-7) though stated that the appellant had not admitted his guilt before the police, this witness has stated that the appellant himself took out the container containing poison from the forest and handed over to the police which was seized vide Exhibit P/13. Though Santosh Rajak (PW-9) son of the deceased and appellant was declared hostile, however, he has stated that there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant and the appellant had taken the deceased to the forest and thereafter he consumed poison and also made the deceased consume poison. He admitted that the appellant and the deceased both used to quarrel often on the ground that the appellant had some illicit relationship with some other woman. 17. Dr. Ashok Toppo (PW-12) is the Doctor who had treated the appellant when he was taken to Ambikapur Hospital on consuming poison. He stated that when the appellant was admitted on 21.10.2018, his situation was serious but after treatment when he became fit, he was discharged on 29.10.2018. 18. The appellant, in his memorandum statement (Exhibit P/11) has stated that because the deceased used to doubt the character of the appellant that he had some illicit relationship with some other woman, she always used to quarrel and in order to get rid of her, he planned to kill her and therefore, he took her to Dakin Khocha forest on the pretext of collecting wood and there, he assaulted the deceased with hands and fists and slammed her and made her to drink the chemical used for spraying over paddy and thereafter, he also consumed some of it. He had thrown the 8 container and the Gamchha in the forest which were recovered at his instance. 19. In the FSL report with respect to the pieces of liver, spleen, kidney, heart and lungs, pieces of stomach and its content, and the aluminium container, a chemical organophosphorus pesticide and pyrethroids pesticide cypermethrin was found which goes to suggest that the deceased was made to consume the said pesticide. 20. There existed a motive with the appellant to commit murder of the deceased as the deceased used to quarrel with him on the ground that the appellant had illicit relationship with another woman. Being frustrated with the said situation, the appellant had planned to get rid of the deceased and he took her to the forest to execute the plan on the pretext of collecting wood. When the appellant and the deceased had gone to the forest for collecting wood and they did not return, their sons tried to search but on the next day, the appellant was found in the house of Gahaniya Kodaku. The deceased was found lying in the forest with several injuries. The postmortem report indicates that the nature of death of the ceased was homicidal and the FSL report also suggests that there was a chemical found in the body of the deceased which is a pesticide used for spraying on paddy. The appellant could not explain as to how when both of them had gone to the forest to collect wood, only the appellant returned but the deceased did not return. A false explanation was tried to be given that the deceased herself had consumed poison but the presence of injures on the body of the deceased suggest that she was assaulted and thereafter made to consume the poisonous substance. The appellant could not explain as to how the injuries came to be found on the body of the deceased. Hence, 9 all these circumstances goes to suggest that it was the appellant who is the author of the crime. 21. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/ convict. 22. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 23. The appellant is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 24. 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 Court Legal Services Committee. 25. Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.06.23 17:12:12 +0530