1 2025:CGHC:37870-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1102 of 2022 Anand Kumar Pav S/o Pooran Singh Pav Aged About 21 Years Village Fulwari Tola , Word No. - 18, Post Semra, Thana Ramnagar, Tahsil - Kotma, District - Anuppur, Madhya Pradesh --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Thana Khadgava, District - Koriya Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 1295 of 2022 Pitamber Singh S/o Bhagwan Singh Aged About 20 Years Resident of Village -Sakda, Police Station -Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Khadgawan, District Korea Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 1386 of 2022 1 - Chandrashekhar Paav S/o Jagdish Paav, Aged About 33 Years R/o Village Sakda, Police Station Khadgavan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. 2 - Bhimsen Singh S/o Inder Singh, Aged About 27 Years R/o Village Sakda, Police Station Khadgavan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.08.01 17:38:17 +0530 2 Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Khadgaonvan, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant (In CRA No.1102/2022) : Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Amicus Curiae For Appellant (In CRA No.1295/2022) : Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, Advocate For Appellants (In CRA No.1386/2022) : Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 01.08.2025 1. These criminal appeals have been listed for final hearing as the appellants are in jail since 13.08.2017. 2. The matters have been called repeatedly; however, Shri Om Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1102/2022, is not present to press the said appeal. On the other hand, Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA No.1295/2022; Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CRA No.1386/2022 as well as Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General appearing for the State/respondent, are present. 3 3. In view of the above as the appellant is in jail since 13.08.2017, we direct that the matters be called again at 12:00 Noon for interaction with the appellant in CRA No.1102/2022 – Anand Kumar Pav from the concerned Jail through Video Conferencing in order to ascertain whether he wishes to engage a counsel of his choice or seeks assistance from Legal Aid as the counsel engaged by him is not present today to press the appeal. For the said purpose, the concerned Jail Superintendent is directed to ensure the appearance of the appellant in CRA No.1102/2022 – Anand Kumar Pav before this Court through Video Conferencing at 12:00 Noon and the Registrar (Judicial) is also directed to make necessary arrangements to facilitate the hearing through Video Conferencing at 12:00 Noon today itself. 4. Later on, when the matters were called again at 12:00 Noon, the appellant in CRA No.1102/2022, namely Anand Kumar Pav, was connected through Video Conferencing and he was identified by Mr. A.K. Bajpai, Assistant Jail Superintendent, Central Jail, Ambikapur. Upon being queried about his counsel, he stated that he had engaged Mr. Om Prakash Tiwari, learned counsel, to argue the appeal on his behalf, but the said counsel did not appear even after repeated calls. Consequently, the Court further queried whether he wishes to engage a counsel of his own choice or would prefer that one of the learned counsel representing the appellant in CRA No.1386/2022, who is a co- accused, namely Chandrashekar Paav, and also a relative, be appointed to represent him as well. The appellant stated that he was willing to have his appeal argued by Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, learned 4 counsel, who is already appearing on behalf of his relative in CRA No.1386/2022. 5. In view of the above, this Court appoints Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta as Amicus Curiae in CRA No.1102/2022 to argue the appeal on behalf of the appellant- Anand Kumar Pav. 6. Heard Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant in CRA No.1102/2022, Mr. Manoj Kumar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1295/2022 and Mr. Anand Kumar Gupta, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No.1386/2022. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the State. 7. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts involved being arising out of a common crime vide impugned judgment dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya, in Sessions Trial No.116/2017, these appeals have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment. 8. Appellant-Chandrashekhar Paav (A-1) and Bhimsen Singh (A-4) have preferred CRA No.1386/2022, appellant-Anand Kumar Pav (A-2) has preferred CRA No.1102/2022 and appellant-Pitamber Singh (A-3) has preferred CRA No.1295/2022 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) questioning the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2022 passed by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.), in Sessions Trial 5 No.116/2017, by which, all the appellants/accused, namely Chandrashekhar Paav (A-1), Anand Kumar Pav (A-2), Pitamber Singh (A-3) and Bhimsen Singh (A-4) have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month to each of the appellants. 9. The case of the prosecution is that on 12.08.2017, at about 5–6 PM, Mohan Lal returned home after grazing cattle and saw that in the courtyard of his house, his son, Ram Singh, was being assaulted by Pitambar Singh, Bhimsen, Dhan Singh (all residents of village Sakda), Chandrashekhar (son-in-law of Hira Singh), and Anand Kumar (son-in- law of Bechu). All five individuals were beating Ram Singh with hands, fists, kicks, and sticks, while demanding that where he hidden the money. They dragged Ram Singh from the courtyard to the road and continued to beat him even after he fell unconscious. Despite Mohan Lal's attempts to intervene, the accused did not stop. After leaving Ram Singh in an unconscious state, the accused fled the scene, some on foot and others by motorcycle. Ram Singh succumbed to his injuries shortly thereafter. 10. Upon receiving the said information, the Station House Officer of Khargawan Police Station reached the spot with his staff. Based on Mohan Lal's statement, a Merg intimation (Exhibit P-15) was recorded on the spot, and investigation was initiated. During investigation, the 6 accused and one delinquent child were found involved in the offence. Accordingly, on the spot, a rural crime number 0/2017 under Sections 302 and 34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered. Subsequently, upon reaching the police station, Merg No. 49/17 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was formally registered. 11. During the course of investigation, summons under Section 175 CrPC was given vide Exhibit P-1, inquest was prepared vide Exhibit P- 1A. Crime details form was prepared vide Exhibit P-2A, spot map was prepared vide Exhibit P-13A. Memorandum statements of the accused Pitamber Singh and Bhimsen Singh were recorded vide Exhibit P-3 and P-4, based upon which, motorcycle and sticks were seized vide Exhibit P-5 to P-9. Panchnama of the deceased’s body was prepared, and a postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14), who opined in the postmortem report (Exhibit P-28) that the cause of death of the deceased was shock due to multiple external injuries and the nature of death was homicidal. 12. Upon finding sufficient evidence against them, the accused were arrested on 13.08.2017 vide arrest memo Exhibit P-9 to P-12 and produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baikunthpur (sitting at Chirmiri) on 14.08.2017, where their first remand was obtained. 13. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons on 03.11.2017. Since Dhan Singh was found to be a juvenile, a separate challan was filed against him before the Juvenile Justice Board, Baikunthpur. As the case was triable by the Sessions 7 Court, it was committed to the said Court on 16.11.2017. 14. Upon framing of charges under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, the accused denied the charges. Their statements were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they pleaded innocence and claimed false implication. However, during defence, the accused did not lead any evidence. 15. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-15 and exhibited 30 documents vide Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/30, whereas the appellants-accused in support of their defence have not examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 16. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 20.06.2022 convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned in the third paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC have been preferred by them calling in question the impugned judgment. 17. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of IPC, as the learned trial Court has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse, and against the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence as the learned trial Court has recorded conviction of the appellants in complete disregard of the evidence on record and has failed to appreciate the material 8 contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The judgment is wholly based on conjecture and surmise, not supported by cogent, reliable, or admissible evidence. It has been contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were present at the scene of crime or participated in the alleged offence. It has been further submitted that the key prosecution witnesses, namely Mahavir Yadav (PW-2), Smt. Shakuntala (PW-3), Jan Singh (PW-4), Punnulal (PW-5) and Sukhman (PW-7), who are relatives and neighbour of the deceased who turned hostile, lacks corroboration and cannot be relied upon to sustain conviction. It is submitted that the alleged memorandum and seizure attributed to the appellants are neither proved in accordance with law nor do they connect the appellants to the crime as no incriminating articles were seized from the appellants that could support the prosecution’s case. In the absence of independent corroboration, such statements cannot form the sole basis of conviction. It has been argued that the prosecution’s case suffers from material omissions, contradictions, and inconsistencies, and has failed to establish the ingredients of Section 302 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court failed to adhere to the settled principle that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof. There is no concrete evidence proving the presence of the appellants at the crime scene. In such circumstances, the possibility of false implication by the investigating agency cannot be ruled out. It has been lastly argued that in a criminal trial, the benefit of doubt must always go to the accused. The prosecution having failed to 9 establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 18. Per-contra, learned State counsel 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 appellants with the offence in question. It has been contended that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants on the basis of clear, trustworthy, and cogent evidence brought on record by the prosecution. The judgment is well- reasoned, supported by law and facts, and does not warrant any interference by this Court. It has been further contended that that incident was witnessed by Mahavir Yadav (PW-2), Smt. Shakuntala (PW-3), Jan Singh (PW-4), Punnulal (PW-5) and Sukhman (PW-7), as such their statements have remained consistent and trustworthy. It is submitted that the postmortem report (Exhibit P-28) has established that the cause of death was head injury and there were 38 injuries on the body of the deceased. This medical evidence fully corroborates the eyewitness accounts. The prosecution has proved that there was prior enmity between the appellants and the deceased. The motive for the offence is evident and has been properly considered by the learned trial Court. It is further submitted that the appellants have failed to lead any evidence in defence despite opportunities given. Their mere denial during Section 313 CrPC examination holds no evidentiary value against the strong and consistent prosecution evidence. It is argued 10 that the appellants stand convicted for the heinous offence of murder (Section 302 IPC), punishable with life imprisonment. The crime involved brutal assault with a knife causing death on the spot. Such a serious crime against society does not deserve leniency. Hence, he submits that there is sufficient material available on record to connect the appellants with the offence and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted them for the offence aforementioned crime and thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 19. 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. 20. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 21. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased- Ram Singh was homicidal in nature ? 22. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased vide Exhibit P-28, has clearly come to the conclusion that the cause of death of the deceased appears to be shock due to multiple external injuries. The doctor conducting the postmortem opined that the nature of death was homicidal. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which 11 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. 23. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are author of the crime. 24. In the present case, homicidal death due to injuries inflicted by hard and blunt object on vital organs resulting in excessive hemorrhage and internal bleeding. The doctor conducting the postmortem opined that the nature of death was shock has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of eyewitness Mahavir Yadav (PW-2), Smt. Shakuntala (PW-3), Jan Singh (PW-4), Punnulal (PW-5) and Sukhman (PW-7) and further evidence of Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14) and the postmortem report (Exhibit P-28) that the death of deceased Ram Singh was homicidal in nature. 25. As regards complicity of the appellants in crime in question, conviction of the appellants is substantially based on the evidence of Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14) as well as the evidence of eyewitness namely Mahavir Yadav (PW-2), Smt. Shakuntala (PW-3), Jan Singh (PW-4), Punnulal (PW-5) and Sukhman (PW-7). 26. Mahavir Yadav (PW-2) deposed that he was at his residence on the date of the incident. At around 3–4 PM, he witnessed his neighbour, Ram Singh, being forcibly brought onto the C.C. road by the five accused persons. The accused were demanding a sum of Rs.12,000/- 12 from Ram Singh and, upon his failure to pay, they began assaulting him with sticks. Thereafter, Ram Singh came and sat near the witness and others. However, the five accused once again surrounded him and resumed beating him with sticks. At that moment, the mother of the deceased, Dukhni Bai, sat on Ram Singh’s lap and attempted to shield him from the assault. She pleaded with the accused to stop, yet they continued beating Ram Singh and eventually dragged him back to his house while continuing to assault him. 27. The version of events narrated by Mahavir Yadav (PW-2) is corroborated by other eyewitnesses namely Smt. Shakuntala (PW-3), Jaan Singh (PW-4), Punnulal (PW-5) and Sukhman (PW-7). Additionally, Smt. Kaikai Bai (PW-1) and Kanchalal (PW-6), who arrived at the scene immediately after the incident, have also supported the prosecution case. It is evident from the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses that Chandrashekhar Paw, Anand Kumar Paw, Pitambar Singh, Bhimsen Singh, and the juvenile boy were all present at the scene of occurrence. There is no indication of any prior enmity between the deceased and the accused. However, the accused assaulted Ram Singh on the suspicion that he had stolen Pitambar's money. 28. Though there may not have been a premeditated plan to kill Ram Singh, the intention to cause his death arose at the scene of the incident itself, as can be inferred from the brutality and persistence of the assault. The postmortem report confirms that the deceased sustained 38 injuries all over his body, both anteriorly and posteriorly. 13 Even the presence and intervention of his mother did not deter the accused. Instead, they continued the assault, ultimately leading to his death shortly thereafter. 29. The common intention of the accused to cause the death of Ram Singh stands established. All the accused jointly assaulted Ram Singh with sticks, batons, fists, and kicks, which resulted in his death. This crucial fact has remained unchallenged during cross-examination. Thus, it stands proved that Chandrashekhar Paw, Anand Kumar Paw, Pitambar Singh and Bhimsen Singh, shared a common intention and acted in concert in the commission of the crime. 30. Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14) deposed that he was posted as Medical Officer at the Community Health Center, Khargawan, District Koriya, Chhattisgarh from August 2016 to October 2019. On 13.06.2017 at 3:20 PM, the body of deceased Ram Singh was brought for postmortem by Constable Sachin Khursel (No. 165) of Police Station Khargawan. The body was identified by Samaru Singh and Heera Say. Upon external examination, the doctor noted that the body exhibited postmortem stiffness and bore numerous visible injury marks. There were multiple contusions and abrasions, including: • A 5x3 cm contusion on the left cheek • An 8x3 cm contusion with scratches on the front of the right hand • Two obliquely directed contusions on the right chest measuring 12x3 cm and 8x3 cm 14 • A 5x3 cm scratch on the right side of the chest • A 25x3 cm contusion with scratches across the chest • A 2x2 cm scratch on the right abdomen • A 6x3 cm contusion with scratch on the left shoulder • Multiple scratch marks on both shoulders • Several scratch marks on both knees and thighs • Multiple contusions on the back, shoulders, hips, and limbs • 3x2 cm contusions on both sides of the head • A 4x1.5 cm contusion with a scratch on the left side of the neck In total, 38 injuries were recorded across the body, with extensive trauma from head to toe. Dr. Sahu opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and caused by hard and blunt objects. 31. According to Dr. Sahu, the cause of death was shock resulting from the extreme external injuries, and the manner of death was homicidal. He estimated the time of death to be approximately 20 to 28 hours prior to the postmortem examination. The postmortem report was marked as Exhibit P-28. 32. The testimony of Dr. Sahu and the injuries detailed in Exhibit P-28 remained uncontroverted in cross-examination, thereby establishing that Dr. Sahu had conducted the autopsy of the deceased Ram Singh and confirmed the homicidal nature of the death. 15 33. Sub-Inspector Sunil Singh (PW-12) testified that on 28.08.2017, a letter (Exhibit P-25) was submitted to the Medical Officer, Community Health Center, Khargawan, requesting forensic examination of the sticks seized in the present case. The request was confirmed by Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14), who deposed that he received three wooden sticks for examination. 34. On 20.09.2017, Constable Tabianus Kujur (No. 399) submitted another letter at Police Station Khargawan requesting medical analysis of the seized sticks in Crime No. 126/2017 under Sections 302, 34 IPC, to determine whether the injuries sustained by Ram Singh could have been caused by those sticks. The three sticks examined were described as: • A square wooden stick, broken at one end with a round and square hole, measuring 98 cm in length and 15 cm in width. • A round and curved wooden stick, broken at one end and cut at the other, 98 cm long with an 11 cm circumference. • A bamboo stick, circular in shape, 65 cm long and 11 cm wide, tapered at one end. 35. Dr. Sahu opined that the injuries on the deceased could have been caused by these sticks, and he issued a forensic query report, marked as Exhibit P-29. His findings and the authenticity of the query report remained undisputed in cross-examination, thereby proving that the seized weapons were forensically examined and were capable of inflicting the injuries found on the deceased. 16 36. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that :- “death of deceased Ram Singh was homicidal in nature; it is the appellants who have murdered the deceased by assaulting into his vital parts with the help of sticks.” 37. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the finding recorded by the trial Court in its judgment, it is reflected that the appellants have not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the CrPC and considering the statements of Mahavir Yadav (PW-2), Smt. Shakuntala (PW-3), Jan Singh (PW-4), Punnulal (PW-5) and Sukhman (PW-7), who are relatives and neighbour of the deceased, whose statement too has no reason to be disbelieved and there is also no reason for them to lie as they are the main witnesses to the incident disclosing the fact that the accused/appellants had caught hold of Ram Singh, assaulted him into his vital parts, due to which, he died, therefore, the act of the accused/appellants by assaulting the deceased clearly shows the intention of the accused/appellants to kill the deceased. For this reason, it is clearly and reliably established that it was the accused/appellants, who caused the death of the deceased and in this regard, there is no defence on the part of the accused/appellants during their examination under Section 313 CrPC, and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution 17 has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the IPC. 38. Upon careful appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence brought on record, it is evident that the prosecution has successfully established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants namely, Chandrashekhar Paav, Anand Kumar Pav, Pitambear Singh and Bhimsen Singh, committed the brutal assault on the deceased Ram Singh in furtherance of their common intention resulting his death. 39. The consistent and corroborative testimonies of eyewitnesses, the medical evidence as deposed by Dr. Saket Sahu (PW-14) and supported by postmortem report (Exhibit P-28), and the forensic linkage of the seized weapons through Exhibit P-29, clearly point towards the guilt of the appellants. The defence has failed to create any dent in the prosecution case during cross-examination or to offer any plausible explanation. 40. Accordingly, this Court does not find any illegality or perversity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. The findings recorded by the trial Court are well- reasoned and based on appreciation of evidence in its correct perspective. 41. In the result, all the criminal appeals bearing CRA No.1102/2022, CRA No.1295/2022 and CRA No.1386/2022, being devoid of merit, are dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 20.06.2022 18 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.116/2017, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, is hereby affirmed. 42. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are in jail, they shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 43. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are 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. 44. 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