1 2025:CGHC:13291-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1433 of 2023 Vinay Rai S/o Late Judan Rai Aged About 44 Years R/o Village - PV 32, P.S Pakhanjur Distt- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through, The Station House OfÏcer - Pakhanjur, Distt- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Gorelal Tandon, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Kumar Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 20/03/2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C) questioning the impugned judgment dated 29.03.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 18/2019 by which the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar, Kanker, has convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2000/- and in default, to undergo further rigorous imprisonment for two months. 2 2. The appellant/convict was charged for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that on 30.03.2019 at about 8.30 p.m., in the courtyard of the house of informant Bina Rai (PW-6) located in village PV 116 under Police Station Pakhanjur, District- Utta Bastar, Kanker, knowing that a blow by a sharp weapon like ‘iron billhook machete’ is likely to cause death, he killed Rakesh Mandal (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) by attacking him on the neck with the said weapon, thereby intentionally causing his death. 3. Admitted facts in the case is that the appellant is the husband of the informant Bina Rai (PW-6) and the deceased had a love affair with the informant. 4. Case of the prosecution, in brief is that the informant (PW-6) along with her children Raj (PW-7) and Riya, appeared at the Pakhanjur Police Station on 30.03.2019 at 21:40 hours and gave an oral information to the effect that she works in Awas Mitra and has two children Raj and Riya. She had left the appellant two years ago and had performed a marriage with the deceased of village PV 41, due to which the deceased used to visit her house. On 30.03.2019 at around 20:30 hours, deceased was sitting on a chair and showing her an online movie on his mobile and her two children Raj and Riya were playing games on his mobile in the courtyard, when her former husband Vinay Rai i.e. the appellant, came and suddenly killed the deceased by hitting him two-three times on his neck with an iron billhook machete. She tried to intervene and take the said weapon off from appellant’s hand, then the appellant tried to hit her too, due to which two fingers of her left hand got cut. Appellant tried to hit her and her two children too, then her two children caught appellant’s hand, when she ran away from her house and went to her neighbour Purnima Rai's house and told about the incident. Because she had a performed love marriage with the deceased, her former husband i.e. the 3 appellant had killed the deceased. Based on the above information of the informant (PW-6), merg bearing No. 22/2019 under Section 174 Cr.P.C. was recorded and the matter was taken into investigation and during the investigation, prima facie an offence was found to be made out and as such, Crime No. 65/2019 for the the offence under Section 302 of the IPC was registered. After completing all the necessary formalities and investigation, charge sheet was prepared against the appellant under Section 302 IPC and presented for trial in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class Pakhanjur, which was registered as Criminal Case No. 143/2019. Thereafter, the said case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 04.07.2019 which was later registered as Session TrialNo. 18/2019. 5. Charge was framed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC which was denied by the appellant and prayed for trial. 6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses namely Pyare Lal Netam PW-01, Dipankar Biswas PW-02, Nikhil Sarkar PW-03, Constable Maituram Markam PW-04, Patwari Ashok Kumar Deepak PW-05, Bina Rai PW-06, Raj Rai PW-07, Achyut Mandal PW-08, Jatin Vishwas PW-09, Inderjeet Biswas PW-10, Sanjay Vishwas PW-11, Inspector Shashikala Uikey PW-12 and Dr. Piyush Singh PW-13 and exhibited as many as 26 exhibits namely the seizure memo Ex.P-01, notice under Section 175 Cr.P.C. Ex.P-02, inquest Ex.P- 03, dead body delivery memo Ex.P-04, seizure memo Ex.P-05 and Ex.P- 06, memorandum statement of the accused Ex.P-07, postmortem report Ex.P-08, arrest panchnama Ex.P-09, police statement of witness Dipankar Vishwas (PW-2) Ex.P-10, police statement of witness Nikhil Sarkar (PW-3) Ex.P-11, Patwari's spot map and panchnama Exhibit P- 12 and Exhibit P-13, report sent to Tehsildar after preparing Patwari's spot map Exhibit P-14, merg intimation Exhibit P-15, FIR Exhibit P-16, 4 spot map of the place of incident Exhibit P-17, information regarding arrest Exhibit P-18, medical examination form of applicant Bina Rai, Exhibit P-19, postmortem application Exhibit P-20, report sent regarding query of seized articles Exhibit P-21, memo sent for preparing Patwari's spot map Exhibit P-22, memo sent for chemical examination of the seized articles Exhibit P-23, acknowledgment receipt Exhibit P-24, chemical test report Exhibit P-25 and report Exhibit P-26 sent for opinion on the injuries sustained by the victim/applicant Bina Rai. 7. The statement of the accused under section 313 CrPC was recorded wherein he stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In support of his case, he got the police statement of Smt. Bina Rai (PW-6), Achyut Mandal (PW-8), Rajkumar Rai (PW-7), Jatin Vishwas (PW-9), Sanjay Vishwas (PW-11) exhibited as Exhibit D/1, Exhibit D/1, Exhibit D/2, Exhibit D/3, Exhibit D/4 and Exhibit D/5. 8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/convict as detailed in the opening paragraph. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 9. Mr. Gorelal Tandon, 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 so called eye witness namely Bina Rai (PW-6) and Raj Rai (PW-7) and both of them are mother and son and there is no other independent witness. There was no motive for the appellant to commit the offence. Raj Rai (PW-7) has stated that the murder was caused by a knife whereas no knife has been seized. The weapon seized is a different weapon and not a knife. The conviction and sentence is based on conjecture and surmises and as such, this appeal deserves to be allowed. 5 10. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Kumar Jain, learned learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous crime of murder and that too, in a brutal manner. The weapon of assault has been recovered at the instance of the appellant himself vide Exhibit P/6, and above all, there are three eye witness to the incident, though only two of them have been examined. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature as is evident from the postmortem report (Exhibit P/8) wherein it has been stated that the head was amputated from neck from right ear lobe through below mandible cutting all the muscles on neck trachea and esophagus and all the major vessels. Head was only stuck with skin on left side below ear. Dr. Piyush Singh (PW-13) had opined the cause of death to be hypovolemic shock due to excessive bleeding from cutting of major vessels on neck and the nature of death was homicidal. This aspect has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and as such, we agree with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to the nature of death being homicidal. 13. The question for consideration by this Court in this appeal would be whether on the basis of materials available on record, the appellant can be held guilty of the offence? 6 14. The case is based on eye witness account. Admittedly, the appellant is the former husband of the informant (PW-6). She has deposed before the learned trial Court that on the date of incident, they were watching movie on a mobile phone when appellant came with an billhook machete and assaulted on the neck of the deceased and thereafter he tried to assault her also and she tried to stop the said assault with her hand in which her two fingers got severed. Her children Riya and Raj Rai (PW-7) caught hold the appellant and asked her to run away and at that point of time, she ran and took shelter in her neighbour’s house. She further stated that she was married to the appellant in the year 2005 and separated in the year 2011. She was residing with her two children separately and later married to the deceased in a temple. She wanted to marry the deceased because of which the appellant was in anger. 15. Raj Rai (PW-7) is the son of the informant (PW-6). He is a child witness aged about 14 years. He stated that on the date of incident, at about 7- 30 p.m to 8.30 p.m. his father i.e. the appellant came and assaulted on the neck of the deceased with a knife and at that time, her sister and mother were in the veranda. Her mother (PW-6) screamed and hearing the sound, they came and saw that the appellant had assaulted and killed the deceased and also tried to assault his mother. Then he alongwith his sister caught hold of the appellant and in order to free himself from their grip, the appellant bit the hand of this witness. Because of the assault given by the machete, the neck of the deceased was separated and was hanging with the torso. 16. In the memorandum statement (Exhibit P/7), the appellant had stated that he was angry upon the deceased as he was having illicit relationship with his wife. He stated that he had asked her wife (PW-6) not to keep any relationship with the deceased but she never obeyed. At the instance of 7 the appellant, the weapon of assault and the blood stained clothes were recovered vide Exhibit P/6. 17. The seized properties were sent to the FSL for examination wherein, vide Exhibit P/25, in the Articles A, C, D, E1, E2, E3 and E4, blood has been found, except Article B. Article A is the blood stained soil, Article B is the plain soil, Article C is the shirt of the appellant, Article D is the weapon of assault, Articles E1 to E4 are the clothes of the deceased. The MLC report of the informant (PW-6) (Exhibit P/19) goes to state that there was a cut wound present over palm aspect of left little finger over proximal phalanx and another cut wound over proximal phalanx aspect of left ring finger and it was opined that the nature of the injuries were simple and caused by sharp cutting object. 18. A query was raised by the Investigating OfÏcer with regard to the weapon seized as to whether it could be used for causing the injuries sustained by the deceased which was answered in afÏrmative vide Exhibit P/21. 19. As the case is based on eye witness account, there remains no manner of doubt that it was the appellant who had assaulted the deceased with a billhook machete and caused his death and the crime was witnessed by the informant (PW-6), her son (PW-7) and her daughter, and further, the FSL report also goes to suggest that it is the appellant only who had caused the murder of the deceased as he was having an objection with regard to the relationship of the deceased with his wife. The weapon of assault containing blood stains was recovered at the instance of the appellant himself and the FSL report also confirms presence of blood both on the weapon and the clothes of the appellant. Even during examination of the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has stated nothing except to either state that he was having no knowledge or that the allegations were incorrect. He has also given no 8 explanation as to why the prosecution witnesses would be deposing against him and why would they falsely implicate him. 20. 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. 21. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 22. 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. 23. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences 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. 24. 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.03.25 11:38:59 +0530