1 2025:CGHC:32892-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1128 of 2018 {Arising out of judgment dated 29.06.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.58/2017 by the learned Additional Judge Katghora to the Court of learned Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba} Nawal Kishore, S/o. Tihar Singh Kanwar, Aged About 27 Years, R/o. Bhadra Para, Balgi, Police Station- Bankimongra, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Bankimongra, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Anil Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput Judgment on Board (15.07.2025) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.07.17 14:18:37 +0530 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2018, passed by the learned Additional Judge Katghora to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba in Sessions Trial No. 58/2017, by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.3000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, 1 month’s additional imprisonment. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that, on 16.05.2017 at about 7:30 P.M. at village Bhadrapara, Balgikhar, Police Station- Bankimongra, the appellant herein tress-passed into the house of his sister-in-law Yashoda Bai (now deceased) and assaulted her by bamboo stick, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby the aforesaid offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, Dehati Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-2, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-22, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-21, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-13 and dead body of deceased 3 Yashoda Bai was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. R.S. Kanwar (PW-10), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-23, in which cause of death was stated to be shock due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-9), bamboo stick was seized vide Ex.P-10, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL and as per the FSL report dated 19.01.2018, only blood was found on the bamboo stick. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offences, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and 4 sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Anil Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of the alleged recovery of blood-stained bamboo stick, which cannot be sustainable in view of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh 1 . Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. As such, the appellant is not entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 1 2024 SCC Online SC 67 5 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Yashoda Bai was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-23) proved by Dr. R.S.Kanwar (PW-10), according to which, cause of death was stated to be shock due to head injury and death was homicidal in nature, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 9. The only circumstance is that the trial Court has found proved the recovery of blood-stained bamboo stick in which blood was found as per the FSL report. However, the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar (supra) has clearly held that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt and the same has been followed with approval recently in the matter of State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman2. Furthermore, there is no other incriminating circumstance and evidence available on record to base the conviction of the appellant and in that view of the matter, the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the 2 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1387 6 appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and, as such, he is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt. 10. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2018 is hereby set aside. In the result, the appeal is allowed. The appellant stands acquitted giving him benefit of doubt from the charge framed against him for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. The appellant is already on bail, he need not surrender; however, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 11. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sachin Singh Rajput) Judge Judge Ashok