1 2025:CGHC:29709-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1457 of 2023 Maniram Kashyap S/o Meghnath Kashyap Aged About 32 Years Caste Mahra, Resident of Doura Karmari, Police Station Umarkot Odisha, at Present Resident of Adawal Jhartai, Chowki Bastar District – Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, Advocate. For Respondent/State : 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 02 .07.2025 1. Heard Mr. P. Chetan Kumar, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.07.09 18:31:33 +0530 2 directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.05.2023, passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 77 of 2018, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months R.I. more. Section 324 of the IPC R.I. for l01 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days R.I. more. Both the sentences shall be run concurrently. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 20.12.2016, at around 2:00 a.m., the complainant, Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2), and his friend, Kamal Singh (PW-3), were returning home after watching a drama near Rameshwar Pujari's house in their village. They heard the complainant's sister, Budri Baghel, screaming for help from the direction of Sukdai's house. Upon rushing to the scene, they saw Budri's ex-husband, Maniram Kashyap, attacking her with a sharp-edged weapon (gupti), inflicting injuries to her chest, head, and other parts of her body. When the complainant and Kamal Singh attempted to intervene, the appellant also attacked the complainant, causing injuries to his right hand. Budri's condition was critical, with multiple wounds bleeding profusely, and she collapsed to the ground. The appellant then fled away from the scene. 3 Despite efforts to summon an ambulance, Budri succumbed to her injuries before it arrived. The complainant, Ramkrishna Baghel, subsequently filed a report, and a case was registered. During the investigation, diligent efforts were made to apprehend the absconding appellant. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested on 08.11.2018, and produced before the learned trial Court. 4. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the Community Health Centre, Bastar. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P/15 and found following injuries:- 1. There was a wound on the right posterior part of the head (occipital, temporal region) measuring (length) x 1 cm (width) x 2 cm (depth). 2. A similar wound was found on the outer aspect of the upper part of the left arm, measuring (length) x 2 cm (width) x 3 cm (depth). 3. Another similar wound was present on the posterior aspect of the left thigh, measuring 3 cm (length) x 2 cm (width) x 4 cm (depth). 4. A small, cut-like wound was observed on the posterior aspect of the left wrist, approximately 1 cm in size, and another similar small, cut-like wound was present on the upper part of the right arm, about 5 cm away from the wrist, measuring 3 cm in length. 5. There were mud and dust stains on the upper skull and cheeks. 6. The entire chest, abdomen, and posterior aspect of the left thigh had blood stains. 7. The body was sturdy and obese; external examination of the neck revealed patchy redness on both outer aspects. During Internal examination injury found: 4 1. A deep laceration measuring 4 cm x 1 cm x 2 cm was present on the occipital temporal region of the skull. There was evidence of subcutaneous hematoma adherent to the skull bone, along with a 5 cm skull fracture surrounded by hematoma, and subdural hematoma adherent to the brain in the occipital temporal region. After examining the body, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23) opined in his report (Ex.P/16) that the cause of death was the lacerated wound on the posterior (occipital temporal) part of the skull, which was homicidal in nature, resulting in excessive external and internal hemorrhage, leading to damage to the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. The injury to the neck, which appeared to be caused by throttling, also contributed to the death. The time of death could be around 12 to 17 hours prior to the postmortem examination. 5. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23) also conducted the medical examination of the Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2) vide Ex.P/21, who is the injured eyewitness of the incident and found following injuries:- 1. The injured person had multiple injuries and cuts on the front and back of their right arm, which were superficial and limited to the upper layer of the skin. Similar cuts were also present on the palm of the right hand, particularly on the ring finger, middle finger, and little finger. A lacerated wound was present on the middle part of the ring finger, which was painful. 2. There were mild abrasion marks on the joint area of the right thumb, surrounded by redness, and painful to touch. 3. The injured person was wearing a red T-shirt, which was heavily torn, but the corresponding injury was not found on the body. 5 After examining Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2), Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23) opined in his report (Ex.P/17) that all the injuries were simple in nature. The first injury could have been caused by a sharp and pointed object, while the second injury appeared to be caused by scratching with nails. The examination of the injuries was conducted at 2:50 p.m., and the injuries were approximately 12 hours old at the time of examination. 6. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial from where the learned First Additional Session Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 8. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 24 witnesses and exhibited 36 documents. The appellant has not examined any witnesses in his support nor exhibited any documents. 9. The learned trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 31.05.2023 convicted and sentenced the 6 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. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that although conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidences of Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2) and Kamal Singh (PW-3), who are eyewitnesses of the incident, but their evidence does not inspire confidence and not trustworthy. 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. 11. 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 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, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7 12. 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 learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 14. The first question for consideration would be, whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased were homicidal in nature? 15. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23), who has conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased vide Ex.P/15, has clearly come to the conclusion that the cause of death was the lacerated wound on the posterior (occipital temporal) part of the skull, which was homicidal in nature, resulting in excessive external and internal hemorrhage, leading to damage to the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. The injury to the neck, which appeared to be caused by throttling, also contributed to the death. The said finding recorded by the learned 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. 16. The next question for consideration would be, whether the learned trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- 8 (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P/16) of Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23) who conducted postmortem. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain. 17. In the present case, the homicidal death of the deceased was caused due to the lacerated wound on the posterior (occipital temporal) part of the skull, which was homicidal in nature, resulting in excessive external and internal hemorrhage, leading to damage to the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. The injury to the neck, which appeared to be caused by throttling, also contributed to the death, which were before death has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidences of Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2) and Kamal Singh (PW-3), who are the eyewitness of the incident, Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/16) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 18. In this regard, Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2), the brother of the deceased and an injured eyewitness to the incident, testified that the appellant, Maniram, had taken his sister, Budri Baghel, to his village, Dhodra Karamri, where he regularly beat her. As a result, she left Maniram's house and returned to her own village, Karamri. However, Maniram followed her to Karamri, beat her again, and subsequently left 9 her and went to Adawal, where he married another girl and started living with her. He further stated that his sister Budri had attended a "nacha" program in the village, where Maniram attacked her with a sharp object (gupti). When she cried out for help, he and others rushed to her aid. They found Maniram stabbing Budri with the gupti, and when he tried to intervene, Maniram also stabbed him on the hand, causing a cut on his right palm. Maniram stabbed Budri on the back of her head, chest, and both thighs with the gupti, resulting in profuse bleeding. She fell to the ground and died on the spot. Subsequently, he informed the Police about the incident, and a crime details form (Ex.P/3) was prepared in his presence. 19. The testimony of Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2) is corroborated by Kamal Singh (PW-3), another eyewitness to the incident. Kamal Singh stated in his deposition that he had gone to watch a play in his village around 10:00 p.m., and the incident occurred between 1:00-2:30 a.m. He was walking with Ramkrishna (PW-2) when they heard a cry for help from Lakhan's house, Ramkrishna quickly ran towards Lakhan's house, and Kamal Singh followed him. Upon reaching the scene, he saw Maniram stabbing his wife with a sharp object (gupti) on the head, chest, and thighs near Lakhan's house. Both Kamal Singh and Ramkrishna tried to intervene, but Maniram fled away from the scene. Kamal Singh further stated that on the day of the incident, he and Ramkrishna were present at the scene, and Ramkrishna's attempt to intervene resulted in an injury to his hand. 20. Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23), who conducted the postmortem examination as per Ex.P/15, found injuries consistent with 10 those described in paragraph 4 of this appeal. He opined that the cause of death was the lacerated wound on the posterior (occipital temporal) region of the skull, which was homicidal in nature and resulted in excessive external and internal hemorrhage, leading to damage to the cardiovascular and respiratory systems. Additionally, the neck injury, which appeared to be caused by throttling, also contributed to the death. 21. Now, the question is, whether the prosecution has discharged its initial or general burden or primary duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 22. In this regard, the learned trial Court observed that according to the eyewitnesses, Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2) and Kamal Singh (PW-3), it has been proven that the appellant killed deceased, Budri Baghel with the help of ‘gupti’. The cross-examination of the witnesses did not reveal any fact that would make their statements unreliable. It is also evident that Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2), who is brother of the deceased and injured eyewitness tried to stop the appellant from committing such incident and Ramkrishna Baghel had also received injuries, which is proved by Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23) through MLC report vide Ex.P/17. This indicates that the appellant intentionally caused injuries to Budri Baghel with the help of gupti, demonstrating his intention to kill. On the basis of all the above circumstances and the statements of the eyewitnesses of the incident etc., it is established beyond doubt that the incident has been committed by the appellant. 23. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that, 11 1. death of deceased, Budri Bai was homicidal in nature; 2. it is the appellant who has murdered the deceased by hitting on the chest, head, and other parts of the body of deceased with gupti. 24. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court in its judgment, the fact that the appellant has not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the statements of the eyewitness, Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2) and Kamal Singh (PW-3) disclosing the fact that the appellant had killed Budri Bai with the help of gupti and Ramkrishna Baghel (PW-2), who is brother of the deceased tried to stop the appellant from committing such incident and the Ramkrishna Baghel had also received injuries, which is proved by Dr. Ravindra Kumar Netam (PW-23) through MLC report vide Ex.P/17, therefore, the act of the appellant hitting the deceased on the chest, head, and other parts of the body with the help of gupti clearly shows the intention of the appellant to kill the deceased, Budri Bai. For this reason, it is clearly and reliably established that it was the appellant, who caused the death of the deceased by hitting her on head, chest and other parts of the body and in this regard, there is no defence on the part of the 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 and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 324 of the IPC. Hence, we do not find 12 any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 25. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 26. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 27. 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. 28. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the learned trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan