1 2025:CGHC:9069-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1113 of 2019 {Arising out of judgment dated 27.06.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.05/2019 by the learned Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker} Vijay Nureti @ Dhol, S/o. Vishnuram Nureti, Aged About 21 Years, R/o. Village Bhanbeda Nicheparra, Police Station Bhanupratappur, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Korar, District Kanker, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause Title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Aditya Khare, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (21.02.2025) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.02.25 17:22:05 +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 dated 27.06.2019, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker in Sessions Trial No.05/2019, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code & under Section 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced as under : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s. 302 of I.P.C. : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 25 of Arms Act. : Rigorous imprisonment for 1 year and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional rigorous imprisonment. U/s. 27 of Arms Act. : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.5000/-, in default of payment of fine, 1 month additional rigorous imprisonment. All the sentences to run concurrently. 3 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 05.12.2018 at 9:30 A.M. at Main Road, Kurri Bridge, Police Station- Korar, District Kanker, the appellant assaulted Ku. Soniya (now deceased) by sharp edged knife while she was going to School, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died and the appellant was in possession of knife without any license; thereby the offence has been committed. The eye- witness Ku. Sheela Teta (PW-3) immediately reported the matter to Vijay Hidko (PW-1), father of the deceased, who reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2, Inquest was conducted vide Ex. P-4 and dead body of deceased Ku. Sonia was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. O.S.Patel (PW-14), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-24, according to which, cause of death was stated to be internal and external hemorrhage leading to shock by hard and sharp edged and pointed object and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant Ex. P-9, weapon of offence i.e. knife has been seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-10, motorcycle has been seized vide Ex.P-11, clothes of appellant have been seized vide Ex.P-12 and mobile phone has been seized vide Ex.P-13. The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to FSL and as 4 per the FSL report (Ex.P-39), human blood was found on the seized articles i.e. knife and clothes of appellant & deceased. As per the query report (Ex.P-50), it was opined by Dr. O.S.Patel (PW-14) that the wound and injury seen on the body of the deceased could be caused by the seized knife. 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 offence, prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 51 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness but exhibited the document Ex.D-1. 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 under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and sentenced as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5 5. Mr. Aditya Khare, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that Ku. Sheela Teta (PW-3), Ku. Sanjana Mandavi (PW-12) and Ku. Manisha Hichami (PW-13) are not the eye- witnesses and they have not seen the incident, the appellant herein has been falsely implicated and, as such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. Arvind Dubey, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that Ku. Sheela Teta (PW-3), Ku. Sanjana Mandavi (PW-12) and Ku. Manisha Hichami (PW-13) are real eye-witnesses, they have seen the incident, as they were going to School along-with deceased and the appellant came, all of a sudden, armed with knife and assaulted the deceased, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died and, as such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences; therefore, 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. 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Ku. Soniya was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the 6 post-mortem report (Ex.P-24), proved by Dr. O.S.Patel (PW- 14), according to which, cause of death was stated to be internal and external hemorrhage leading to shock by hard and sharp edged and pointed object 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 trial Court has convicted the appellant finding the motive of offence has been proved, secondly, the trial Court has held that Ku. Sheela Teta (PW-3) is the eye-witness and she has reported the matter immediately to the father of deceased Vijay Hidko (PW-1) who immediately lodged the Merg Intimation (Ex.P-1) and FIR (Ex.P-2) on 05.12.2018 at 10:25 A.M. & 10:30 A.M. respectively. Thereafter, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded, upon which, knife and other articles were seized and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-39), human blood was found on the seized articles. Therefore, on the basis of direct and circumstantial evidence, the trial Court proceeded to convict the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and under Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act, which is sought to be challenged. 7 10. We will consider the aforesaid circumstances one by one : (i) Motive of Offence : The trial Court has found motive of offence established relying upon the statement of Ashok Sarfe (PW-6), Duryodhan Singh Nurety (PW-7) and Ravi Kumar Poya (PW-9). Ashok Sarfe (PW-6) has clearly stated that three days prior to the date of incident, Village Patel has called him, appellant and his father Vishnu Ram Nureti were also called, Vijay Hidko (PW-1) father of the deceased, deceased Ku. Soniya and sister of Soniya's father were also present there and in the meeting, the appellant has disclosed that he likes the deceased and developed love with her and wanted to marry, which the deceased and her father (PW-1) have declined as deceased was minor on that day being below 18 years and on hearing that, the appellant became angry and shouted and threatened to kill the deceased. Similar statement has been made by Duryodhann Singh Nureti (PW-7) and Ravi Kumarn Poya (PW-9), which clearly establishes that the deceased and her father (PW-1) both had declined to fulfill the demand of appellant to marry and on that count the appellant was having a grudge. The date of meeting was 02.12.2018 and date of incident was 05.12.2018, as such, there was proximate cause/motive for causing murder of Ku. Soniya 8 while she was going to School. As such, the trial Court has rightly held and found proved the motive on the part of the appellant to cause death and, as such, the finding recorded by the trial Court in this regard in para 25 of its judgment is hereby affirmed. (ii) Eye-witness Ku. Sheela Teta (PW-3) : The eye- witness Ku. Sheela Teta (PW-3) is the friend/class-mate of the deceased with whom the deceased was going to School on bicycle. She has clearly stated in her statement that the deceased was studying in Class-10th and on the date of offence, she (PW-3) along-with Ku. Soniya (deceased), Ku. Sanjana (PW-12) and Ku. Manisha (PW-13) was going to School and all of a sudden, the appellant came on a motorcycle armed with knife and he firstly kicked the bicycle of Ku. Sonia and when she fell down, he assaulted her by knife on her neck and chest, by which Sonia lying with the pool of blood and appellant fled away from the spot. She has further stated that she had informed about the incident to Fulkunwar (Buwa of deceased) and Shashi (sister of deceased) and also to the father of deceased, Vijay (PW-1). However, learned counsel for the appellant stressed on few words in para 4 of her cross-examination to establish that when Sheela (PW-3) reached to Ku. Sonia, 9 she was already assaulted and Sheela (PW-3) has not seen the incident. However, in para 6 of her statement, Ku. Sheela (PW-3) has reiterated that it is only and only the appellant who has assaulted the deceased thrice by knife and, as such, the minor contradiction in the testimony of Ku. Sheela (PW-3) who is an eye-witness of the incident and also the classmate of the deceased, her testimony cannot be discarded. Similarly, Ku. Sanjana Mandavi (PW-12) and Ku. Manisha Hichami (PW-13) have clearly stated that Ku. Sheela (PW-3) has seen the incident, they were following deceased Sonia and PW-3 Sheela. They have informed by Sheela (PW-3) that the appellant has assaulted deceased Sonia. However, Ku. Manisha Hichami (PW-13), who was also a classmate and in some distance to deceased Soniya & Sheela (PW-3), had also seen the appellant absconding from the spot, which is a subsequent conduct and is relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. (iii) Memorandum statement of Appellant : Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-9, the bloodstained knife has been recovered vide Ex.P-10, which has been supported by the seizure witness Rajkumar Darro (PW-2) and on the seized bloodstained knife and other 10 seized articles, human blood was found as per the FSL report (Ex.P-39). Apart from this, Merg & FIR was promptly recorded immediately after 1 hour of the incident naming the appellant herein, which is also a relevant fact. 11. In that view of the matter, the prosecution has been able to establish the motive of offence, incident was seen by the eye-witness Ku. Sheela (PW-3), which was supported by the statement of class-mates Ku. Sanjana (PW-12) and Ku. Manisha (PW-13) and prompt Merg & FIR was lodged vide Ex.P-1 & Ex.P-2 naming the appellant herein and the subsequent conduct of the appellant is also relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and furthermore, pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, bloodstained knife was seized on which human blood was found. As such, the trial Court has rightly concluded that it is only and only the appellant who is the author of the crime, which in our considered opinion is correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record. Therefore, we do not find any merit in this appeal and accordingly, the appeal is dismissed. 12. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, informing the appellant by 11 providing him the copy of this judgment that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Ashok Judge Judge