1 2025:CGHC:7701-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1119 of 2019 Haridhar Nag S/o Budiya Nag Aged About 28 Years R/o Sendri- bahar(Kachhar), Police Station- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh through Station House Officer, Police Station- Patthalgaon, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For the Appellant : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For the State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Division Bench Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (13.02.2025) Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, J, 1. Invoking jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the CrPC, appellant Haridhar Nag has preferred this Criminal Appeal challenging the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.06.2019 passed by the A ANNAJEE RAO Digitally signed by A ANNAJEE RAO 2 learned Additional Sessions Judge Kunkuri, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No. 35/2018 by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under : U/s 302 IPC : Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 6 months. U/s 201 IPC RI for 5 years with fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 6 months. 2.1 It is alleged that on 21.05.2018 the accused/appellant with an intention to kill the deceased Ms. Deepawali (cousin) assaulted her with a sharp-edged sword and separated her head from the body near the village Sendribahar Kachar which comes under the police limits of P.S. Pathalgaon, District Jashpur. According to the prosecution, on 21.05.2018 at 12.00 noon, the informant Chaitan Nag (P.W.1) who is father of deceased lodged merg intimation regarding the incident took place in the morning on 21.05.2018 at foot-path near Jairam field of village Sendribahar wherein he stated that on the date of incident he had gone to work in his field in the morning while his son Sukhsagar and daughter Deepawali were at home. While returning from the field, a villager Sushil Nagvanshi informed him that his daughter Deepawali was killed by his nephew Haridhar Nag with a Tanga, then he rushed to the spot with Sushil of the same village and saw that his daughter’s dead body was lying on the footpath near Jairam’s field and at the same time, his son who was at the place of incident told his father that appellant had killed Deepawali by hitting her with a Tanga, due to which, 3 Deepawali had died. 2.2 On such information, Dehati Nalish (Ex.P-2) was recorded and spot map Ex.P-3 was prepared. On the same date, memorandum statement Ex.P-6 of the accused was recorded in the presence of witnesses and on identification of accused, the weapon of offence (Tanga) and the blood stained shirt worn by the accused at the time of incident were seized in presence of witnesses by seizure memo (Ex.P- 7). On the said date itself, a letter (Tahrir) was written to the Tahsildar Pathalgaon for exhumation of the severed head of deceased Deepawali Nag and for conducting the body panchnama proceedings and receipt Ex.P-26 was received. Further in presence of witnesses in village Sendribahar (Kachhar) near the door of the house of the accused, the body (head) exhumation panchnama Ex.P-12 was prepared and the head was exhumed. Then the head identification Panchnama (Ex.P-10) and the body identification Panchnama (Ex.P- 11) were prepared in presence of witnesses. Near the courtyard of accused where the head of the deceased was buried, the soil of the pit and the plain soil beside the pit and the ashes of burnt hair from the place where the hair of the deceased was burn were seized vide Ex.P-9 in presence of witnesses. The blood stained soil and plain soil were seized from village Sendri Bahar Kachhar, where the body (torso) was lying in presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P-8. 2.3 On the said date itself, witnesses and heirs were given notice (Ex.P-13) for the postmortem of deceased’s body and Panchnama ( Ex.P-14) was prepared and duty certificate was issued and the body 4 was sent to Community Health Center Pathalgaon for postmortem. After the postmortem, the body was handed over for burial by Supurdnama (Ex.P15). 2.4 On 09.06.2018, Patwari report Ex.P-21 along with the site map of the incident Ex.P-20 and Panchnama Ex.P-04 were received. On 14.06.2018, a written letter Ex.P-18(A) was sent to C.H.O Pathalgaon for query of the seized Tanga and the Tanga was examined by the doctor and thereafter query report Ex.P-18 was received. The frock worn by the deceased at the time of incident was seized through seizure memo (Ex.P-22) in presence of witnesses. The seized articles were sent to Joint Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Ambikapur Surguja (C.G.) for chemical testing and the testing report of FSL was received by Ex.P-30. The statement of witnesses were recorded and after completing investigation, the charge sheet was filed. 3. The accused pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined in all 11 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. After examination of the prosecution witnesses, the statement of appellant was recorded u/s 313 of CrPC in which he denied the guilt and pleaded innocence. The learned Additional Sessions Judge after evaluating the evidence convicted and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated and the prosecution has failed to prove the case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt, therefore, the 5 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence cannot be sustained which needs interference of this Court. 5. Per contra, learned State Counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is cogent and clinching evidence for placing conviction of appellant u/ss 302 and 201 IPC, therefore, the learned trial court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences which needs no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered the rival submissions and have also perused the records. 7. The Investigating Officer (Sub-Inspector) Narendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-10) has stated that he had registered Merg Intimation Ex.P-1 and Dehati Nalasi Exhibit P-2 on the information of the deceased's father Chetan Ram (PW-1) and has confirmed the fact that the headless torso of Deepawali Nag was found lying near the field at the place of incident. Tehsildar Mayanand Chandra (PW-11) has stated that the head was found in excavation done near the door of the appellant's house and that the head and torso should be identified. Thereafter, the Panch witnesses were given notice and asked to prepare the Panchnama Ex. P-14 of the dead body. As per the above proceedings, the head and torso were found to be of the same woman Deepawali Nag. 8. Doctor James Minj (PW-6) has stated after examining the dead body that both the head and the torso were found separately. The hair on the head was burnt. The neck was found to have been cut with a sharp object. There was no blood in both the chambers of the heart. 6 According to him, the death was caused by excessive bleeding due to the separation of the head from the torso, which was homicidal. He gave report vide Ex.P-17. Thus, the death of Deepawali Nag has been found to be homicidal. The above finding of the trial court is not perverse and contradictory to the facts and evidence available on record. Thus, it is proved that the death of Deepawali Nag was caused by murder. 9. The eye witness Pradeep Nag, the brother of deceased is examined as P.W.2. He has stated in Court evidence that in the month of May, at about 10.00 a.m., when he was sitting near a tree with Vishwanath Nagvanshi (PW-3), Ravi and Sukhsagar, he saw that the appellant was chasing Deepawali Nag from his house towards the field. When Deepawali Nag could not open the door of the enclosure in the field, the appellant hit her on the neck with a Tangi. Then he ran towards them too, but out of fear they ran away towards the city. He went and disclosed the incident to Ravi's grand-mother. Later, he went to the spot and saw that only the torso of Deepawali Nag was lying at the scene of the incident, not her head. The said statement of the witness could not be refuted in cross-examination. Thus, it is found that the appellant had caused Deepawali's death by hitting her on the neck with tangi. 10. The second eye-witness of the incident is Vishwanath Nagvanshi (PW-3). He too has supported the statement of Pradeep Nag (PW-2) in Court evidence and said that when he was sitting with Pradeep, Sukhsagar, Ravishankar near Jagarnath's field the appellant was seen 7 chasing Deepawali from her house to the field. He further states that as Deepawali could not open the gate of the enclosure in the field, then the appellant got opportunity and hit her on the neck with a Tanga, seeing which they got scared and ran away towards their house. Later when the police and villagers came and went near the appellant's house, at his instance the deceased’s head was taken out from near the door of courtyard of appellant’s house where he buried the head after killing the deceased. The statement of this witness too could not be negated in cross-examination. Thus this witness corroborates the statement of Pradeep Nag (PW-2) and the prosecution case against the appellant. 11. The Investigating Officer Narendra Kumar Tripathi (PW-10) who was Sub-Inspector has stated that he prepared memorandum (Ex.P-6) on the incident date 21/05/2018 itself by recording the statement of appellant in presence of witnesses in village Sendribahar. According to him, the appellant had given the information that he had burnt the hair of Deepawali Nag's head and buried the head in a pit near the door in the courtyard in front of his house and had hidden the weapon (tanga) in a room inside Deepawali's house and the blood-stained shirt inside his house which he would recover. Then he had seized a Tanga and a black coloured shirt at the instance of appellant and had prepared Exhibit P-7. The report Ex.P-26 was sent to Tahsildar Mayanand Chandra (PW-11) for excavation. The spot map of the incident Ex.P-3 was prepared. Plain soil, blood stained soil and ashes of burnt hair were seized from the excavation site and Ex.P-9 was prepared. Further 8 plain soil and blood stained soil from where the torso of deceased was lying were also seized and Exhibit P-8 was prepared. The above memorandum and seizure proceedings are confirmed by the statements of Sangram Say Nag (PW-4) and Puran Nag (PW-5). 12. Tahsildar Mayanand Chandra (PW-11) has stated that on receiving the police letter (Taharir), he reached village Sendribahar, Kachhar for excavation of the head and proceedings of body Panchanama and excavated near the door of appellant’s house and prepared Panchanama (Ex.P-12). According to him, a severed head was found at the excavation. That severed head was identified by Chaitanram Nag (P.W.1) as belonging to his daughter Deepawali. Then the identification Panchanama (Ex.P-10) was prepared and when the torso of deceased was found, the identification Panchanama Ex.P-11 was also prepared for the torso. The said excavation proceedings Ex.P- 12, the Panchanama Exhibit P-14 of the head and the Panchanama (Ex.P-11) of the torso stood firm by the statements of the deceased's father Chaitanram (PW-1) and other witnesses Sangram Say Nag (PW- 4) and Puran Nag (PW-5). No such fact has emerged from the cross- examination of the Tahsildar on the basis of which the identification proceedings described by him can be disbelieved. 13. Dr. James Minj (PW-6) has stated that he had examined the sealed Tanga sent by the police along-with query-letter and after examination of the weapon used in offence, he has given query report (Exhibit P-18) stating that the injury found on the neck of the deceased 9 could have been caused by the said tanga and it could have caused her death. 14. Ashish Kumar Gautam (PW-9), the investigating officer, has stated that the Tanga seized in the case along with other items including the soil seized from the scene of the incident, the frock of the deceased and the shirt of the appellant have also been sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination and according to the FSL report (Exhibit P-30), the blood-soaked soil seized from the scene of the incident (where the torso was lying), the Tanga seized from the appellant and his shirt have been found to contain "A" group human blood. This also proves the involvement of the Tanga seized from the appellant in Deepawali's death and thus, the chemical test report also supports the prosecution's case that Deepawali's death was caused by the appellant by hitting her with the Tanga. 15. Thus, on the basis of the above evidence discussion, it has been proved that the statements of the prosecution witnesses could not be contradicted in cross-examination. Eyewitnesses Pradeep Nag (PW-2) and Vishwanath Nagvanshi (PW-3) have categorically supported the prosecution case against the appellant. Both these witnesses have consistently deposed that when they were sitting near the filed alongwith other villagers, the appellant was seen chasing Deepawali from her house to the field and as the deceased could not open the gate of the enclosure, the appellant hit her on the neck with a Tanga and having seen such incident, they got scared and ran away towards their house. Evidence of these two eye-witnesses at a glance would lead to 10 show that while the deceased was being chased by the accused, the deceased could not escape the incident as she was unable to open the gate, thereby the appellant got opportunity to commit brutal murder of deceased by means of sharp edged weapon. Further, the proceedings of the body excavation and tanga seizure as also the FSL report in the case shows that the prosecution has brought on record cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant. The prosecution has also been able to prove that after severing the head of deceased from torso, the accused took away her head and buried it in the courtyard of his house which further proved that the appellant had tried to cause disappearance of evidence. Thus considering the evidence available on record as discussed above, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant which cannot be said to be unsustainable. 16. In view of the above discussion of evidence, we are of the considered opinion that the conviction under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC is based on clear, sufficient and reliable evidence which does not require any interference in this appeal and accordingly, the judgment impugned is hereby upheld. 17. In the result, the appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Rao