1 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 2025:CGHC:43885-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1277 of 2025 1 - Akash @ Pawan Sahu S/o Suresh Sahu Aged About 20 Years R/o Shahid Rajiv Pandey Nagar, Gali No. 6, P.S.- New Rajendra Nagar, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 2 - Deepak Sahu S/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 18 Years R/o Ashok Vatika, Behind Bramhvir School, Bhathagaon, P.S.- Purani Basti, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) 3 - Sagar Sahu S/o Ashok Sahu Aged About 22 Years R/o House No. 3/14, B.S.U.P. Colony, Bhathagaon, P.S.- Purani Basti, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra, New Rajendra Nagar, Distt- Raipur (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 29/08/2025 SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.09.02 10:56:26 +0530 2 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the B.N.S.S. is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.03.2025 passed in Sessions Trial No. 27/2021 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, C.G., whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 302 r/w Section 149 of the IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- with default stipulation. U/s 147 r/w Section 149 & 148 r/w Section 149 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 01 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. Section 25 (1-b)(b) and Section 27 of the Arms Act Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. (only for appellant No.3/ Sagar Sahu) All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01/07/2020, the complainant Sandhya Goswami lodged a complaint at New Rajendra Nagar Police Station to the effect that she sells vegetables and used to work with a vegetable cart in the RDA building. On the date of incident, at around 01.00 pm, there was a dispute between Raju Sahu's son Doman and her mother Mogra Goswami regarding setting up a vegetable cart. At around 9.30 pm, she and her brother Sanju Goswami were selling vegetables on a vegetable cart at that time, Ritesh, Akash, Sagar, Deepak and Abhishek from Raj Sahu's family alongwith 4-5 other people came with sticks and knives in their hands and started beating them with sticks and knives with the intention of killing them. Sagar beat her brother Sanju with a knife and Ritesh, Akash, Deepak, Abhishek and others beat her brother with sticks and fists due to which, her brother suffered serious injuries 3 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 on his head, chest and body, and was bleeding profusely. At the time of the incident, she and her sister Kshamta and other people were present nearby who intervened and called 112 on the spot and took Sanju to the hospital and admitted him for treatment. On the basis of the above report, New Rajendra Nagar, Raipur Police Station registered a case against the accused/ appellants under Sections 147, 148, 149, 307 IPC and took it into investigation. During investigation, on the information of death of injured Sanju Goswami while undergoing treatment, a crime under section 302 IPC was added and after recording the statements of the witnesses and finding evidence of crime against the accused, charge sheet was presented before the concerned trial Court. 3. During investigation, Spot Map (Ex.P/21) was prepared. Statements of the eye witnesses and the other witnesses were recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellants, the charges were read out and explained to them, they denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 07.03.2025 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. 4 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellants is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances against the appellants and in such case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. Learned counsel would submit that without there being any cogent evidence against the present appellants, the conviction of the appellants is bad in the eyes of law. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. Since the ample questions for consideration would come before this Court, for the convenience of not repeating the evidence, all the questions for consideration regarding conviction against the 5 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 appellants under Sections 302 r/w 149, 147 r/w Section 149 & 148 r/w Section 149 IPC considered together. 10. First of all, it is necessary to know the nature of the murder of the deceased. In this regard, the witnesses examined by the prosecution, Sandhya Goswami (PW1), Jitendra Goswami (PW2) and Kshamta Goswami (PW10), who are crucial witnesses in the case, have stated that the deceased Sanju Goswami, who used to sell vegetables, had an argument with his brother-in-law Manoj Verma, the brother of a juvenile in conflict with law, regarding the place to sell vegetables, on the date of the incident, when the accused beat up his brother-in-law Manoj Verma, regarding which a report was lodged by him in the police station. Thereafter, at about 9.30 pm, when the deceased was closing the vegetable shop, the accused Deepak abused the deceased. Sanju and Deepak were quarreling over this issue. After this, the accused Deepak called his brother Akash Sahu, Sagar Sahu and others. Then, the accused Sagar Sahu stabbed the deceased a little below the chest and others also beat up him. After which, he was taken to the hospital where he declared died. 11. In the sequence of events, Medical witness Dr. Sufal Kumar Gajbhiye (PW-13) has stated in his statement that on 01/07/2020, he was posted as a doctor in Medicine Hospital. On the date of incident, Sanju Goswami, son of Salik Goswami, was brought to his hospital for treatment at 10.15 pm. The patient was brought in an injured and unconscious state, whose blood pressure was not being recorded due to low blood pressure and he 6 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 was breathing with difficulty and his heartbeat was much lower than normal. This witness further stated that on examining the patient, he found that there was a stab wound on the lower side of his right chest, from which blood was oozing out, the size of which was 3.5 cm x 2 x body cavity deep and injury No. 2 was a cut injury on the left side of his head, the size of which was 2 cm x 1.5 cm x bone depth. Further, this medical witness also stated that the patient was given all the emergency medicines which are given in critical condition, but due to his deteriorating condition, he succumed to death on 02-07-2020 at 12.35 A.M. 12. PW-10 - Kshamta Goswami is sister of the deceased, stated in her statement that she knows the accused. The incident took place on 01st of July, 2020. On the date of incident, there was an argument between her brother-in-law Manoj Verma and the accused Akash near the vegetable shop of RDA Building. On the same day, in the evening, her brother-in- law was sitting in the vegetable shop. During that time, 7-8 people came and started beating her brother-in-law, then the people around came and intervened, she was sitting there at that time and was shouting for help. The people who beat her brother-in-law ran away from there. During that time, her younger brother Sanju Goswami (deceased) came to the vegetable shop and her younger sister also came to the vegetable shop. She was closing the shop with her younger brother Sanju and Sandhya Goswami, when the accused Sagar Sahu, Ritesh Sahu, Akash Sahu and Deepak Sahu came and They started beating her younger brother Sanju 7 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 Goswami. Accused Akash and Deepak Sahu were holding sticks, Sagar Sahu was holding a knife and with the help of that knife he hit the deceased on the chest, Akash Sahu hit her younger brother on the head due to which his head was fractured and Deepak Sahu hit her younger brother with a stick. Then she was shouting for help with her younger sister Sandhya Goswami. After beating her younger brother, the accused fled from there. Her brother was injured and was bleeding from the head and chest. They called 112 and took him to Medicine Hospital in an ambulance where her younger brother declared died. 13. Sandhya Goswami (PW-1) sister of the deceased, has stated in her statement that there is a vegetable stall on the ground near the land of Bank of India, New Rajendra Nagar Road where she and her mother Mogra Bai Goswami and sister Kshamta Goswami sell vegetables by putting up a vegetable cart. The accused also sell vegetables at the same place by putting up a stall/cart, hence she knows them. She further stated that on the date of incident, her sister Kshamta Goswami told that she had bought vegetables from her brother-in-law Manoj Verma, at that time, Ritesh and his brother had an argument over the place to set up the stall and on the same day in the evening, the accused Sagar, Deepak, Akash and other people who had come with them beat him up over the issue of setting up the vegetable cart. She also stated that on the same day, her sister Kshamta Goswami asked her to come to the shop to close the vegetable shop at around 9.30 pm, she reached there. At the same time, she called her brother Sanju Goswami to close the vegetable shop. 8 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 Then, the accused Deepak came to there and was abusing her and her brother. At the same time, a conflict took place between Deepak and her brother Sanju. Then Deepak called his brothers Akash Sahu, Deepak Sahu, Sagar Sahu and other people with them. As soon as they arrived, Sagar Sahu stabbed her brother Sanju Goswami with a knife a little below the chest. All the boys who had come with accused Deepak beat her brother. Her brother Sanju sustained a head injury. She reached there, her father was standing far away. He got hurt while intervening. When her brother fell down due to the combat, the accused persons ran away from there. Then she called the police by dialing 112, then the police reached the spot and her brother Sanju Goswami was taken to the hospital for treatment where she came to know that her brother Sanju Goswami had died. 14. These witnesses have been completely adamant that it was the accused Sagar who stabbed their brother during the argument due to which he died. The evidence of above witnesses confirms that on the evening of the incident, the accused were present along with other co-accused and among them accused Sagar Sahu. The deceased Sanju Goswami was injured by hitting him with a knife and the other accused caused the injury by hitting him on the head with hockey stick etc. 15. These witnesses have clearly stated in the main examination that accused Deepak Sahu had a quarrel with the deceased mainly in the name of setting up the vegetable cart and thereafter other accused Sagar Sahu and Akash Sahu and other people were called to the place of incident and 9 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 beaten up the deceased. It is clear from the evidence that on the date of incident, an FIR has been lodged wherein it has been mentioned that Raju Sahu's son Doman Sahu and his mother had a dispute over setting up vegetable cart. At around 9:30 pm, he and his brother Sanju Goswami were selling vegetables on the cart when Ritesh, Akash Sahu, Sagar, Deepak and Abhishek of Raju Sahu's family and 4-5 other people came with sticks and knives in their hands and started beating them with sticks and knives with the intention of killing them. Sagar beat his brother Sanju with a knife and Ritesh, Akash, Deepak and others beat him with sticks and fists due to which his brother sustained serious injuries on his head and body. These witnesses confirmed the presence of accused Sagar who stabbed the deceased and the presence of other accused Deepak Sahu and Akash Sahu at the spot of the incident. 16. It is clear from the evidence available on record in the case that on the date of the incident, there was an argument between Sanju and the accused and at the same time, due to the alleged assault and stabbing during the argument, he died. 17. Now it is to be seen in the case whether the murder of deceased Sanju Goswami was caused by the knife seized from accused Sagar Sahu? 18. In this regard, it is clear from the above mentioned evidence that witnesses Sandhya Goswami (PW1), Jitendra Goswami (PW2), Kshamta Goswami (PW10) have clearly given evidence in their statements that accused Sagar Sahu had attacked deceased Sanju Goswami with the knife. Although, in relation to the alleged recovery of the knife, 10 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 independent witnesses of the memorandum and seizure proceedings, Vicky Walter (PW5) and Rakesh Sagarvanshi (PW7) have not supported the seizure and memorandum proceedings, but the investigating officer Ashish Shukla (PW-16) has clearly stated that on the basis of memorandum Ex.P-9 of accused Sagar Sahu, a large steel knife with blood stains on its blade was seized in the presence of two witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P-11, which is Article-A-1. Similarly, a hockey stick was seized from the possession of Deepak Sahu on the basis of memorandum Ex.P-8, which is Article-A-2. In this regard, the witnesses examined by the prosecution Sandhya Goswami (PW1), Jitendra Goswami (PW2), Kshamta Goswami (PW10) have clearly stated that accused Sagar Sahu had hit the deceased Sanju Goswami with a knife and accused Deepak Sahu had hit him a little below the chest and on the head. 19. From the evidence available in the case, it is evident that on the morning of the incident, there was a dispute between the family members of the deceased and the family members of the accused in the name of setting up the vegetable cart, regarding this, both the parties have lodged a report against each other in the police station, which is confirmed by the statements of the investigating officer and other witnesses. PW-1, PW-2 and PW-10 have confirmed the presence of the accused at the spot of incident and have produced clear evidence regarding the murder of deceased by beating him with knife and other objects. 20. Furthermore, it has also been confirmed by the medical witness Dr. Shiv 11 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 Narayan Manjhi (PW-17) who examined the dead body of the deceased has stated that he is posted as Senior Medical Officer in Medical College (Mekahara) Raipur from 2003 till date. On 02-07-2020, the dead body of deceased Sanju Goswami was brought before him. He found several injuries on the body of the deceased. The doctor gave his opinion and according to him the death of the deceased was due to stab wound in the chest and excessive bleeding and shock. The death was homicidal in nature. The period of injuries present on the body of the deceased was within 12 hours of death. The period of death of the deceased was within 24 hours. The postmortem report given by him is Ex.P-5. He admitted the fact that the cause of death is stab injury. 21. Bare perusal of the FSL (Ex.P-41) would show that the presence of human blood on the knife seized from the accused has been confirmed. On the basis of the evidence presented, it is proved that the knife seized from the possession of accused Sagar Sahu was used in the incident to attack the deceased below the chest and inflict the injury which was sufficient to cause the death of the deceased. 22. The accused persons have been charged under Sections 147 r/w Section 149, 148 r/w Section 149, 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code. The number of accused was five or more at the spot of the incident. In such a situation, the act done by them will be considered as an act done in furtherance of a common purpose, for which every person will be 12 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 guilty of that crime as if it was committed by them. The crime of murdering the deceased by hitting him with knife and hockey stick etc. has been proved against the accused. On that basis, the offences under Sections 147 r/w Section 149, 148 r/w Section 149, 302 r/w Section 149 of the Indian Penal Code against the accused for being members of an unlawful assembly and for the act like murder committed in furtherance thereof, are found to be proved. 23. Apart from the above mentioned offences, accused Sagar Sahu is also charged with the offence under Section 25 (1-b) (b) and Section 27 (1) of the Arms Act. Eyewitnesses of the incident have produced irrefutable evidence regarding the attack by accused Sagar Sahu with a knife and the investigating officer has seized a big steel knife from accused Sagar Sahu, the blade of the knife has blood-like stains. Also the witnesses present at the time of the incident, Sandhya Goswami, Jitendra Goswami and Kshamta Goswami have clearly stated that it was the accused Sagar Sahu, who had stabbed Sanju Goswami with a knife. 24. Besides, the medical witnesses have stated that the injury to the deceased was caused by a pointed and sharp object and as per the FSL report, human blood was confirmed on the seized knife, on the basis of which it is proved that the accused Sagar Sahu had kept the knife as mentioned in the seizure memo in his possession illegally on the date of the incident and used it to kill the deceased, which was in violation of the notification issued under the Arms Act, 1959. Thus the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused under Section 25 (1-b) (b) and Section 27 (1) of 13 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 the Arms Act. The finding recorded by the trial Court is hereby affirmed. 25. Accordingly, the conviction against the appellants under the relevant Sections of the IPC and the Arms Act is found to be proved and hence the accused are found guilty of the above mentioned crime and are convicted. 26. Perusal of the above statements reveal that there was a quarrel and an ongoing family dispute between the accused, the deceased and their son. The other evidence on record further supports the prosecution’s case in its entirety and clearly points towards the accused, who committed the murder. Taken together, these elements establish a strong motive and link the appellants to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 27. Thus, on the basis of evidence available on record, it has been proved that the injuries inflicted on the deceased Sanju Goswami on the date of the incident resulted in his death and the nature of the death of the deceased was homicidal. In such a situation, the nature of death of the deceased being homicidal is proved in the absence of denial. 28. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentenced as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. It is reported that the accused/appellants are in jail. They shall serve out the remaining 14 CRA No. 1277 of 2025 period of jail sentence as awarded to them by the learned trial Court. 29. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing the jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are 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. 30. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar