1 CRA No.1668/2023 2025:CGHC:26110-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1668 of 2023 Heeralal S/o Ramlal Gond, Aged About 55 Years R/o Village Mahai Kosamdand, P.S. Kelhari District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Kelhari, District Koriya Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 20.06.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/06/2023, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragadh, District:Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 48/2021, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.24 10:41:20 +0530 2 CRA No.1668/2023 Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment & fine of Rs.1000/-, in default, additional R.I. for 1 month. 1. Brief facts of the case is that Kalavati (deceased) was married to Hiralal Bandhwa(appellant) and out of their wedlock, one son namely Sarju (PW-5) was born. On 03/01/2021 at around 9.00 a.m. Moti Singh (PW-1) of village-Mahai Kosamdand called Kalavati's brother Hriday Singh (PW-4) and told him that his sister Kalavati had died. Thereafter, he came to Kalavati's house in village-Mahai, Kosamdand with his mother along with 4-5 persons. They saw the deceased died and there were marks of injury and scratches on her elbows, both arms and right toe and there was slight swelling on the neck of deceased. Sarju (PW-5) told that on Friday and Saturday, a dispute occurred between Hiralal and deceased/wife, due to which, appellant assaulted his wife, for which, she died. It is alleged that by strangulation, the appellant murdered his wife. Thereafter, the incident was informed by Hriday Singh along with Moti Singh at Kelhari Police Station and FIR vide Ex.P-28 was registered. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-6. After due investigation, police arrested the appellant vide Ex.P-17. On the basis of memorandum Ex.P-15, seizure of wooden stick has been made vide Ex.P-16 and sent for chemical examination to FSL. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem 3 CRA No.1668/2023 examination report (Ex.P/21), Dr. Mahesh Singh (PW-11) opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation (throttling) and the nature of death is homicidal. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the seizure/memorandum witness PW-8 and PW-9 did not support the memorandum statement. He submits that the case is not of eye witness rather appellant has been convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the burden of proof lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of appellant beyond reasonable 4 CRA No.1668/2023 doubt. It is also clear that the conviction has been made solely on the ground of memorandum statement of the appellant and the seizure made on instance of such memorandum statement and both the things could not have been proved by the prosecution, therefore convicting the appellant in absence of clinching evidence, is bad in law. Hence, looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the alleged offence is not made out against the appellant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly 5 CRA No.1668/2023 considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/21) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Mahesh Singh (PW-11). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/21) and the statement of Dr. Mahesh Singh (PW-11) that the nature of death of deceased was homicidal in nature, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 8. Now the next question would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ? 9. PW-5,Sarju Singh, son of deceased. He is aged about 16 years. He stated that he knows the accused Hiralal, he is his father and the deceased Kalavati is his mother. He stated that on the date of the incident, he was at home along with his mother and father. In the evening, his father went to the market alone and at around 10 p.m., he came back home after consuming alcohol and started quarrel with his mother. After that, his father assaulted his mother with a stick, due to which, his mother ran away from home and hid in the forest. In the morning again, his father started beating his mother and brought her home after dragging her and made her sleep. He stated that he did not talk to his mother at that time. 6 CRA No.1668/2023 After that, his father left home for a walk and he went to graze the cow. When he came back home in the evening after grazing the cow, his father was at home and told him that his mother has died. After that his father ran away from home towards Bijuri side. Thereafter, he told the whole incident to his brother Samay Lal (who is the son of the appellant and his first wife) and other persons. 10. Dr. Mahesh Singh (PW-11), who conducted the postmortem of deceased and found that there were several injuries of various sizes which appeared blue and black in colour on the back side body of the deceased, some of the injuries were of bigger size measuring 3.5 x 1 inch. There was a bruise on the back of the right shoulder measuring 4 x 1 cm. There were injury marks on the right hip and thigh of the deceased ranging in size from 6 inches x 1 cm to 4 inches x 1 cm, which were blue and black in colour. There were injury marks on the front side of the neck of the deceased which were black in colour. 11. On the basis of memorandum statement of appellant vide Ex.P- 15, weapon i.e. bamboo wooden stick has been seized vide Ex.P- 16 and also clothes of deceased was seized, which were sent for chemical examination to FSL and in the FSL report (Ex.P-19), it is mentioned that the blood stains were found on the clothes of the deceased. 7 CRA No.1668/2023 12. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sandeep Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh (2012) 6 SCC 107 had occasion to deal with such nature of evidence wherein it held that it is quite common that based on admissible portion of the statement of the accused whenever and wherever recoveries are made, the same are admissible in evidence and it is for the accused in those situations to explain to the satisfaction of the court as to the nature of recoveries and as to how they came into possession or for planting the same at the places from where they were recovered. That part of the statement which does not in any way implicate the accused but is mere statement of facts would only amount to mere admissions which can be relied upon for ascertaining the other facts which are intrinsically connected with the occurrence, while at the same time, the same would not in any way result in implicating the accused in the offence directly. 13. Considering the statements of eye witness-Sarju Singh (PW-5), who is the son of deceased/mother and appellant/father, was present on the spot when the appellant was assaulting the deceased by means of bamboo stick at night. In the morning also, the appellant dragged the deceased in front of PW-5, and thereafter, in the evening, the appellant told his son/Sarju that his mother has died; particularly considering the injuries caused to the deceased by the appellant from the postmortem report; and looking to the memorandum statement of appellant that he had 8 CRA No.1668/2023 assaulted the victim by means of bamboo stick, we hereby accept the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellant- accused who assaulted deceased by which she suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant has caused the injuries upon the deceased is based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question. 14. In view of foregoing discussion, we are the of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 15. The appellant is stated to be in jail and he shall serve out the remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the 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. 16. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 9 CRA No.1668/2023 17. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Judge Gowri/ Amardeep