(Cr.A.No.1308/2019) 2025:CGHC:8610-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1308 of 2019 (Arising out of judgment dated 29-6-2019 passed by the Special/Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No.151/2017) Durgesh Verma @ Ravan, S/o Shri Kaushal Prasad Verma, Presently aged 24 years, R/o Village Girod, Thana Dharsiva, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh (In Jail) ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Officer-in-Charge, Police Station Vidhan Sabha, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Rao, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee. For Respondent/State : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench: - Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon’ble Shri Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal, JJ. Judgment on Board (19/02/2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction recorded and sentence awarded by the learned Special/ Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, by which the sole appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to SISTA SOMAYAJULU Digitally signed by SISTA SOMAYAJULU Date: 2025.02.20 17:26:21 +0530 (Cr.A.No.1308/2019) undergo imprisonment for life and further sentenced to pay a fine of ₹ 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 31-3-2017 at 11.00 p.m., at Village Tekari, Near CCI Factory Mandhar, Near Nahar Canal, the appellant assaulted Devendra Verma by iron chopper and murdered him and thereby committed the offence. Dehati merg intimation Ex.P-8 was lodged by Basant Kumar Verma (PW-5) and dehati nalsi was registered vide Ex.P-9, on the basis of which, FIR was registered against the appellant vide Ex.P-18A and merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P- 19. Inquest was conducted on the dead body of the deceased vide Ex.P- 11. Crime details form Ex.P-13 was prepared by the Investigating Officer and spot map Ex.P-14 was prepared by the Patwari. Dead body was subjected to postmortem and postmortem was conducted by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-10) vide Ex.P-16 who found as many as 13 multiple injuries over the body of the deceased and cause of death was stated to be multiple injuries to head, mode of death being haemorrhage and shock and nature of death was homicidal. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P- 6 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-2 pursuant to which full pant, shirt and iron chopper have been seized from him vide Exs.P-3 & P-4. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur from where report has been received vide Ex.P-28 according to which blood was found on iron chopper Art. C and human blood of Group ‘O’ was found on the (Cr.A.No.1308/2019) handkerchief Art. A3 seized from the spot, jeans pant & shirt of the deceased Arts. D1 & D2. 3. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the accused / appellant was charge- sheeted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Raipur from where the learned Special / Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, received the case on transfer for trial. 4. The accused / appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as sixteen witnesses and exhibited 28 documents. The defence has examined none, but exhibited three documents namely, Exs.D-1, D-2 & D-3 – statements of Vikram Verma, Bhupendra Patel and Devnath Verma recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, respectively. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering the homicidal nature of death of the deceased and also considering that it is the appellant who has caused the murder of the deceased, proceeded to convict and sentence him under Section 302 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred. 6. Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that PW-1 – the victim in another offence under Section 376 of the IPC against the appellant, has not seen the incident and is not the eyewitness (Cr.A.No.1308/2019) in the present case and furthermore, Vikram Kumar Verma (PW-6), who has allegedly seen the appellant and the deceased together, is also not reliable witness. He would further submit that iron chopper has been seized at the instance of the appellant on which only blood has been found which cannot be made basis for conviction. 7. Mr. Afroz Khan, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State / respondent, would support the impugned judgment and would submit that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and it is the appellant who has caused the death of the deceased. He would further submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that it is a case of eyewitness by PW-1 whom the appellant has committed rape and the appellant has already been convicted for the same against which he has preferred appeal being Cr.A.No.1189/2019 which has been decided today by this Court separately. He would also submit that Vikram Kumar Verma (PW-6) has seen the appellant and the deceased together coming from the factory and thereafter, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, iron chopper was seized in presence of two witnesses namely Devendra Kumar Verma (PW-2) & Neelkanth Verma (PW-3), on which blood has been found as per the FSL report Ex.P-28. As such, the appellant has rightly been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original (Cr.A.No.1308/2019) records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 9. The question whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature has rightly been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the statement of the medical officer Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-10), who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-16, which is a pure and simple finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 10.Case of the prosecution is based not only on direct evidence but also on circumstantial evidence. In shape of direct evidence, the statement of PW-1 i.e. [the victim in another offence committed by the appellant herein], has been brought on record and in shape of circumstantial evidence, the testimony of Vikram Kumar Verma (PW-6) – co-worker of the appellant and the deceased, has been brought on record, and in addition to that, pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, iron chopper has been seized on which as per the FSL report Ex.P-28, blood has been found. 11.Now, we will consider the aforesaid evidence one by one. Statement of the victim (PW-1) 12.The victim (PW-1) has stated in her statement before the Court that on the date of offence, she was in her house at Village Gidhouri along with her grand-father Mangaldas & grand-mother Kuntibai Dhidhi and her father Ashok Kumar & mother Rukhmanibai Dhidhi had gone to her (Cr.A.No.1308/2019) maternal grand-mother’s house at Village Birgaon. Devendra Verma (deceased) told her that he is coming to take her which she accepted and on the same night at 10.45 p.m., Devendra Verma came to take her and when he made call over phone, she went outside the house, at that time, the accused/appellant was also present along with deceased Devendra Verma whom she had never seen before and she went along with the appellant and the deceased on the motorcycle, she sat on the middle of the motorcycle and deceased Devendra Verma was sitting on back. She has further stated that all three were going to the village of Devendra Verma namely Giroud, at that time, she was not knowing the person who was driving the motorcycle. When they reached Tekari Nahar Canal and Mandhar Colony, the person driving the motorcycle stopped the motorcycle and asked Devendra Verma to sit in the middle and asked her to sit on back, and at the very same moment, the person driving the motorcycle assaulted Devendra Verma with some instrument/object on which Devendra Verma caught hold of his head and asked her to go at some distance. She was frightened and fled away, at that time, she does not know what the accused did. She has also stated that the accused ran towards her and caught hold of her hairs and forcefully took her on the motorcycle and threatened her to kill if she discloses to anybody. The accused took her to Village Giroud to the house of Devendra Verma, at that time, nobody was there in the house and the accused broke the lock, at that very moment, she had seen the face of the accused and he committed sexual intercourse on her in the house of Devendra Verma (Cr.A.No.1308/2019) and thereafter, again, he brought her on the motorcycle to the place where he assaulted Devendra Verma and again assaulted Devendra Verma and thereafter, again took her to the bank of Neurdih river where he again committed sexual intercourse upon her and thereafter, dropped her to the house. Next day she informed the matter to her parents and to the police, who got her statement recorded before the Magistrate under Section 164 of the CrPC vide Ex.P-1. Though she has been subjected to lengthy cross-examination running into four pages, but nothing has been extracted from her evidence to hold that she is not eyewitness to the incident who had seen the appellant assaulting deceased Devendra Verma twice. As such, the trial Court has rightly held that the victim (PW-1) is eyewitness and in her presence, the accused/ appellant has assaulted Devendra Verma twice by iron chopper as a result of which Devendra Verma suffered grievous injuries and died. Medical Evidence 13.The doctor who has conducted postmortem (Ex.P-16) on the body of deceased Devendra Verma namely Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-10) has also supported that as many as 13 multiple injuries have been found on head and cause of death is multiple injuries to head which resulted in haemorrhage and shock, nature of death being homicidal. In his query report Ex.P-18, Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-10) has clearly proved that the injuries suffered by the deceased can be caused by the weapon of offence iron chopper. As such, the statement of the victim (PW-1) is duly (Cr.A.No.1308/2019) supported by the medical evidence and the query report (Ex.P-18) proved by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-10). 14. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P-2, iron chopper was seized from the possession of the appellant vide Ex.P-4 in presence of witnesses Devendra Kumar Verma (PW-2) & Neelkanth Verma (PW-3), who have duly supported the case of the prosecution and as per the FSL report Ex.P-28, blood has been found on the said iron chopper (Art. C), whereas human blood of Group ‘O’ has been found on handkerchief Art. A3 seized from the spot and jeans pant & shirt of the deceased Arts. D1 & D2. Statement of Vikram Kumar Verma (PW-6) 15. Vikram Kumar Verma (PW-6), who is co-worker of the appellant and the deceased, in his statement before the Court has stated that on the fateful day at 10:00 p.m. in the night, when he was going to duty, he saw Durgesh – the appellant herein & Devendra (deceased) together coming out of Neco plant on one motorcycle and thereafter, at 1.30-2.00 p.m. in the night, when he made phone call to Devendra Verma, his mobile phone was switched off. 16.As such, the oral testimony of the victim (PW-1) is duly supported by the medical evidence and the evidence of Vivek Kumar Verma (PW-6) as also the memorandum and subsequent seizure of the weapon of offence iron chopper and the FSL report. Page 9 of 9 (Cr.A.No.1308/2019) 17. In that view of the matter, the trial Court is totally justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. We do not find any merit in this appeal, it is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 18.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 him 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) JUDGE JUDGE Soma