1 2025:CGHC:10486-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1274 of 2021 1 - Nohar Say S/o Shri Photo Korwa Aged About 72 Years Occupation Agriculture, R/o Village Lalmati Korwapara, Thana Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate Ambikapur District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sunil Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. K. Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 04/03/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure 1973, (for short the, Cr.P.C.) against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.09.2021, passed by Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District- Surguja (C.G.). in Sessions Case No. 123/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/- in default of payment of fine additional simple imprisonment 2 for 03 months. 2. Brief facts of the case are that the deceased Karmahin Bai was the wife of the appellant she found dead in injured condition in her house on 10.09.2019. On 10.09.2019 at about 11:50 a.m. the complainant Viful Korwa (PW-1) gave a dehati merg intimation Ex.P/1 to the police that he was being informed by his sister-in-law Thepi Bai that his step father has committed murder of his mother by assaulting her on her head by axe on the basis of dehati merg intimation, the merg intimation Ex.P/1-A has been recorded by the police and dehati nalsi Ex.P/2 was recorded on 10.09.2019 at 12:20 pm. The FIR Ex.P/2-A has been registered on 10.09.2019 itself at 14:40 hours for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant. The inquest Ex.P/5 of the dead body of the deceased was prepared by the police in presence of the witnesses and the dead body was sent for its post-mortem to District Hospital, Ambikapur where PW-7 Dr. Sanjeev Khakha conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave his report Ex.P/12. While conducting the post-mortem, the doctor has found the following injuries on her body:- • Chop wound of size 4x2x2 cm muscle and bone deep present on back of left ear, vertically placed, lower part of left ear lateral also found sharply cut. • Chop wound of size 3x1x1cm muscle deep present on left side of face 2cm below to extarnal odetory cannal, transuasly placed. • Chop wound of size 4x1x1cm muscle deep present on left side of face 1cm below to previous wound transuasly placed. • Chop wound of size 5x2x3cm present on left side neck, just below to left angle of mandibal, transuasly placed, muscle tracuia and carlid vertibra sound sharply cut. 3 • Chop wound of size 3x1x2cm present on left side of neck 4cm below to left mastoid transuasly placed. • Chop wound of size 4x1x3 cm muscle deep present on 0.5 cm below to precious wound, transuasly placed. • Chop wound of size muscle deep 1cm below to precious wound transuasly placed. • Chop wound of size 6x2x2cm present 03 anterior aspect of right shoulder vertically placed. • Chop wound of size 5x2x3cm muscle deep present on right side of neck jugeler vain and carotidontory found. • and wound of size 3x2x1cm present on left arm 5cm below to axilla vertical pineed. • Chop wound of size 3x2x1cm present on left arm trimasly 7cm above to elbow placed. 3. After conducting the post-mortem the doctor opined that the death was due to shock and hemorrhage as a result of multiple chop wound preset on head and neck region. Duration of death was 12 hours since post-mortem examination and mode of death was homicidal in nature. 4. The spot map Ex.P/3 was prepared by the police and Ex.P/9-A was prepared by the Patwari, blood-stained and plain soil and axe has been seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/7. The blouse of the deceased which was sent from the hospital has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/10. The seized axe was sent for its query report to the doctor who conducted the post-mortem and the doctor has gave his query report Ex.P/13 in which he gave the following query report:- fcUnq dz- ¼1½ D;k e`frdk dh e`R;q tIr’kqnk Vk¡xh ls हुई gS \ tokc %& mDr tIr’kqnk Vk¡xh ls e`R;q gks ldrh gSA fcUnq dz- ¼2½ D;k e`frdk dks vkbZ pksVsa tIr’kqnk Vk¡xh dh gS \ tokc %& ;fn dksbZ C;fDr mDr tIr’kqnk Vk¡xh ls CkyiwoZd xEHkhj pksV igq¡pk, rks e`R;q laHko gSA 4 fcUnq dz-¼3½ vU; dksbZ rF; gks rks Hkh crkus dk d"V djs \ tokc %& mDr tIr’kqnk Vk¡xh dk js[kfp= rS;kj fd;k tks i`"V dzzzzzzz- (2½ esa vafdr gSA mDr Vk¡xh ds vxzHkkx esa र्ሹनुमा धब्बा ekStwn gS og ekuo jDr gS ;k ugh bldh oSKkfud iqf"V jklk;fud ifj{k.k ls gh laHko gS vr% eSaus iqu% उ्ሹ Vk¡xh dks lhycan dj laCkf/kr vkj{kd dz- 718 uke lrsUnz nqCks dks lhyuewuk lfgr lkSi fn;kA 5. The blood stained and plain soil axe seized from the spot and blouse of the deceased were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL Ambikapur from where FSL report Ex.P/15 was received and according to the FSL report blood has been found on blood stained soil, axe and blouse of the deceased. 6. The appellant was arrested on 10.09.2019 and his memorandum statement Ex.P/6 was recorded. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation charge-sheet was filed before the learned Chief Judicial Magistrate, Surguja place Ambikapur for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The case was committed to the Court of learned Sessions Judge, Surguja place Ambikapur for its trial. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. He denied the charge and claimed trial. 8. In order to prove the charge against the appellant the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence for the reason that he kept the mother of the complainant with him, therefore, he deposed against him. 9. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has 5 failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict him for offence in question. There is no eye- witness to the incident and the PW-2 Thepi bai who is claimed to be the eye- witness has not seen the actual incident and only on suspicion she raised allegation upon the appellant that he committed murder of the deceased. No incriminating article or weapon of offence have been seized from the appellant and there is no motive to commit her murder only to eliminate the appellant from his house, the complainant have framed a concocted story and lodged a false complaint against the appellant. The evidence produced by the prosecution are not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence, therefore, he is entitled for acquittal. 11. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradiction the evidence produced by the prosecution is unerringly pointed towards guilt of the appellant that he committed murder of the deceased. The number of injuries found on her body clearly demonstrate that the appellant was intended to cause her murder and the number of injuries found on her body itself shows the brutality of the offence. The evidence of the PW-2 Thepi bai is fully reliable and her presence on the spot is also called natural that she was the daughter-in-law of the deceased. Thus, there is sufficient cogent and clinching evidence against the appellant to convict him for the alleged offence, therefore, his appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the case. 13. The homicidal death of the deceased has not been specifically challenged by the appellant and the learned trial Court after considering the evidence of the Dr. Sanjeev Khakha PW-7 who conducted the post-mortem of the dead body 6 of the deceased opined that the cause of death was shock and hemorrhage as a result multiple chop wound present on the head and neck region and the mode of her death was homicidal in nature. In cross-examination he denied that he found alcohol on the stomach of the deceased, he also denied that the injuries found on the body of the deceased was not fatal to her life. It is also denied that the deceased could be saved if she was being treated in time, he also denied that the injuries found on the body of the deceased was simple in nature and also denied the injuries could be caused by falling on a pointed surface. Nothing could be extracted from doctor who conducted the post-mortem so that on his evidence could be disbelieved from the death of the deceased could be held to be otherwise then the homicidal death. The evidence of the doctor PW-7 Sanjeev Khakha is supported by the evidence of the PW-1 Viful Korwa who gave merg intimation and the inquest to the police that he saw the dead body of his mother and found who lying in her house having injuries on her body. 14. PW-2, Thepi bai is the person who saw the incident and injuries on the body of the deceased. Further from the evidence of the witnesses to the inquest Ex.P/5. The homicidal death of the deceased was found proved by the learned trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record which is finding of fact recorded by the learned trial Court and the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence available on record and we are also in the agreement of the said finding that the deceased died due to homicidal death. 15. So far as the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question is concerned, the case of the prosecution is based on the evidence of PW-2 Thepi bai who is the eye-witnesses to the incident. PW-2 Thepi bai is the daughter-in-law of the deceased who stated in her evidence that on the date of incident she and the deceased had gone to Lalmati society to bring rice. She had gone to house of her mother-in-law to left her rice and when she put 7 the rice in a room and went in the other room of her house, at the same moment she heard the noise of quarrel between the appellant and the deceased and as soon as she reached to them she saw that the appellant has already inflicted the axe blow on the deceased and she was lying there in injured condition and appellant was standing there. She immediately informed the incident to the son of the appellant and then they came on the spot. The axe by which the appellant gave assault to the deceased was also lying on the spot. The police was also informed and then the merg intimation was being recorded. In cross-examination, she admitted that the appellant kept her mother-in-law as his wife but she denied that she was not happy by the act of the appellant, she sent her own rice with another person of the village to her house and she herself had gone to the house of the deceased to left her rice. She firmly stated that after putting the rice in a room she had gone another room and at the same moment she heard the noise of quarrel between them. She denied that her mother-in-law had consumed liquor on that day. When it is asked from her that she has not seen the incident of assault, she replied that when she reached on the spot immediately she saw that the deceased was lying there and appellant was standing on the same place. Though she has not seen the actual assault but immediately after the assault she reached on the spot and saw the dead body of the deceased and the appellant was also standing there. There is no presence of any third person on the spot except the appellant and the deceased. It is also in the case of the appellant that someone else have assaulted the deceased. The appellant himself had not made any report to the police when he saw the dead body of the deceased in injured condition from the evidence of this witnesses as well as the conduct of the appellant and his presence on the spot at the very moment clearly pointing towards guilt of the appellant that he caused injuries to the deceased. She become the natural witness have innocently deposed the incident whatever she had seen. 8 16. PW-1, Viful Korwa have stated in his evidence that the appellant is his step father and the deceased was his mother. On the date of incident when his mother had taken the rice from the Lalmati society. He sent her rice by his cousin brother Thanu to the house of the appellant. The appellant and the deceased have followed the motorcycle of his cousin brother and his sister- in-law Thepi bai had also followed them. His cousin brother left the rice in front of their house which was keeping inside by Thepi bai and at that very moment the appellant assaulted his mother which was informed by Thepi bai to him and then he reached to the place of incident and saw the dead body of his mother. When he reached on the spot the appellant was lying there and his elder son Bhola assaulting him as to why he has committed murder of Karmhin bai. Thereafter, he lodged the report he remained firm whatever he stated in his chief examination in cross-examination of the defence. Though he stated in is evidence that he was not happy with the appellant for the reason that he kept his mother as his wife and he wanted that his mother would reside him and the appellant was in habit to raise quarrel with her. Though he admitted on the date of incident her mother had also consumed liquor. But at the time of post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased no alcohol contents have been found on her stomach. Nothing could be elicited by the defence in his cross-examination so that he can be disbelieved. 17. From the evidence of PW-2 Thepi bai the presence of the appellant on the spot has duly been proved and she alleged that it is the appellant who caused injuries to the deceased by which she died no one else were there at the time of incident. 18. The axe which is the weapon of offence seized from the spot were sent for its query report to the doctor who opined that in his query report Ex.P/13 that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the said axe and blow has also been found on the said axe in FSL report Ex.P/15. 9 19. In the matter of State of Maharashtra vs. Ahmed Shaikh Babajan and Others reported in 2009 (14) SCC 267, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held in para 35 and 36 as under: "35. Very recently in Ashok Kumar Chaudhary & Ors. Vs. State of Bihar this Court had the occasion to deal with the question of creditworthiness of the evidence of relatives of the victim. On a review of several decisions on the point, including Dalip Singh Vs. State of Punjab, Masalti Vs. State of U.P. and Rizan & Anr. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, it has been observed that though the Court has to scrutinize such evidence with greater care and caution but such evidence cannot be discarded on the sole ground of the interest of such witness in the prosecution. The relationship per se does not affect the credibility of a witness. Merely because a witness happens to be a relative of the victim of the crime, he/she cannot be characterized as an "interested" witness. The term "interested" postulates that the person concerned has some direct or indirect interest in seeing that the accused is somehow or the other convicted either because he had some animus with the accused or for some other oblique motive. 36. In Namdeo Vs. State of Maharashtra, one of us (C.K. Thakker, J.) has said that a close relative cannot be characterized as an "interested" witness. He is a natural witness. His evidence, however, must be scrutinized carefully. If on such scrutiny, his evidence is found to be intrinsically reliable, inherently probable and wholly trustworthy, conviction can be based on the `sole' testimony of such witness. Close relationship of witness with the deceased or victim is no ground to reject the evidence. On the contrary, close relative of the deceased would normally be most reluctant to spare the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent one." 20. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that it is the appellant and none else who has committed the murder of the deceased. The facts and 10 circumstances of the case as well as other evidence available on record clearly suggests the guilt of the appellant. He gave repeated axe blow on the body of the deceased by which she received injuries and have died on the spot. The appellant has not explained his presence and in 313 Cr.P.C. statement. Therefore, we do not find any reason to differ with the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, we, therefore, uphold the conviction and sentence passed by learned trial Court against the appellant convicting him for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and since for the same. 21. In the result the appeal filed by the appellant fails and hereby dismissed. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 10.09.2019, he shall undergo the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 22. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his 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. 23. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2025.03.20 17:46:39 +0530