1 2025:CGHC:34787-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1364 of 2021 Manoj Sarthi S/o Jaitram Sarthi, Aged About 33 Years R/o Atal Awas, Sakri, Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sakri, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh ... Respondent _________________________________________________________ For Appellant : Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 .0 7 .202 5 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.09.2021 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District – Bilaspur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 141 of 2019, by which the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302 and 324 of ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for six months and rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, additional SI for six months respectively with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that accused Manoj Sarathi is the husband of the deceased Babita Sarathi and the son-in-law of the injured Pramila Sarathi (PW-2) and Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6). On the incident date 05.06.2019 at 7-8 pm, the complainant Dhannu Sarathi was talking to his wife Pramila Sarathi and daughter Babita Sarathi while sitting on the gravel lying in front of their house. At the same time, the accused Manoj Sarathi came and started abusing Babita Sarathi, saying that she does not give food on time. When Pramila stopped him from abusing, he started pushing Pramila. When Babita tried to free her mother from the accused by saying why are you pushing her mother, at the same time, the accused Manoj stabbed Babita in the chest and hand with a knife he had with him with the intention of killing her, causing serious injuries to her. When complainant Dhannu Sarathi and his wife Pramila Sarathi tried to stop the fight, the accused threatened to kill the complainant Dhannu and injured Pramila also by stabbing her on chest and cheek with a knife. When complainant Dhannu Sarathi tried to free himself from the knife, he also got injured on his right hand. Babita and Pramila were 3 taken to hospital for treatment. Babita died during treatment. Complainant Dhannu Sarathi lodged a Merg Intimation at Police Station, Sakri about untimely death of the deceased Babita and aforesaid incident vide Ex.P-10. 3. Investigating Officer, left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-1, inquest over the dead body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-11 and dead body of the deceased was sent to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for conducting postmortem vide Ex.P-27, wherein in postmortem was conducted by a team of doctors including Dr. Dharmendra Kumar (PW-14), who found following injuries :- (1) A cut wound on left shoulder of size 5 x 02 cm x deep to the bones. (2) The left rib of the chest was broken whose number was 02,03,04 and about 200 ml of blood had accumulated in the chest like a clot. (3) The liver was peeled. (4) The injuries found on the left chest are as follows - All injuries are cut- Injury number 01 is triangular in shape which is 0.5 cm x 1 cm, injury number 02 is of the size 01 x 02 x 01 and third injury was on the nipple which is L shaped and is 05 x 02 cm in size. Dr. Dharmendra Kumar (PW-14) opined that cause of death is cardio-respiratory failure due to shock as a result of blunt injury on the chest. 4. During the course of investigation, on the basis of merg intimation Ex.P-10, First Information Report was registered vide Ex.P-9 as 4 case Crime No.178/2019 and Crime Details Form was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Injured Dhannu Sarathi and Pramila Sarathi were medically examined vide Exs.P-9 and P-17 respectively. The accused/appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P-12 and at his instance, rear piece of the knife was seized from his house vide Ex.P-15 and one fullsleve shirt and one jeans pant of the accused containing bloodstains on it were siezed vide Ex.P-16. Front and middle portion of the knife were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P-13, bloodstained gravel and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P-14. A memo for query of three pieces of knife so seized was sent vide Ex.P-23 and query report of the same was obtained vide Ex.P-32. On presenting by doctor in a sealed packet, three pieces of knife was seized vide Ex.P-2 and in another sealed packet, blood sample of deceased Babita and her clothes were seized vide Ex.P-3. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P-25 and information of arrest was given vide Ex.P-26. Spot map was got prepared by the concerned Patwari vide Ex.P-29. Seized articles were sent for chemical examination to Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur vide Ex.P-29 and report was received vide Ex.P-30. 5. Statements of witnesses were recorded and after completion of investigation, a final report was submitted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilha District Bilaspur for taking 5 cognizance of the crime. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial from where the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur received the case for trial, hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 6. When the charges under Section 294, 506 Part-II, 302, 307, 324 of the IPC were framed against the accused and read out to him, the accused abjured the allegations made against him and claimed for trial. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents. In his trial under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C, the accused, while expressing his innocence and being falsely implicated, has not made any witness stand in defense nor has exhibited any document. 8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who has committed the murder of his wife deceased Babita and he caused annoyance to the complainant Dhannu Sarathi, Pramila Sarathi and deceased Babita by uttering vulgar words against their mother and sister and caused it to them, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 & 294 of the IPC in the aforementioned manner, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 9. Mr. 9. Mr. Vivek Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court has not properly appreciated the facts 6 and evidence available on record while passing the impugned order. He further submits that the alleged eyewitnesses of incident are relatives of deceased, therefore, they are interested witnesses, whose testimonies cannot be relied upon and made basis to hold the appellant guilty of the charged offence. He also submits that the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife, is said to have been seized at the instance of appellant, but the recovery based on disclosure statement does not inspire confidence because seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution and turned hostile. It is settled position of law that once the discovery fails, there would be literally nothing which would support the prosecution. It has been argued that in absence of confirmed report of Serologist as to the presence of human blood on the weapon of offence i.e. knife, and other articles allegedly seized at the instance of appellant, the entire prosecution story becomes doubtful. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove motive behind commission of crime in question. It is submitted that, without prejudice to above, from evidence and statement of prosecution witnesses it is apparent that at the time of alleged incident, there was sudden quarrel in between appellant and deceased as she used to not provide food to appellant in time, and in that process, in a heat of passing on sudden quarrel, the appellant caused injuries to his wife, although he has no intention to cause such injuries which may result into her death. Thus, it is apparent that incident took place in spur of moment, without any pre-meditation, cannot be ruled and this being the position, the act 7 attributed to appellant would not travel beyond purview of Section 304 Part I or Part-II of IPC. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and contended that as per case of the prosecution, on the date and time of incident, while the complainant Dhannu Sarathi was talking to his wife Pramila Sarathi and daughter Babita Sarathi sitting on the gravel lying in front of their house, at the same time, accused Manoj Sarathi came and started abusing his wife deceased Babita Sarathi, saying that she does not give food on time. When Pramila stopped him from abusing, he started pushing Pramila. When Babita tried to free her mother from the accused by saying why are you pushing her mother, at the same time, the accused Manoj stabbed Babita in the chest and hand with a knife he had with him with the intention of killing her, causing serious injuries to her. When complainant Dhannu Sarathi and his wife Pramila Sarathi tried to stop the fight, the accused threatened to kill the complainant Dhannu and injured Pramila also by stabbing her on chest and cheek with a knife. When complainant Dhannu Sarathi tried to free himself from the knife, he also got injured on his right hand. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubts by way of evidence. He further submits that looking to the seriousness of crime, the appellant is not at all entitled for any sympathy by this Court, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8 11. We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 12. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 13. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Babita Sarathi was homicidal in nature ? 14. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Dharmendra Kumar (PW-14) and further considering the injuries and cause of death mentioned the PM report (Ex.P-31) recorded the finding that the death of deceased Babita Sarthi was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 15. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime. 16. In the case, eyewitnesses, injured witnesses and attesting witnesses are available to prove the incident on behalf of the prosecution. Apart from this, circumstantial evidence is also present in the case. The accused Manoj Sarathi having a "motive" 9 for the murder of his wife Babita on the date of the incident is also an important factor. To find out the specific motive for committing the murder and the intention to commit the murder, it is necessary to closely observe the oral, documentary and circumstantial evidence available in the case. 17. The injured witness and mother of the deceased Pramila Sarathi (PW-2), who was present at the scene of the incident on the date of the incident, has revealed in her judicial statements that on the date of the incident, while she was cooking, her granddaughter Simran came home and told her that there was a fight going on between her father (accused Manoj Sarathi) and mother (deceased Babita). The other eyewitness and father of the deceased Babita, Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6), who was present at the scene of the incident, has also confirmed the statements of Pramila (PW-2) in his judicial statements and revealed that on the date of the incident, his granddaughter Simran came to his house and told his wife Pramila that her father was beating her mother too much. It is noteworthy that Pramila (PW-2) has admitted in paragraph 4 of the cross-examination that her daughter Babita and son-in-law accused Manoj Sarathi have been married for 8-10 years. Earlier there was no fight between them but for the last one year there have been fights. Witness Dhannu Sarthi (PW-6) has also admitted in paragraph-15 of his cross-examination that his daughter Babita and son-in-law Manoj Sarthi were fine earlier but later both of them started quarrelling. The witness revealed that 10 accused Manoj Sarthi did not allow his daughter to come to his house. 18. Thus, from the observation of the statements of the above witnesses, it is clear that for one year before the incident, there was a dispute and fight between the accused Manoj Sarathi and his wife Babita. During this dispute, on the date of the incident, the accused Manoj Sarathi was beating his wife Babita a lot, which has been confirmed by Pramila Sarathi (PW-2) on the basis of her granddaughter Simran coming and telling her about the beating. Due to the dispute and fight between the accused Manoj Sarathi and his wife Babita continuing for the last one year, Babita was stabbed by the accused with a knife on the date of the incident. Due to the previous dispute of the accused with Babita, it is also proved that he had a specific "motive" and "intention" to kill his wife Babita. 19. Now, as far as the question of accused Manoj Sarathi killing his wife Babita by stabbing her with a knife on the date of incident is concerned, it is noteworthy that the injured eyewitnesses Pramila Sarathi (PW-2) and Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6) present at the scene of incident on the date of incident have confirmed the fact in their judicial statements that on the date of incident when their daughter Babita came and sat with them, then after some time accused Manoj Sarthi stood in front of the house and started abusing. When Pramila Sarthi (PW-2) stopped the accused from abusing, he came running and took out a knife and killed the 11 daughter Babita. Witness Dhannu Sarthi (PW-6) revealed that he called a vehicle and took his wife Pramila and daughter Babita to the hospital where his daughter Babita died. 20. After the incident, the witnesses Ashok Baghel (PW-1) and Mannu Sarathi (PW-7) who reached the hospital on receiving the information of the incident, confirmed the incident in their judicial statements and revealed that on the date of the incident they had received the information that accused Manoj Sarathi had stabbed Babita. Witness Ashok Baghel (PW-1) revealed that when he reached the hospital, Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6) had told him that accused Manoj had stabbed Pramila with a knife and then Babita and when he went to rescue her, he was also stabbed. It is noteworthy that the medical witness Dr. Dhamendra Kumar (PW- 14) who examined the dead body of the deceased Babita after the incident, also mentioned in his judicial statements about the reactions caused to the body of the deceased Babita due to the injuries on her body and it is proved that she died due to the stoppage of her heart rate and breathing rate due to shock and the post-mortem report Ex.P-31 has been prepared. 21. As far as the question of the death of deceased Babita being due to the reactions as a result of the injuries inflicted by the accused by stabbing her with a knife is concerned, it is noteworthy that the witness Dhamendra Kumar (PW-14) who examined the dead body of deceased Babita has revealed in his judicial statements that when the SHO Sakri sent him a letter for query examination 12 of the seized knife in crime number 178/2019, he received three pieces of the knife in a sealed envelope, the length of the first piece was 5.5 cm and width 4.00 cm, the length of the second piece was 5.5 cm and width 4.00 cm, the length of the third piece was 11 cm and width 3.5 cm. The witness revealed that he had found that it is possible for the injuries inflicted on deceased Babita to be caused by the knife and it is also possible for a person to die due to the seized knife. The witness has also testified that he prepared the query test report Ex.P-32. Thus, on the basis of the inquiry report presented by the witness, Ex.P-32, it is proved that the deceased Babita died as a result of the injuries caused by the knife seized in the case. 22. Now, as far as the question of the seized knife used in the crime to commit the murder of deceased Babita is concerned, it is noteworthy that the investigator in the case, Ramchandra Sahu (PW-12), has revealed in his judicial statements that during the investigation of crime number 178/2019 of police station Sakri, he had interrogated the accused Manoj in the presence of witnesses Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6) and Mannu Sarathi (PW-7) and recorded his memorandum statement vide Ex.P-12. The witness has certified that on the basis of memorandum statements of accused Manoj Sarathi, one piece of the front part of a steel knife and one piece of the middle piece of a knife were seized from the crime scene and seizure memo Ex.P-13 was prepared. This witness produced a piece of the back side of the knife on 06.06.2019 13 when the accused Manoj Sarathi brought it out from his house and the seizure was made in the presence of witnesses and seizure sheet Ex.P-15 was prepared. Although Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6), a witness of the entire seizure proceedings, has partially confirmed the seizure proceedings in his judicial statements and confirmed that on 05.06.2019, a piece of the front part of a steel knife and a piece of the middle part of a knife were seized from the crime scene in front of him and seizure sheet Ex.P-13 was prepared. Although this witness has revealed that in front of him no seizure was made from accused Manoj. Even when this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution and cross- examined, the witness has denied the fact that accused Manoj Sarathi had taken the police from his house and given the piece of the back part of the knife. 23. Similarly, another witness of seizure proceedings Mannu Sarathi (PW-7) has also confirmed in his judicial statements only that on 05.06.2019, the police seized two pieces of steel knife from the spot in his presence and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-13. Although the witness has denied that anything was seized by the police from the accused in his presence. This witness was also declared hostile by the prosecution and on being asked in cross- examination by the prosecution, this witness has denied the fact that the police had seized the handle part of the knife when the accused produced it before him from the house. Thus, from the observation of the statements of the above witnesses, it is clear 14 that both the witnesses have partially confirmed the seizure proceedings and revealed that two pieces of knife were seized from the scene of the incident, but the witnesses have not proved the seizure of the back part of the knife when the accused Manoj Sarathi produced it from the house. 24. It is noteworthy that in the judicial decision Pradyumanish Kaluma v. State of Gujarat, 1992 AIR Supreme Court 881, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that in a case of murder, where direct evidence is available to prove the incident, the question of evidence regarding recovery of the weapon used in the crime from the accused is not important. 25. Similarly, in the judicial decision in Mrityunjay Biswas versus Pranab alias Kutti Biswas and others, AIR 2013 SC 3334, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held this opinion that if sufficient eyewitness evidence is available regarding the incident and the incident is also confirmed through medical evidence, then even if proper seizure of the weapon from the accused is not proved, the prosecution case is not affected. 26. In the light of the principles propounded in the above judicial decisions and from the observation of the circumstances present in the case, it is clear that in the case, the witnesses Pramila Sarathi (PW-2) and Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6) who are eyewitnesses of the incident and injured witnesses have seen the accused Manoj Sarathi committing the incident, i.e. direct evidence of the incident exists. The death of the deceased Babita as a result of 15 the injuries she sustained due to being stabbed with a knife has also been certified by the medical witness Dr. Dhamendra (PW- 14) through the post-mortem report Ex.P-31. In such a situation, even if the argument of the accused that the seizure of the remaining piece of the knife from the accused Manoj Sarathi has not been supported by the witnesses is accepted, the prosecution does not suffer any loss. 27. During the investigation by Investigator Ramchandra Sahu (PW- 12), a light moss white colour full shirt and a blue colour jeans pant were seized from accused Manoj Sarathi in the presence of witnesses Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6) and Mannu Sarathi (PW-7) and seizure memo Ex.P-16 was prepared. Witnesses Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6) and Mannu Sarathi (PW-7) have also proved in their judicial statements that a white colour full shirt and blue colour jeans pant, which had blood-like stains, were seized from the accused when he was produced before them at Sakri police station and seizure memo Ex.P-16 was prepared. It is noteworthy that the investigator had sent the above clothes of the accused along with other items seized in the case through the Forensic Science Laboratory, Tifra Bilaspur, Superintendent of Police, Bilaspur for examination and opinion through the memorandum Ex.P-29. After testing the seized items, chemical test report Ex. P- 30 was received. 28. In this case, it is clear from the observation of the test report Ex.P-30 received from the Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur, 16 that human blood was found on the full shirt which is marked G-1. It is noteworthy that when the clothes worn by accused at the time of the incident were confiscated, the accused Manoj Sarathi did not give any explanation regarding the presence of human blood on the clothes. 29. Thus, it is proved through the testimonies of eyewitnesses, documentary and medical evidence presented by the prosecution in relation to the incident that on the date 05.06.2019, the accused Manoj Sarathi, with the intention of killing his wife Babita, caused her death by inflicting fatal injuries on her with a knife. The eyewitnesses present at the time of the incident, Pramila Sarathi (PW-2) and Dhannu Sarathi (PW-6) have proved that the incident was caused by the accused Manoj Sarathi. Other witnesses examined in relation to the incident, Ashok Baghel (PW-1) and Mannu Sarathi (PW-7), have also confirmed in their judicial statements that the incident was caused by the accused Manoj. The death of the deceased Babita is due to the injuries caused to her with a knife has also been certified by medical witness Dr. Dhamendra Kumar (PW-14) through postmortem report Ex.P-31. Investigator Ramchandra Sahu (PW-12) has certified that the pieces of the knife used in the incident were seized from the scene of incident and one piece was seized when the accused Manoj Sarathi took it out from the house and presented it. The medical witness has also certified that the injuries caused to the deceased Babita Sarathi were possible by the knife seized in the 17 case and that the death was possible due to the seized knife. The stains found on the clothes and shirt worn by the accused Manoj Sarathi during the incident are human blood, as proved by the Forensic Science Laboratory through chemical test report Ex.P-30. 30. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt through all the eyewitnesses, circumstantial and documentary evidence presented in the case and in the light of the judicial principles enunciated in the judicial decisions mentioned above that the accused Manoj Sarathi on 05.06.2019 inflicted fatal injuries on his wife Babita Sarathi by stabbing her with a knife within the jurisdiction of Atal Awas Police Station Sakri District Bilaspur and caused her death. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper warranting no interference by this Court. 31. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 32. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant – Manoj Sarthi is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 33. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 34. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is 18 undergoing his jail term, 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 the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra