1 2025:CGHC:37455-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1419 of 2019 Judgment reserved on : 09.06.2025 Judgment delivered on : 31.07.2025 1 - Sandeep Kumar Gupta S/o Late Suresh Kumar Gupta Aged About 40 Years R/o Behind Old Malaria Office, Mahasamund, Police Station And District Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer Police Station Mahasamund, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Alok Kumar Gupta, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. M. Asha, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.08.2019 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Fast Track Court, District Mahasamund (C.G.) in Session Case No.20/2017, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC (two Digitally signed by RAMAKANT NIRALA 2 times) and sentenced to undergo life improvement with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Meera Devi Gupta lodged a report before the Police Station Mahasamund alleging that on 12.11.2016, she had gone to her duty by leaving her daughter-in-law, grandson and the appellant in the house. At about 2:30 pm, the appellant called her and informed that he has come to Raipur along with wife and child and has forgotten to leave key, as such she should also come to Raipur, then she came to Raipur in her daughter’s home and tried to call the appellant, but he could not be contacted. When she returned to Mahasamund then saw that door is locked, upon which she went to her duty and when she returned back in the night, the lock was also closed, then with the help of her landlord, she broke the lock and went inside, where she saw the dead body of her daughter-in-law Anju Gupta and grandson Prateek Raj having blood stained and the accused was not there. Upon the report of the complainant, FIR was registered. After investigation police registered case against the accused and he was arrested and charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. According to Ex-P/6, a letter was seized from the crime scene in which the accused mentioning financial difficulties holding himself responsible for committing murder of the deceased Anju Gupta and Prateek Gutpa. The screwdriver and pencil cutter used in the incident have not been seized from the accused. He further submits that Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matters of Raja Naykar vs State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 481, Nandu Singh vs State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh), reported in 2022 Livelaw (SC) 229, SK Yusuf vs State of West Bengal, reported in (2011) 4 SCC 331, Satye Singh and another vs State of Uttarakhand, reported in (2022) 5 SCC 438 and Darshan Singh vs State of Punjab, reported in (2024) 3 SCC 164. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly 4 convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 & 302 of IPC (two times) against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC (two times), as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The first question for consideration is that whether the death of the deceased Anju Gupta and Prateek Raj Gupta was homicidal in nature or not? 8. S. S. Thakur (PW-14) stated that upon information of Meera Devi, he lodged merg intimation on 11.01.2016 bearing Merg No.125/2016. Merg No.126/2016, Crime No.597/2016 under Section 302 of IPC vide Ex-P/8 & P/9 regarding death of Anju Gupta and Prateek Gupta. He issued notice under Section 175 of CrPC vide Ex-P/1 & Ex-P/2 and inquest memo was prepared before the witnesses vide Ex-P/3 & Ex-P/4 and as per advice of punch witnesses, he filled form for postmortem vide Ex-P/21 & Ex-P/22) and he admitted his signatures on all papers. 9. PW-1 Prabhat Patkar, PW-3 Mamta Sahu, PW-4 Ramesh Kannauje, PW-5 Ghanshyam Sahu & PW-16 Umesh Kumar 5 Sahu all witnesses admitted their signatures on inquest memo (Ex-P/3 & P/4). PW-17 Sanjay Dave conducted postmortem of the deceased on 14.11.2016 and he discussed the injuries found on the body of the deceased Anju Gupta and Prateek Gupta as under:- “2. दिनांक 14/11/2016 क पहर 11:00 बजे थानां महसम क आरक्षक पष्पन्द्र क० 645 क द्वार मतक श्रीमत अंजे गुप्ता पदित सष क मर गुप्ता, उम्र 38 वष& दिनांवस परनां मलेरिरया ऑदि+स क पछे महसम, थानां महसम क शव पस्ट मट&म हत मर समक्ष प्रस्तत दिकया गुया था। शव क2 पहचानां सरजे गुप्ता दिवष्णु गुप्ता तथा आरक्षक क 645 पष्पन्द्र द्वार मर समक्ष क2 गुई था। शव परक्षणु करनां पर म6नां दिनांम्नां बत8 पया बह्य परक्षणु - एक मदिहले क शव जिजेसक2 उम्र लेगुभगु 38 वष& पष्ट मट&म टबले पर रखा ह?आ था आखा और मह आधे खाले ह?ऐ था. गुले क चार ओर एक सलेवर जिलेपट ह?ई था, जिजेसक2 गुलेई 41 सगु. था और लेम्बई 100 सम था मदिहले गुउनां पहनां ह?ई था जिजेसक2 लेम्बई 98 सम था और गुलेई 166 सम था शDले शरर स ढक ह?आ था, सनां क बया दिहस्स म8 पचा स्टब्ड वड था. जे दिक 3 स 6 सम. गुहर था, जिजेसक2 गुलेई 05 सम था और जे हृया क2 गुहरई तक था जिजेसक2 गुहरई 03 स 06 सम० तक था तथा गुलेई 0.5 सम० गुले क समनां दिहस्स म8 एक कट ह?ई चाट पई गुई था. जिजेसक2 चाड़ाई 03 सम एव गुहरई 04 सम था तथा उक्त घाव टLदिकया तक गुहर था। हड्डी म8 खानां क थाक्क जेम ह?आ पया गुया। क रटटवOसले और आआतरिरक जेगुले वOसले क्षदितग्रस्त पई गुया। शव म8 रयागुर मदिट&स दिवद्यमनां नांहR था। उक्त मदिहले नांले रगु क2 अंण्डर दिवयार पहनां ह?ई था और नांक म8 + ल्ली कनां म8 ईयार रिरग्स हथा म8 एक लेले रगु क2 चाड़ा पहनां ह?ई था। उर + ले ह?आ था। जिसर क बले खाRचानां स आसनां स नांहR टट रह था। आन्तरिरक परक्षणु :- कपले और मरूण्ड म8 कई चाट नांह पया गुया। कण्ठ क2 टLदिकया हडX ड टट था और उसम8 खानां क थाक्क जेम ह?आ था और नांस8 क्षदितग्रस्त था। मतक क या और बया + +ड पले था हृया क बया दिहस्स खाले था और या दिहस्स म8 थाड़ा स खानां दिवद्यमनां था। पट म8 अंधेपचा भजेनां 6 (चावले) मYजे था। अंदिभमत :- हृया और श्वसनां ब हनां था, जे एस+ क्सिक्सया क करणु था, जे दिक टLदिकया हड्डी क कटनां और कO रटड नांस क क्षदितग्रस्त हनां क करणु ह?ई था। उक्त मत्या मर परक्षणु क 24 स 48 घाण्ट क अंन्र क2 था। चादिक नांवम्बर क मदिहनां था. इसजिलेए वतवरणु म8 ठण्ड हनां क करणु शव म8 रयागुर मदिट&स शरू नांहR ह?आ था। घार क अंन्र शव पया गुया था इसक करणु भ मत्या उपरन्त अंकड़ानां शव म8 दिवकजिसत नांहR ह?ई था। मतक क2 मत्या क2 प्रक दित मनांव वधे स्वरूप क2 था। मर द्वार मतक अंजे गुप्ता क सम्बन्धे म8 दिया गुया शव परक्षणु प्रदितवनां प्रश& प 35 हO, जिजेस पर अं स अं भगु पर मर हस्तक्षर हO। 3. म6नां मतक अंजे गुप्ता क पस्टमट&म क समया पया गुया गुले म8 जिलेपट पजेम, गुउनां, समजे, पहनां ह?ई सलेवर और अंण्डर दिवयार क सबजिधेत आरक्षक क सलेब कर स^प दिया था। 4. दिनांक 14/11/2016 क आरक्ष क न्द्र महसमन् क उस आरक्षक पष्पन्द्र क0 645 द्वार प्रतक रजे गुप्ता दिपत सप गुप्ता, उम्र 08 वष& दिनांवस परनां मलेरिरया आदि+स क पस क शव क परक्षणु हत मर समक्ष पहर करब 12.30 बजे लेया गुया था। शव क2 पहचानां सरजे गुप्ता दिवष्णु गुप्ता और आरक्षक पष्पन्द्र क द्वार ह मर समक्ष क2 गुया था। म6नां उक्त बलेक क शव क परक्षणु करनां पर उसम8 दिनांम्नांनांसर बत8 पया था- बह्य परक्षणु :- उक्त शव एक 08 वष& क बच्चा क था. जे पस्टमट&म टबले पर दिचात हलेत म8 पड़ा ह?आ था। शव क दिहनां कलेई पर एक 04 सम० सम० लेम्ब गुणु 01 सम० चाYड आकर क कट ह?आ घाव था। गुले म8 थायारइड हडX ड क नांचा कट ह?ई घाट आकर 13 सगु० लेम्ब, 07 सम० चाYड तथा 06 सम० गुहर था। नां` सइड क2 कO रटड नांस और आतरिरक जेगुलेर नांस8 कट ह?ई था और टLदिकया हडX ड म8 खानां क थाक्क जेम ह?आ पया गुया था। रयागुर मदिट&स दिवकजिसत नांहR ह?आ था। ओयासदि+कस कट ह?आ था और उसस भजेनां बहर दिनांकले रह था। उक्त बच्चा नांले अंण्डर दिवयार पहनां ह?आ था और नांले बडमड पहनां ह?ए था, जिजेसम8 लेले रगु क2 लेइदिनांगु था। बरमड़ा क2 लेम्बइ 63 सOम० एव गुलेइ 48 सम० था। उक्त बच्चा आसमनां नांले रगु क बदिनांयानां पहनां ह?ए था. जे 65 सम० क2 सइजे क था। शट& भ 65 सम० लेम्बई क था, उसम8 100 प्रदितशत कDटनां जिलेखा ह?आ था गुले क चार` और एक पट्टा जिलेपट था, जिजेसक2 लेम्बई 222 सम० और चाYड़ाई 87 7 सम० था। आन्तरिरक परक्षणु:- कपले ओर मOरूण्ड म8 कई चाट नांह पया गुया थाR नां` + +ड पले था, हृया क बया दिहस्स खाले था एव या दिहस्स म8 थाड़ा खानां पया गुया था। मह और ग्रसनांले म8 भजेनां क अंवशष पया गुया था। पट क2 भतर अंघापचा ह?आ भजेनां पया गुया था। 5. मतक क अंण्डर दिवयार, बरमड, बदिनांयानां, शट&, गुले म8 जिलेपट पट्टा सलेब कर सबजिधेत आरक्षक क स^प दिया था। अंदिभमत :- मतक क2 उक्त मत्या हृया क श्वसनां तत्र एसदि+क्सिक्सया क करणु ह?ई था। उसक करणु गुले क2 चाट और क रटड नांस पर आतरिरक जेगुलेर नांस8 कटनां स था। मतक क2 मत्या मर परक्षणु स 24 स 48 घाण्ट क अंन्र क2 था। मतक क2 मत्या क2 प्रक दित "मनांव वधे" स्वरूप क2 था। मर द्वार दिया गुया परक्षणु प्रदितवनां प्रश& प 36 हO, जिजेस पर अंस अं भगु पर मर हस्तक्षर ह6।" He opined that the cause of death was due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of asphyxia. He gave his reports (Ex-P/35 & P/36). He remained firm on this point that the death was homicidal in nature and no suggestion was given by the defence related to death of the deceased. He admitted this suggestion that these types of injuries can be possible and can come by razor blade. He remained firm in his cross-examination, thus looking to the statement of Dr. Sanjay Dave (PW-17) and postmortem reports (Ex-P/35 & P/36), it is clear that death of both the deceased was homicidal in nature so the prosecution successfully proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that death of both the deceased was homicidal in nature. 10. Now we have to examine whether the accused is the author of this crime or not? 8 11. It is not disputed in this case that the deceased Anju Gupta is the wife of the appellant and Prateek is the son of appellant and the deceased Anju Gupta. PW-1 Prabhat Patkar neighbor of appellant stated that the accused Sandeep Gupta was living with his wife, his son and his mother in a rented house. On the date of incident, he came to know that wife of Sandeep and his son were murdered and then he reached there and admitted his signatures on notice (Ex-P/1 & P/2) and inquest memo (Ex-P/3 & P/4). He stated that the police prepared spot map (Ex-P/5) and admitted his signatures on A to A part and one letter was seized as per Ex- P/6 and shirt, sleeper clothes and mobile were seized as per Ex- P/7 and also dairy, cutter and paper were seized as per Ex-P/8. 12. Meera Devi Gupta (PW-2) mother of the appellant stated that on 12.11.2016, she had gone to Saraswati Shishu Mandir school, Bhalesar Road, Mahasamund by leaving her daughter-in-law, grandson and the appellant in the house. On the same day at about 4 pm, she went to Raipur directly from her school to her daughter’s home. On 13.11.2016, when she returned to Mahasamund then saw that door is locked, upon which she went to her duty and when she returned back in the night, the lock was also closed, then she asked her landlord Ghanshyam about the same but he could not answer and she also tried to call her son the appellant on his mobile phone, but he could not be contacted, then with the with the help of her landlord, she broke the lock and went inside, where she saw the dead body of her daughter-in-law 9 Anju Gupta and grandson Prateek Raj having blood stained, thereafter she informed the same to the police station concerned, upon which police came there and as per her information, merg intimation (Ex-P/8 & P/9) was lodged by police and she admitted her signatures on A to A part of the same and she also admitted her signatures on FIR (Ex-P/7). The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her, then she admitted this suggestion that on 12.11.2016 at about 2:30 pm, her son Sandeep called her on her mobile number and told that he along with wife and son will go to Raipur and also asked her to come to Raipur, where they will meet her. She also admitted that upon reaching Raipur, she could not meet Sandeep and she also called him, but his phone was switch off. She denied this suggestion of prosecution that her son killed Anju Gupta and Prateek Raj Gupta. 13. Mamta Sahu (PW-3) and Ramesh Kumar (PW-4) stated that the incident is of prior to 6-7 months. At about 7 am in the morning, they came to know about the murder of Anju Gupta and her son Prateek, then they went there and admitted their signatures on notice (Ex-P/1 & P/2). 14. Ghanshyam Sahu (PW-5) stated that on the date of incident, he had gone for labour work and when he returned at about 7 pm in the evening, the mother of the accused Sandeep Gupta called him, then he went to her home where he saw that wife of Sandeep and his son were lying dead. Thereafter he reported the 10 incident to the police station concerned. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted this suggestion of prosecution that on 12.11.2016 at about 11 pm, he saw mother of Sandeep going to school and the accused Sandeep, his wife and child were taking bath at their home and when he woke in the afternoon at about 3:30 to 4 pm, he saw that house of the appellant from behind was locked. He also admitted that on 13.11.2016 at about 8 pm, the mother of Sandeep came to him and told that her door is locked and key is not with her and Sandeep is not being contacted, thereafter he broke the door, where Anju Gupta and Raj Gupta were lying dead. Smt. Maheshiya Bai – PW-6, who is the wife of Ghanshyam Sahu also stated the same fact. 15. Manoj Sahu (PW-7) stated that on the date of incident at about 8:30, he saw Sandeep Gupta and his son. In the evening, when he returned back at about 7 pm, he saw that the house of Sandeep was locked and second day when he was going to his office, then also his door was locked. In the evening at about 8 pm, mother of Sandeep came to his house and told that her door is locked, thereafter he and his father Ghanshyam Sahu went there and broke the door of the appellant, thereafter he came to his house and when he came back, he came to know that Anju Gupta and Prateek Gupta have been killed. The Police seized one lock as per Ex-P/13 seizure memo and he admitted signatures on B to B part of the same. 11 16. Lokesh Chandan Sahu (PW-9) cousin of deceased Anju Gupta stated that the accused and Anju had performed love marriage. On the date of incident, he got information on telephone that Anju Gupta and her son Prateek have been killed, then he along with his brother went to the house of Anju Gupta. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him. He denied the suggestion of the prosecution that upon listening uproar, he went to the place of incident. He self stated that on 13.11.2016 at about 8 pm upon receiving information on, he went to the house of Anju Gupta. He also stated that on the second day he went to the inside house of Anju Gupta along with police personnel. He denied that the letter written by the accused was there on the second day. He also admitted that the accused mentioned about financial problems and indirectly he committed murder of Anju Gupta and Prateek was mentioned. 17. Lalit Sahu (PW-13), cousin of deceased Anju Gupta, stated that after getting information, he went at the place of occurrence along with his brother and told the policemen to open the door where the dead body of deceased were there and when the police opened the door, he saw that Anju Gupta and Prateek Gupta were lying dead. He also stated that near the dead body of Anju Gupta, a letter was there, in which the accused wrote that he is bothered due to his financial conditions and because of which he took this steps and committed murder of his wife and child and he is responsible for the same. On the day when Anju 12 Gupta was cremated, the accused surrendered before the police station. 18. Chetan Kumar Sahu (PW-18) also admitted his signatures on notice (Ex-P/1 & P/2) and stated that he saw dead body of both the deceased and admitted his signatures on inquest memo (PW-3 & PW-4) and he also stated that at 5:30 pm evening, when he went to police station Mahasamund, the accused was present there and the clothes of accused were having blood stained, thereafter the Police seized his pant vide seizure memo Ex-P/15 and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. Raja Patel (PW-19) admitted his signatures on seizure memo (Ex-P/18) but he denied any proceeding before him. 19. A close scrutiny of statement of all the witnesses specially statement of PW-2 mother of the accused Meera Devi Gupta and accused established this fact that the accused, his wife Anju Gupta, his son Prateek Gupta and his mother Meera Devi Gupta were living in a rented house of Ghansham Sahu and on the date of incident on 12.11.2016, PW-2 Meera Devi Gupta had gone to her school and PW-6 Maheshiya Bai and PW-7 Manoj Sahu saw the accused and his son in their house in the morning. It is also stated by Meera Devi Gupta that when she returned from Raipur on 13.11.2016, she saw that door was closed and she got broke the same with the help of Ghanshyam Sahu and the appellant was not there, though she tried to contact him. PW-2 Meera Devi in para 7 stated that on 12.11.2016 at 2:30 pm, Sandeep Gupta 13 called her and told that they will go to Raipur in his sister Goldie’s house. She also admitted that upon reaching Raipur, the accused did not meet her and his phone was switch off. 20. Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the learned Trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant on the basis of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The appellants stated that there was dispute in the past between him and Chhabiram Manhare related to monetary transaction. Prior to the incident, he committed maarpeet with him and also threatened him. The day before the incident, the said Chhabiram had come to his house along with other persons and threatened him, upon which he got feared and fled away from his house. The mother of the accused PW-2 Meera Devi also admitted that the accused had dispute with Chhabiram with regard to financial transaction. Learned counsel has further argued that some cheques in the name of Chhabiram were also seized, but the same was not investigated by the prosecution so involvement of other persons in the crime in question cannot be ruled out, but the learned Trial Court did not appreciate all these aspects and wrongly convicted the appellant. As per prosecution, the letter was written by the accused wherein he admitted committing murder of both the deceased, but the said letter has not been filed before the learned Trial Court, as such the prosecution has failed to prove any motive against the appellants, as the said letter was not filed before the learned Trial Court. The plea taken by the appellant’s 14 counsel that the letter written by the appellant was not filed before the learned Trial Court has no privilege to the appellant, as the appellant’s conviction is based on the other circumstantial evidence available on record. 21. Meera Devi (PW-2) mother of the accused clearly stated that on 12.11.2016 at about 2:30 pm, her son Sandeep called her on her mobile number and told that he along with wife and son will go to Raipur and also asked her to come to Raipur, where they will meet her. She also admitted that upon reaching Raipur, she could not meet Sandeep and she also called him, but his phone was switch off. It is also stated by Meera Devi Gupta that when she returned back from Raipur on 13.11.2016, she saw that door was closed and she got broke the same with the help of Ghanshyam Sahu and the appellant was not there, though she tried to contact him but he could not be contacted. Dr. Sanjay Dave (PW-15) proved this fact that the death of Anju Gupta and Prateek Gupta are homicidal in nature. PW-6 Maheshiya Bai and PW-7 Manoj Sahu stated that they saw the accused in the morning time with his son. When the accused was asked as to why he ran away from the place of occurrence, then he only replied that due to fear he fled away, but this explanation is not satisfactory at all. 22. Section 106 of Evidence Act provides as under:- “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of 15 any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations (a)When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. (b)A is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.” 23. In view of the above legal proposition, it is clear that the accused has failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding his absence from the house. In FSL report (Ex-P/26) also, the human blood was found in Article K which is full pant of the accused and blood was also found in the shoes of the accused, but the appellant has failed to offer any explanation about this human blood. It is clear from the statement of all witnesses that the accused was also not present at the time of funeral of his son and wife, but he has failed to offer any explanation in this regard. The learned Trial Court also minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and found that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt against the accused and the accused has failed to offer any explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. 24. Consequently, the appeal is without any merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed accordingly. 16 25. 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. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Judge Nirala