Page No.1 of 8 IN CRA-1474-2019 2025:CGHC:4648-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1474 of 20 19 [Arising out of judgment dated 18.09.2019, passed in Sessions Case No.79 of 2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Mangal Manjhi), by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.)] Mangal Manjhi, Son of Itwari, aged about 40 years, Resident of Village Bhelwa Tikri, Manjhipara, Chowki- Belgahna, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Appellant (In jail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through the Station House Officer, Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (Chhattisgarh) ---- Respondent -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed through Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee For Respondent: Mr. Vivek Mishra, Panel Lawyer --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment on Board (27.01.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J (1) This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused herein under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.09.2019, passed in Sessions Case No.79 of 2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Date: 2025.01.28 15:00:04 +0530 Page No.2 of 8 IN CRA-1474-2019 Mangal Manjhi), by the 7th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (C.G.), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months. (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 02.04.2018, at about 06:30 AM, at Village Manjhipara, Belgehna, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Kota, Bilaspur (CG), near the house of Ramji Pandey, the accused-appellant herein with the intent to kill Ramji Pandey (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) shoot an arrow on his neck, due to which he suffered grievance injury and died and, thereby, said to have committed offence under Section 302 of IPC. (3) It is further case of the prosecution that when brother of the deceased, namely, Manikchand Pandey (PW-01) reported the matter to the police, marg intimation (Ex.P/16) and FIR (Ex.P/17) were registered against the appellant and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were issued vide Ex.P/04 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/05. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/06. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem report (Ex.P/12), conducted by Dr. Pradeep Agrawal (PW-09), it was opined that the cause of death of deceased is shock Page No.3 of 8 IN CRA-1474-2019 due to hemorrhage as a result of neck injury and nature of death is homicidal. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested vide Ex.P/11 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/07. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, one bow and one arrow were seized vide Ex.P/08. Further, from the place of incident, one arrow and sample of blood stained soil and plaint soil were also seized vide Ex.P/10. Thereafter, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/31), stains of blood were found on the arrow which was seized from the spot. Thereafter, statements of witnesses were recorded and, after due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. (4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents, whereas the appellant in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. (5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict only the appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this Page No.4 of 8 IN CRA-1474-2019 appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (6) Mr. J.K. Saxena, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the conviction of the appellant is based on testimonies of eye-witnesses, namely, Usha Pandey (PW- 03), Smt. Geeta Pandey (PW-04) and Anil Kumar Kashyap (PW-05), however, the testimonies of these witnesses are not reliable as they are interested witnesses being close relative of the deceased. Even otherwise, Santosh Marco (PW-06) has only seen the appellant running from the spot and he has not seen the appellant assaulting the deceased, therefore, his testimony is also of no help to the prosecution. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt and the present appeal is liable to be allowed. (7) 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. In view of the statements of prosecution witnesses, specially, Usha Pandey (PW-03), Smt. Geeta Pandey (PW-04) Anil Kumar Kashyap (PW-05) and Santosh Marco (PW-06), whereby they have clearly seen the incident of appellant Page No.5 of 8 IN CRA-1474-2019 assaulting the deceased on the date and time of the offence and thereafter absconding from the spot, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. (8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. (9) 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 postmortem report (Ex.P/12), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of deceased is shock due to hemorrhage as a result of neck injury and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. Pradeep Agrawal (PW-09). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/12) and the statement of Dr. Pradeep Agrawal (PW-09), who has conducted postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion 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. We hereby affirm the said finding. (10) Now, the next question would be whether the accused- appellant herein is the author of the crime or not? (11) In the case at hand, in order to hold the appellant guilty for Page No.6 of 8 IN CRA-1474-2019 the offence of murder of the deceased, the learned trial Court after holding the death of the deceased to be homicidal in nature has relied upon the direct evidence available on record in shape of testimonies of Usha Pandey (PW-03), Smt. Geeta Pandey (PW-04), Anil Kumar Kashyap (PW-05) and Santosh Marco (PW-06). (12) Firstly, Usha Pandey (PW-03), who is maternal niece of the deceased has clearly stated that on the date and time of the offence, in the morning, while the deceased (her maternal uncle) had gone towards onion badi, at that time, the appellant, who was standing near drumstick tree, has shot the deceased by means of bow and arrow, due to which, the deceased after running for some distance, when took out the arrow from his neck, fell down on the ground and died and, thereafter, the appellant ran away from the spot. Further, in Para-06 & 07 of her cross-examination, she remained consistent in her version to the effect that she has seen the incident and also refuted the suggestion that she has not seen the incident and reached to the spot after the incident. Similarly, Smt. Geeta Pandey (PW-04), who is wife of the deceased, has reiterated the statement made by Usha Pandey (PW-03) to the effect that she has seen the incident of appellant shooting the deceased by means of bow and arrow, due to which, the deceased fell down on the ground and died. In cross-examination also, she reaffirmed that she and her niece- Usha Pandey (PW-03) both have seen the incident and in Para-05 refuted the suggestion that she Page No.7 of 8 IN CRA-1474-2019 has not seen the incident. Anil Kumar Kashyap (PW-05), who on the date and time of the offence, has visited the house of the deceased in order to take potatoes and has also seen the incident that while the deceased was coming from onion badi, the appellant shot him by means of bow and arrow, due to which, he suffered injuries and died. In Para-06 of his cross-examination, he reaffirmed his stand and also refuted the suggestion that he has not seen the incident or he is falsely implicating the appellant. (13) Moreover, though Santosh Marco (PW-06) has not seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased, but according to his statement, on the date and time of the offence, he reached to the spot after hearing the shout of the deceased, whereby he saw that the deceased was lying on the ground in bloodied condition and the appellant was absconding from the spot armed with bow and arrow. As such, from the collective statements of the aforesaid witnesses- Usha Pandey (PW-03), Smt. Geeta Pandey (PW-04), Anil Kumar Kashyap (PW-05) and Santosh Marco (PW-06), it is quite clear that it is the appellant who on the date and time of the offence has shot arrow on the deceased by means of bow, due to which, the deceased died on the spot and, thereafter, the appellant also ran away from the spot. According to site map (Ex.P/03) also it is clearly mentioned that Usha Pandey (PW-03), who is maternal niece of the deceased, has seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased via spot E. Thus, on the basis of aforesaid evidence Page No.8 of 8 IN CRA-1474-2019 available on record, the learned trial Court is absolutely justified while recording a finding that it is the appellant herein who is author of the crime in question. We hereby affirm the said finding. (14) Consequently, we do not find any illegality or perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court in the impugned judgment dated 18.09.2019. Therefore, the present appeal is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. (15) The Registry of this Court is directed to sent a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is languishing, informing him that he is at liberty to assail this judgment before Hon’ble Supreme Court by preferring an appeal under Article 136 of the Constitution of India with the aid and assistance of the Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee or that of the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge s@if