1 2025:CGHC:3979-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1720 of 2022 Bhanupratap Banjare S/o Babulal Banjare, Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Dehri, Outpost Devkar, Police Station Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Outpost Devkar, Police Station - Saja, District : Bemetara, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22.01.2025 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.09.2022 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) in Sessions MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.01.23 18:25:28 +0530 2 Trial No.09/2022, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 01 month. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant/informant Dileshwar Deshlahra (PW-4) lodged a death report at the police post Devkar on 16.11.2021 that on 15.11.2011 at 7.00 pm, he heard a discussion in the crowd of people in village Devkar, Ward No. 08 that Bhanupratap Banjare has killed Raj Kapoor Chandel by hitting him with sickle and scissors in the room of Tijbati Sahu's (PW-20) house due to love affair with Tijbati Sahu. According to the discussion, when the complainant came to Dehri at house of Tibati Sahu, he saw his brother-in-law Raj Kapoor Chandel lying dead on his back on the ground, he was covered in blood, he had a deep injury on his left eye, back of the head and body and the clothes he was wearing were stained with blood and the blood had come out and spread on the ground. Based on the information given by the informant Dileshwar Deshlahra, a case was registered at zero in the police post Devkar and after going to the spot and preparing the body panchnama, the body was sent for postmortem (Ex.P-26) to Primary Health Center Devkar, wherein Dr. Ashutosh Nahak (PW-11) conducted the postmortem over the dead body of the deceased Rajkapoor Chandel and while conducting the postmortem, he found uncountable injuries over the dead body of the deceased. Some of the injuries sustained by 3 the deceased Raj Kapoor Chandel as per the postmortem report are as follows:- “i. Stiffness was present in the dead body, the dead body had a cut wound on the left side of the brain on the front side of the skull measuring 6 x 0.5 cm, upto the depth of the skull, on the front side of the skull, 1 cm away from the old wound in the head, there was a cut wound of the size 4 cm x 0.5 cm, upto the depth of the skull, in the parietal part of the head there was a cut wound measuring 6 x 1 cm, upto the depth of the skull. ii. There was a lacerated wound on the back of the head, measuring 4 cm x 0.5 cm and another wound measuring 5 cm x 1 cm, both extending upto the scalp, there was a lacerated wound on the temporal part of the head, measuring 4 cm x 1 cm, extending upto the scalp. iii. The dead body had a lacerated wound over right ear measuring 2 cm x 1.5 cm deep upto the scalp, on the back side of head there were three occipital lacerated wounds measuring 3 cm x 0.5 cm, 2 cm x 0.5 cm, 2 cm x 0.5 cm respectively. cm, the depth of all three wounds was up to the skull. iv. There were three large lacerated wounds on the neck of the deceased and several small wounds of 1 cm size at the same place. 4 v. A lacerated wound measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm was found on the side of abdomen near waist of the deceased. vi. There was a puncture wound on the front side of the abdomen of the deceased, the depth of which was 4 cm. All the above injuries found on the body of the deceased were antemortem (inflicted before death). vii. On internal examination of the deceased, I found that the heart was empty and some blood clots were present and the liver, spleen and kidneys were congested and the membranes were normal. viii. The deceased had undigested food in the small intestine and faecal matter in the large intestine, the urinary bladder was full and the genitals were normal. ix. The ribs of the deceased were normal and the skull was also normal, with blood clots on it. The medical officer has given his opinion regarding the injuries that cause of death is cardio respiratory arrest caused by hemorrhagic shock due to excessive blood loss, nature of death was homicidal and mode of death was syncope. 3. Thereafter, a case intimation number was registered against the accused in the police station Saja as Case No. 66/2021 was and on the basis of prima facie evidence during the inquest, Crime No. 522/2021 was registered against the accused at Saja police station and after complete investigation in the case, charge-sheet 5 was presented in the court, which was transferred the Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District- Bemetara (C.G.) by the Hon'ble Sessions Judge for due disposal. 4. On the basis of the materials available in the charge-sheet and evidence available on record, charges were framed against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and when the charges were read out and explained to him, he denied committing the alleged offence and claimed to be tried. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents Exs.P-1 to P- 35. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied guilt. However, the appellant-accused examined none in her defence. 6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 13.09.2022, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein. 7. Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in crime in question. The learned trial court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to prove any circumstances against the appellant and has wrongly 6 convicted the appellant. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses, hence the warrant of conviction of the appellant is bad in law. Further, even if the entire prosecution case is taken as it is, the act of the appellant falls under the exception of sudden and grave provocation, so the conviction of appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is bad in law. The learned trial Court has wrongly convicted the appellant on the basis of seizure of articles, which has not been duly proved. The prosecution has failed to prove that it is the appellant who committed murder of deceased and there is no overt- act proved against the present appellant. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 8. On the other hand, Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion regarding involvement of the accused / appellant in the crime in question under the concluding paras of the judgment in which the the learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the accused / appellant, which connect him with the instant crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7 He lastly submits that statement of Manharan Sahu (PW-19) and Tijbati Bai (PW-20) is wholly reliable and trustworthy and their testimony inspires confidence and they have rightly been relied upon and as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased to be homicidal in nature ? 12. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Ashutosh Nahak (PW-11), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased person, vide Ex.P/18, has clearly come to the conclusion that Rajkapoor Chandel died by cardio respiratory arrest and hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding from his body, which flowed from the injuries in his body, which was within 12 to 18 hours of my postmortem and the nature of his death was "homicidal". 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 8 been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 13. In the present case, homicidal death due to uncountable injuries and the nature of death being homicidal has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Dr. Ashutosh Nahak (PW-11) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/18) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 14. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of eye witness Manharan Sahu (PW-19), Tijabati Bai (PW-20) and other witnesses Dileshwar Deshlahra (PW-4) and Dr. Ashushosh Nahak (PW-11). 15. Tijabati Bai (PW-20) who was said to be present at the scene of incident has alleged in her judicial statement that “On the date of incident after working as usual, I returned to my house at about 6.00 p.m. in the evening and after switching on the T.V. in my room I was cutting bitter gourd vegetable with sickle, my husband Manharan was also sitting there watching T.V. After some time accused Bhanu Pratap and deceased Raj Kapoor came to our house and both of them sat on the cot inside my room, they had brought liquor and disposable glasses with them and started drinking liquor sitting there itself”. She further made a clear statement that “deceased Raj Kapoor said to accused Bhanu Pratap that he will have illicit relations with me, on which accused 9 Bhanu Pratap got angry and both of them started arguing and fighting, then I and my husband came out of the room, my husband Manharan went to call our neighbour Bhima and Chhaklu and I was standing outside the room and the light was on in the room and the argument was going on between the deceased and the accused. After some time accused Bhanu Pratap shouted that I have killed deceased Raj Kapoor by hitting him with a sickle and a scissor, then I peeped inside the room through the hole in the door joint, then Bhanu Pratap was sitting on the cot and his clothes were stained with blood and deceased Raj Kapoor Chandel was lying on the floor soaked in blood and there was blood spread on the ground as well." This witness has further alleged in her statement that "For about a year prior to this incident, I was having a love affair with the accused Bhanu Pratap and he would sometimes visit my house. Because the deceased Raj Kapoor Chandel had an evil eye on me and was insisting on having an illicit relationship with me, the accused Bhanu Pratap killed him by hitting him on the head and body with an iron sickle and cloth cutting scissors." The above judicial statement of this witness remained unbroken during the cross-examination conducted on her by the defense. 16. Manharan Sahu (PW-19), who was examined in the court, while supporting the court statements of prosecution witness Teejbati Bai (PW-20), has alleged in his statement that "I was watching TV inside the room of my house and my wife was cutting bitter gourd 10 with sickle, at the same time the accused Bhanupratap and Raj Kapoor came to my house, where Raj Kapoor and accused Bhanupratap drank alcohol. Accused Bhanupratap was having a love affair with my wife, Raj Kapoor was asking to have sex with my wife, then accused Bhanupratap and Raj Kapoor both started fighting with each other, then I and my wife Tijbati Bai went out and the accused and the deceased were inside the room of my house, where the light was on and accused Bhanupratap had closed the door of the room." This witness further stated that "I went to call my neighbours Bhima and Chhaklu, who after seeing the door of my house closed, returned back. After seeing it, I went back, accused Bhanu Pratap was shouting from inside the room that I have killed Raj Kapoor with the sickle and scissors used for cutting grass. I looked through the hole in the door, deceased Raj Kapoor was lying covered in blood and there was blood on the ground as well, the sickle and scissors used for cutting grass were also lying there near deceased Raj Kapoor, accused Bhanu Pratap opened the door and ran away to his house." This witness has further alleged that “On the day of the incident, deceased Raj Kapoor had come to my house to have relations with my wife and the accused also had a love affair with my wife, due to the dispute on this matter, accused Bhanu Pratap killed Raj Kapoor." 17. Dileshwar Deshlahra (PW-4) stated in his judicial statement that "The incident is of 15.11.2021. That day, I was going to a social meeting in our village to celebrate Jayanti. In the social meeting, 11 people were discussing that some incident had happened in village Devkar, then it was also known that two boys of the village are not in the village. After that I went to village Devkar with other people, then people were discussing that some incident had happened in Tijbati's house. Then we reached the spot, where I saw that the main door of Tibati’s house was locked and there was a crowd of policemen and people there." This witness has stated in his statement that "I informed the police about the death of Raj Kapoor Chandel." 18. The testimony of the above witnesses reveals the fact that from unbroken judicial statements of prosecution eye witnesses Tijbatti Bai (PW-20) and Manharan (PW-19), it is clear that on the incident date 15.11.2021 at about 7.00 p.m., both the accused and the deceased came to the house of prosecution witness Tijbatti Bai (PW-20) and both had consumed alcohol. From the perusal of the judicial statements of these witnesses, it is clear that the accused was having a love affair with prosecution witness Tijbatti Bai (PW20) for about one year before the incident and the deceased was asking to have an illicit relationship with prosecution witness Tijbatti Bai (PW-20), due to which, the accused got angry and an argument started between them, then prosecution witness Tijbatti Bai (PW-20) and her husband Manharan came out of the room. Prosecution witness Manharan (PW19) went to call his neighbours Bhima and Chhaklu, while prosecution witness Tijbatti Bai was standing outside the room of her house at the scene of incident, during this time the accused shouted from inside the room that he 12 has murdered Raj Kapoor with sickle and scissors, then prosecution witness Teejbati Bai (P.W.-20) and prosecution witness Manharan (P.W.-19) looked inside the room through the hole in the joint of the door of the room of their house, then accused Bhanu Pratap was sitting on the cot and his clothes were stained with blood and deceased Raj Kapoor was lying on the floor soaked in blood and blood was also spread on the ground. The above uncontroversial judicial statements of these two prosecution witnesses not only make the motive and reason for the murder of the deceased clear, but it also becomes clear that the accused himself has murdered the deceased Raj Kapoor by attacking him with scissors and sickle inside the closed room. 19. Not only this, on the memorandum statement of appellant Bhanupratap Banjare, cloth cutting scissors and iron sickle were recovered on his pointing out, which was sent for FSL and as per FSL report, blood was found on cloth cutting scissors and iron sickle seized from appellant Bhanupratap Banjare. 20. Jai Kumar Dhritlahare (PW-03) has deposed in his judicial statement that "When I went inside the room of Teejbati's house, I saw Raj Kapoor lying dead on the floor on his back, covered in blood. His clothes were soaked in blood and blood was spread on the floor as well and scissors and sickle were lying there. There were cuts on the neck, stomach, chest and back of the head of the deceased. There was a deep injury mark." This witness has also 13 alleged that "The police interrogated the accused in front of me and Sanju Deshlahare and took his memorandum statement. The accused had told the police in his memorandum statement in my presence and Sanju Deshlahra that he had killed Raj Kapoor with a sickle and a cloth cutting scissor and had hidden the cloth cutting scissor and the sickle in the room, come let me recover them." This witness further made a clear that "the police seized a cloth cutting scissor and an iron vegetable cutting scissor from the room of the house at Tijbati on the indication of the accused." Although as per the provisions of section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act 1872, a memorandum statement recorded by a police ofÏcer of a person in police custody is not admissible in evidence, but that part of such memorandum statement is admissible in evidence which reveals some facts. In this case, the statement of prosecution witness Jai kumar Dhritlahare (PW-03) that the accused had made such an allegation to the police in his presence that "he had killed Raj Kapoor by killing him." "The murder of the accused was committed with a sickle and a scissor for cutting clothes," is not admissible in evidence, but on the basis of the above statement of the accused, the seizure of a scissor and a vegetable cutting sickle used in the incident is admissible in evidence and this witness, by his uncontradicted judicial statements, on the basis of the memorandum statement given by the accused, has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the cloth cutting scissors and vegetable cutting sickle used in the incident have been seized In this case. 14 21. 14 21. T.R. Kosima (PW-15), the investigating ofÏcer of the case has alleged in his judicial statement that "When I questioned the accused Bhanu Pratap Banjare in the presence of witnesses, he told that on the date of the incident, he had gone to Tijbatti Bai's house with his friend Raj Kapoor, where the deceased wanted to have an illicit relationship with Tijbatti Bai, while the accused had a love affair with Tijbatti, and when there was a dispute between the two on this matter, the accused killed Raj Kapoor by hitting him with a sickle and scissors. The accused told that he had hidden the scissors and sickle used in the incident in the corner of the room." 22. Dr. Ashutosh Nahak (PW-11), in his judicial statement has stated that on the basis of the results and experience obtained from the postmortem of the deceased, it is my opinion that the death of the deceased Rajkapoor Chandel was caused by cardio respiratory arrest and hemorrhagic shock due to excessive bleeding from his body, which flowed from the injuries in his body and the nature of his death was "homicidal".' This witness, during the investigation of the case, after examining the sickle and scissors used in the incident, has made such an allegation in his judicial statement that "After examination, it was my opinion that the injuries found in the body of the deceased Rajkapoor could have been caused by the above scissors and sickle examined by me and the above injuries could have caused his death." 23. Thus, from the analysis of the above-mentioned unrefuted judicial 15 statements of Dr. Ashutosh Nahak (PW-11), the doctor witness who had conducted the post-mortem of the deceased Raj Kapoor Chandel, it is clear that several cut wounds were found on the head, above the ears, neck and stomach of the deceased Raj Kapoor and that the death of the deceased Raj Kapoor was due to cardio respiratory arrest and hemorrhagic shock caused by excessive bleeding from his body because of the injuries inflicted by scissors and sickle. The judicial statement of prosecution witnesses Tijbatti Bai (PW-20) and prosecution witness Manharan (PW-19) examined in the court that the accused had killed the deceased by attacking him with scissors and sickle, appears to be reliable as it is fully corroborated by the judicial statements of medical witness Dr. Ashutosh Nahak (PW-11). 24. Thus, in the series of proving the involvement of the accused in the incident on behalf of the prosecution, the memorandum statement and seizure of the accused have been made the main basis along with the judicial statements of the eye witnesses, which has been proved by the statement of the independent witnesses of the seizure and memorandum and no discrepancies have come to light in the cross-examination of the said witness and on that basis, the truth of the said proceedings cannot be doubted. 25. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that, 1. Death of deceased was homicidal in nature; 2. On the date of offence, the appellant along with 16 the deceased came to house of PW-19 and PW- 20 and they had a fight; 3. Appellant had a love affair with PW-20; 4. Manharan Sahu (PW-19) and Tijbati Bai (PW-20) are the eye-witness of the crime committed by the appellant. 26. On the basis of testimony of eye-witnesses Manharan Sahu (PW- 19) and Tijbati Bai (PW-20) and further on the basis of memorandum statement (Ex.P-03), sickle and scissors has been recovered vide Ex.P-04-10 and it has been subjected to FSL, in which blood was found and as such, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of the aforesaid incriminating evidence based on testimony of eyewitness eyewitnesses Manharan Sahu (PW-19) and Tijbati Bai (PW-20), memorandum statement and recovery of sickle and scissors, in which blood was found, as such, the trial Court is absolutely justified in convicting appellant Bhanupratap Banjare for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. We do not find any merit in this appeal. 27. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 17 28. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 29. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the 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 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu / Manpreet