1 2025:CGHC:39772-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2095 of 2023 1 - Meghnath Sahu Son Of Mehataru Sahu, Aged About 68 Years 2 - Smt. Rupai Bai, Wife Of Meghnath Sahu, Aged About 56 Years 3 - Smt. Dulesh @ Duleshwari, Wife Of Jeevan Lal Sahu, Aged About 26 Years All Resident Of Village Koliyari Goura, Choura, Police Station Arjuni, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Of Police Station Arjuni, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr.Praveen Dharandhar, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 8/8/2025 1. This criminal appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.10.2023 passed by the Sessions BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.08.12 10:41:03 +0530 2 Judge, Dhamtari in Sessions Case No.4/2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month each. 2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that merg intimation (Ex.P-1) was reported by Nandlal Sahu (PW-1) (son of deceased Janu Ram Sahu) to the effect that on 31.07.2020 at about 9.30 P.M., son namely Jeeval Lal of appellant Meghnath Sahu was constructing boundary over the narrow passage adjacent between his house and house of the appellant, on which the dispute took place and deceased Janu Ram came to intervene between the quarrel, then Meghnath Sahu, his wife Rupai Bai and daughter-in- law Dulesh Sahu, all three together started fighting, quarreling and scuffle with his father and took him to a heap of bricks and pushed him there. Appellant Meghnath Sahu throttled the neck of the deceased and other appellants namely Rupai Bai and Duleshwari assisted him, due to which his father died. According to this, information regarding untimely and accidental death was registered under Case No.56/2020 and FIR in Crime No.329/2020 was registered under Section 302/34 of the IPC vide Exs.P-2 and P-13. 3. During the investigation, spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-3. Patwari also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-4. Inquest was prepared over the body of the 3 deceased vide Ex.P-6. As per seizure memo Ex.P-14, the clothes worn by the deceased at the time of the incident and the viscera of the deceased which included heart, lungs, liver, spleen pieces, stomach parts, small and large intestine pieces and normal saline solution were seized. Appellant Meghnath Sahu was arrested on 01.08.2020 vide arrest memo Ex.P-15. Dead body of deceased Januram Sahu was sent for postmortem to the District Hospital, Dhamtari vide Ex.P-18, where Dr.V.K.Pandey (PW-12) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-19 and found following injuries:- “Body of a 70 years old male was cold. All signs of life were absent. Both eyes were closed. Pupils were dilated and conjunctiva was congested. There was antemortem bruise measuring 0.5x0.5” on left anterior outer part of neck and antemortem bruise measuring 0.5x0.5” on upper third of neck. There was antemortem blood clot on chin and round mark on anterior part of neck. It was near thyroid cartilage and there was cyanosis in hands and toes of the deceased. Rigor mortis was present on both legs and arms.” The doctor has opined that cause of death is asphyxia due to throttling. It seems to be a homicidal case. Appellant Smt.Dulesh @ Duleshwari Sahu was arrested on 17.08.2020 vide arrest memo Ex.P-26. Appellant Smt.Rupai Bai was arrested on 17.08.2020 vide arrest memo Ex.P-27. Seized articles were sent 4 to FSL for chemical examination vide Ex.P-29 and FSL report is Ex.P-31. 4. After due investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences in which they abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating inter-alia that they have not committed any offence and they have falsely been implicated in crime in question. 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents Exs.P-1 to P- 31. The defence has examined none in its defence, however, exhibited the documents Ex.D-1 to D-5. 6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 25.10.2023, convicted and sentenced the appellants as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the finding given by learned trial Court against the appellants is perverse and contrary to evidence on record and consequently, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of the statements of eyewitnesses i.e., Nandlal Sahu (PW-1), Smt.Revati Bai (PW-4), Subahu Sahu (PW- 5), Pankaj Sahu (PW-6) and Chumeshwari Nishad (PW-8), whereas their statements are not reliable to convict the appellants. He further submits that learned trial Court has failed to 5 appreciate properly the statements of Smt.Revati Bai (PW-4), Subahu Sahu (PW-5), Pankaj Sahu (PW-6) and Chumeshwari Nishad (PW-8), which shows that the dispute took place on a issue of construction of boundary between the appellants and the family of the deceased and in the incident, the deceased died and thus, there was no intention, hence, conviction under Section 302/34 of the IPC is erroneous and the case of the appellants could have fall under one of the Section 300 of the IPC. He also submits that learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is no overt act alleged against appellants No.2 and 3, who are ladies. Conviction of appellants No.2 and 3 is illegal and there is no evidence against them and they are not the one, who throttled the neck of the deceased. He contended that learned trial Court though in the judgment came to the finding that the dispute took place due to construction of boundary and the appellants and the deceased are related to each other, but wrongly convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. As such, criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellants deserves to be allowed and the conviction and sentence awarded to them deserve to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not 6 call for any interference by this Court and as such, criminal appeal filed on behalf of the appellants deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Janu Ram Sahu was homicidal in nature ? 11. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr.V.K.Pandey (PW- 12), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Janu Ram Sahu vide Ex.P-19, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Janu Ram Sahu 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 learned counsel for the appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 12. The learned trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record has convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC by recording the following finding:- “27. यह सही है कि वर्तमान प्ररण े दोनों पक्ष ए ही परिरवार े सदस्य हैं जो अलग-अलग रह रहे थे। दोनों े मध्य बाउंड्रीवाल े किनमाण व गंदे पानी ी किनासी ो लेर किववाद हुआ र्तथा घटना में किसी हथिथयार ा उपयोग नहीं हुआ है, किन्र्तु यह र्तथ्य अब अखंडिडर्त हो चुा है कि मृर्त जानूराम घटनास्थल पर किसी भी रूप में अथिभयुक्तगण ो उत्तेजिजर्त रने या 7 प्रक्रोकिपर्त रने े लिलए नहीं गया था, वह 70 वर्ष ी उम्र ा वृद्ध व्यकिक्त था र्तथा किनहत्था था। अथिभयुक्त मेघनाथ ने न े वल उसे पड़ा, बल्किE उसे गले ो र्तब र्त दबार रखा जब र्त जानूराम ी मृत्यु नहीं हो गयी और इस दौरान अथिभयुक्त रूपई बाई एवं दुलेश बाई ने जानूराम े ए-ए हाथ ो इस र्तरह पड़र रखा कि वह न र्तो ोई प्रडिर्तकिक्रया दे पाया न ही अपने ो छु ड़ा पाया और जानूराम े हाथों ो र्तब र्त दोनों मकिहला अथिभयुक्तगण ने पड़र रखा जब र्त कि उसी मृत्यु नहीं हो गई। ऐसे में अथिभयुक्तगण भा.दं.सं. ी धारा 304 े अपवाद ा लाभ पाने े अडिधारी नहीं है, अन्यथा भी न्यायदृष्टांर्त वाले मामले में अथिभयुक्त/अपीलाथP ो अथिभरक्षा में रहर्ते हुए 18 वर्ष से अडिध ा समय हो चुा था। जबकि ऐसी ल्किस्थडिर्त वर्तमान प्ररण में अथिभयुक्तगण ी नहीं है। 28. अर्तः साक्ष्य े उपयुक्त किववेचन से यह स्पष्ट है कि अथिभयोजन युकिक्तयुक्त संदेह े परे यह प्रमाथिणर्त रने में सफल रहा है कि अथिभयुक्तगण ने घटना किदनां ो ए साथ किमलर अपने सामान्य आशय े अग्रसरण में जानू राम साहू ो ई ंट े ढेर में दबोचर उसा गला दबार साशय उसी मृत्यु ारिरर्त र हत्या ी। 13. In the present case, conviction of the appellants is based on the evidence of eyewitnesses i.e., Nandlal Sahu (PW-1), Smt.Revati Bai (PW-4), Subahu Sahu (PW-5) and Pankaj Sahu (PW-6). 14. Nandlal Sahu (PW-1) has stated in para 3 of his evidence that the incident took place in July last year. Appellant Meghnath Sahu is his uncle. Meghnath’s son name is Jeevan Lal. The appellant’s son Jeevan Lal was raising the boundary adjacent to the wall of his house. A hole was left on the side of his house for drainage of the dirty water of the house, which he went and closed. After that they came home. In para 4 of his evidence, he has stated that his father Janu Ram Sahu was at home at that time. Jeevan Lal used to go to work outside and when he came back home, Jeevan Lal started arguing with his father Janu Ram Sahu that why they have closed the water drainage hole. His father told him these things 8 after coming home that Jeevan Lal Sahu was saying that they will beat up their family. In para 6 of his evidence, he has stated that there was a brick chip near the wall of Krishna Dhruv. He was sitting at Gaura Chaura when appellants Dulesh, Rupai Bai and Meghnath Sahu came and attacked him. They grabbed his collar and hands and arms but his sons Pankaj and Subahu came and rescued him. His father Janu Ram Sahu was standing there on the side of the road. Then his sons took the accused to where his father was standing and left them there. In para 7 of his evidence, he has stated that after that Jeevan Lal came and caught him, then his son came and rescued him. The appellants dragged his father Janu Ram and buried him under a heap of bricks. Appellants Dulesh and Rupai Bai caught hold of his father’s arm and appellant Meghnath strangulated his father. His father was standing there and called out to his son Pankaj that the appellants have buried his grandfather under a heap of bricks. His father fell there and died. People of the locality have seen it, which Chumeshwari Nishad had also seen. 15. Smt.Revati Bai (PW-2) has stated in para 4 of her evidence that at that very moment the appellants came and caught hold of his son Nandlal by his neck; her grandsons Pankaj and Subahu went to rescue him, then the appellants left her son Nandlal; after some time Jeevanlal Sahu again came and caught hold of her son Nandlal; she and her husband Januram Sahu were standing nearby at that place, then appellants Rupai Bai and Dulesh Bai 9 took her husband Januram by his arms and took him to the brick kiln and appellant Meghnath Sahu strangulated her husband Januram Sahu; at that very moment she called her grandson Pankaj Sahu, and he came running. In para 5 of her evidence, she has stated that as soon as Pankaj Sahu arrived, her husband fell down on the spot and died there. After that the appellants went inside their house. Her husband Januram died due to strangulation. She was present at the time of the incident. She has seen the incident of strangulation by appellant Meghnath and appellants Rupai Bai and Duleshwari took Januram Sahu away by holding his hands and arms and pushing him with brick chips. The lights were on at night at the time of the incident. 16. Subahu Sahu (PW-5) has stated in para 4 of his evidence that in the evening of the same day, Jeevanlal came and started abusing his grandfather Januram Sahu and was threatening to beat him. Then his grandfather Januram went to call his father Nandlal. After that his father Nandlal came. Jeevanlal was inside the house and Rupai Bai Sahu, Dulesh and Meghnath were standing outside the house. His father Nandlal asked Rupai, Dulesh and Meghnath that where is Jeevanlal and why is he abusing. In para 5 of his evidence, he has stated that on his father Nandlal asking, appellants Rupai, Dulesh and Meghnath caught hold of his father Nandlal's collar. Then he and Pankaj both tried to free themselves. Then Jeevanlal came to the spot and caught hold of his father Nandlal's collar. At the same time, appellants Rupai, 10 Dulesh and Meghnath caught hold of his grandfather Januram Sahu and buried him under a pile of bricks. Due to the pressure exerted on his grandfather Januram by the appellants, he died at the spot itself. After the incident, the appellants went inside their house and did not come out. 17. Pankaj Sahu (PW-6) has stated in para 2 of his evidence that the incident took place about one and a half years ago. Jeevanlal Sahu is his uncle by relation and is the son of appellant Meghnath Sahu. The appellants had raised a wall from their house towards the street in village Koliari. Due to which the appellants had drained the waste water towards their house through the drain, due to which seepage had occurred in their house which is made of mud. At around 6:00 in the evening, Jeevanlal Sahu started abusing his grandfather Januram Sahu who had gone to tie the cow. In para 4 of his evidence, he has stated that his father Nandlal Sahu, mother Jamunbai Sahu, grandfather Januram Sahu, grandmother Revatibai Sahu and brother Subahu Sahu were sitting on the platform near the temple near the house and went to explain to appellant Meghnath Sahu why he was abusing. At the same time, appellants Dulesh Bai and Rupaibai came and caught hold of the collar of his father Nandlal Sahu, whom they were trying to free. At the same time, Jeevanlal Sahu came and he also caught hold of the shirt of his father Nandlal Sahu, whom they had freed. At the same time, his grandfather Januram Sahu was standing on the side. Rupaibai and Dulesh Bai caught hold of 11 him and pushed him into the brick seive and appellant Meghnath Sahu came and strangulated Januram Sahu. At that time, Rupaibai and Dulesh Bai were holding Januram Sahu. Due to the appellants holding his hand and strangulating him, his grandfather Januram fell unconscious on the spot. The witness now says that Januram Sahu died at that time. Grandfather was taken home and made to sleep on a cot. After that, the village doctor Bhupendra was called, who after examining Januram Sahu told that he had died. The incident with Januram Sahu and his death were reported to Arjuni police station. 18. Though Nandlal Sahu (PW-1) has stated in para 7 of his evidence that the appellants dragged his father Janu Ram and buried him under a heap of bricks, appellants Dulesh and Rupai Bai caught hold of his father’s arm and appellant Meghnath strangulated his father, but in para 24 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that no pressure was used on his father’s neck by Dulesh and Rupai Bai at the time of incident. Similarly, Subahu Sahu (PW-5) has stated in para 5 of his evidence that appellants Rupai, Dulesh and Meghnath caught hold of his grandfather Januram Sahu and buried him under a pile of bricks. Due to the pressure used on his grandfather Januram by the appellants, he died at the spot itself, but in para 18 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that appellants Rupai Bai and Dulesh did not put any pressure on the neck of the deceased. 12 19. Thus, from perusal of evidence of above-stated eyewitnesses, it is clear that though appellants Dulesh and Rupai Bai caught hold of arms of the deceased, but they did not use any force on the neck of the deceased. 20. In this connection, it is important to quote observations of Hon’ble Apex Court in State of U.P. vs. Anil Singh, 1988 Supp SCC 686, which are as follows: ( SCC p. 692, para 17):- “17. It is also our experience that invariably the witnesses add embroidery to prosecution story, perhaps for the fear of being disbelieved. But that is no ground to throw the case overboard, if true, in the main. If there is a ring of truth in the main, the case should not be rejected. It is the duty of the court to cull out the nuggets of truth from the evidence unless there is reason to believe that the inconsistencies or falsehood are so glaring as utterly to destroy confidence in the witnesses. It is necessary to remember that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. One is as important as the other. Both are public duties which the Judge has to perform.” 21. Therefore, in the opinion of this Court, just on the basis of aforesaid exaggerations, Nandlal Sahu (PW-1), Smt.Revati Bai (PW-4), Subahu Sahu (PW-5) and Pankaj Sahu (PW-6) can not be termed wholly unreliable and their evidence can not be disbelieved/discarded completely, particularly with respect to appellant Meghnath Sahu. The aforesaid witnesses have clearly stated that appellant Meghnath Sahu strangulated deceased Januram Sahu, due to which, Januram Sahu died. As per opinion of the doctor, cause of death is asphyxia due to throttling. 13 However, Nandlal Sahu (PW-1) in para 24 of his cross- examination and Subahu Sahu (PW-5) in para 18 of his cross- examination have admitted that appellants Smt.Rupai Bai and Smt.Dulesh have used any pressure / force on the neck of the deceased. As such, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Meghnath Sahu is the person who has strangulated Januram Sahu, due to which he died, however, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that appellants Smt.Rupai Bai and Smt.Dulesh have used any force on neck of the deceased and as such, benefit of doubt ought to have given to them. 22. For the foregoing reasons, criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellants-Smt.Rupai Bai and Smt.Dulesh @ Duleshwari deserves to be and is hereby allowed. Their conviction and sentence under Section 302/34 of the IPC are hereby set aside. Criminal appeal filed on behalf of appellant-Meghnath Sahu is partly allowed. His conviction under Section 302/34 of the IPC is hereby set aside. However, he is convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month. 23. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of the BNSS), appellants Smt.Rupai Bai and Smt.Dulesh @ Duleshwari are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of 14 Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 24. The lower court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 25. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where appellant-Meghnath Sahu is 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 Bablu