1 2025:CGHC:44983-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2237 of 2023 1 - Kuman Singh Dhruw Son Of Late Mahattaru Dhruw, Aged About 60 Years Resident of Village Chhuhi, P.S. - Keregaon, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Basant Ram Dhruw Son Of Kuman Singh Dhruw, Aged About 28 Years Resident of Village Chhuhi, P.S. - Keregaon, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Station House Officer, Police Station Keregaon, District - Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 03.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Vinod Kumar Tekam, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the State. ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2025.09.03 17:55:17 +0530 2 2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “CrPC”) questioning the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), District Dhamtari (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.31/2022, by which, the appellants/accused, namely Kumar Singh Dhruv (A-1) and Basant Ram (A-2) have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 450 and 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for three months and imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months to each of the appellants. 3. The prosecution case, in a nutshell, is that on 03.06.2022, Police Station Kergaon had received information over mobile phone from Kotwar Narayan Verma of village Chhuhi that Nakcheda Dhruv, a resident of village Chhuhi, had been murdered in his house. Upon receiving the said information, the police reached the spot of the incident where the wife of the deceased, complainant Chitralekha Dhruv (PW-1) lodged an unnumbered rural complaint stating that her husband, Nakcheda Dhruv, had died on the night of 02.06.2022 at about 8:30 PM. She stated that on account of a dispute relating to the deceased pulling the wooden plank of their khapara chhani, the accused, namely his brother-in-law Kumaan Dhruv and nephew Basant Ram Dhruv, had entered the house of the deceased, quarreled with him, and assaulted 3 him with a wooden stick and an iron plate, causing his death. On the basis of said information, an unnumbered rural case No.0/2022 (Ex.P-2) and the rural complaint (Ex.P-1) were registered and panchnama proceedings were conducted. 4. During investigation, a site map (Ex.P-3) was prepared. Notice (Ex.P-17) was given to the witnesses for conducting the inquest of the dead body of the deceased, and the inquest proceedings (Ex.P-18) were carried out in the presence of the witnesses. The body was thereafter sent to District Hospital, Dhamtari, for postmortem examination, and the postmortem report (Ex.P-23) was obtained, wherein the nature of death was opined to be homicidal. On the basis of the report of the applicant, FIR No. 18/2022 under Sections 450, 302, 34 of the IPC was registered at Police Station Kergaon (Ex.P-45). 5. During the course of investigation, the statements of witnesses were recorded. Memorandum statement of accused Kuman Singh Dhruv was recorded vide Ex.P-5, based upon which, one club, clothes of the accused were seized vide Ex.P-6 and he was arrested on 03.06.2022 vide arrest memo Ex.P-7. Likewise, memorandum statement of accused Basant Ram Dhruv was recorded vide Ex.P-8, based upon which, an iron plate and clothes of the accused were seized vide Ex.P-9 and the accused was arrested on 03.06.2022 vide arrest memo Ex.P-10. 6. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet under Sections 450, 302, 34 of the IPC was filed against the accused before the Court 4 of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Nagari, District Dhamtari. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session, and on 28.09.2022, it was received by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 7. The charge was framed against the accused under Sections 450, 302/34 IPC. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. In their examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated. 8. The prosecution in order to prove its case has examined 14 witnesses, such as Chitralekha (PW-01), Nandkishore Sahu (PW-02), Bhukhan Sinha (PW-03), Narayan Verma (PW-04), Lalita Dhruv (PW- 05), Kirtan Yadav (PW-06), Jevuraam Markam (PW-07), Urmila Sahu (PW-08), Kaushalya Yadav (PW-09), Patwari Vikas Sahu (PW-10), Constable Sandeep Sahu (PW-11), Dr. R.K. Soni (PW-12), retired Sub- Inspector Santosh Sahu (PW-13), and Assistant Sub-Inspector Prakash Nag (PW-14) and exhibited 47 documents i.e. Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-47, whereas the appellants-accused in support of their defence have not examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 9. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 12.10.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment, 5 against which this appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC have been preferred by them calling in question the impugned judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence under Sections 450, 302/34 of IPC, as the learned trial Court has not proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse, and against the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence as the learned trial Court has recorded conviction of the appellants in complete disregard of the evidence on record and has failed to appreciate the material contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution’s case. The judgment is wholly based on conjecture and surmise, not supported by cogent, reliable, or admissible evidence. It has been contended that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants were present at the scene of crime or participated in the alleged offence. It has been further submitted that the learned Trial Court had convicted the appellants solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence, but the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution was not complete and no link was established connecting the appellants with the alleged crime. The learned trial Court failed to properly appreciate the statements of prosecution witnesses recorded during trial, particularly Chitralekha (wife of the deceased) being (PW-01), Kirtan Yadav (PW-06), and Urmila Sahu (PW-08), who did not support the case of the prosecution. Although several articles were seized from the place of incident as well as from the possession of the appellants 6 and were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory, the FSL report was inconclusive and did not support the case of the prosecution. No motive whatsoever was established by the prosecution for the appellants to commit the murder of the deceased, and in absence of proof of motive, the conviction under Sections 450 and 302/34 IPC could not have been sustained. The evidence on record did not inspire confidence and the deposition of the prosecution witnesses was not reliable as most of them were interested witnesses, hence their testimony could not have been made the sole basis for conviction. It has been further submitted that the learned trial Court overlooked the settled principle of law that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused and rule out every hypothesis of innocence. In the present case, the prosecution failed to discharge this burden. The prosecution having failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, as such, the appellants are entitled to be acquitted. 11. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that learned trial Court had rightly appreciated the evidence brought on record and recorded the conviction of the appellants. The judgment impugned did not suffer from any infirmity warranting interference by this Court. The prosecution had proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt. The testimony of the material witnesses, particularly Chitralekha (wife of the deceased) (PW-01), Narayan Verma (PW-04), and Lalita 7 Dhruv (PW-05), clearly established the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the offence. Minor contradictions, if any, in their statements were not material and did not affect the core of the prosecution case. The medical evidence of Dr. R.K. Soni (PW-12) coupled with the postmortem report (Ex.P-23) categorically proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, caused by multiple injuries which could have been inflicted by the seized weapons. The seizure of incriminating articles from the possession of the appellants, together with the site map, inquest report, and other documentary evidence, lent corroboration to the prosecution case. The inconclusiveness of the FSL report by itself was not sufficient to discredit the prosecution story, as there was ample ocular and medical evidence to establish the guilt of the appellants. It has been submitted that in cases of direct evidence supported by corroborative circumstances, the question of motive assumes lesser significance. Even otherwise, the prosecution had sufficiently established the existence of a dispute between the deceased and the appellants relating to the khapara chhani, which supplied motive for the commission of the crime. The learned trial Court had carefully scrutinized the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and found their testimony to be reliable and trustworthy. The defence plea of false implication was wholly unsubstantiated and had been rightly rejected. The chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution was complete and unerringly pointed towards the guilt of the appellants, excluding every hypothesis of their innocence. Therefore, the conviction and 8 sentence passed by the learned trial Court under Sections 450 and 302/34 IPC were fully justified and did not call for any interference. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 14. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased- Nakcheda Dhruv was homicidal in nature ? 15. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. R.K. Soni (PW-12), who has conducted postmortem examination of the deceased on 03.06.2022 at District Hospital, Dhamtari. As per his deposition, the deceased, a male aged about 62 years, was found in a pool of blood, with multiple external injuries and swellings on vital parts of the body. On dissection, he found a large blood clot in the brain region on the left side, fractures of the right elbow, right arm, and right thigh bone, as well as swelling on the chest. On internal examination, he noted absence of blood in the chambers of the heart and large vessels, and other organs were empty. He opined that the cause of death was traumatic head injury leading to clot formation on the brain, which resulted in coma. He further opined that the time of death was 12 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem and that the nature of death was homicidal. The 9 postmortem report (Ex.P-23) corroborates the oral testimony of Dr. R.K. Soni (PW-12). It is significant that the testimony of this medical witness remained unshaken in cross-examination, and nothing material could be elicited by the defence to discredit his evidence. The injuries found on the person of the deceased were multiple, grievous, and such that they could not have been self-inflicted or accidental. 16. Having regard to the consistent and reliable medical evidence adduced, coupled with the postmortem report, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the death of deceased Nakcheda Dhruv 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 appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 17. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are author of the crime. 18. The material witness of the prosecution, Smt. Chitralekha Dhruv (PW-01), wife of the deceased, had stated in her examination-in-chief that at the time of the incident she had gone to her daughter Lalita Dhruv’s (PW-05) matrimonial house at village Basikhai, leaving her husband, the deceased Nakcheda Dhruv, alone at their house in village Chuhi. She further deposed that she received a telephonic call from Kirtan Yadav (PW-06) informing her that there had been a quarrel between her husband and the accused persons, namely, Kuman Singh 10 Dhruv and his son Basant Ram Dhruv, and she should immediately return. On reaching her house, she found her husband lying dead with multiple injuries on his body, both hands and legs fractured, and bloodstains visible on his clothes. She further deposed that Narayan Verma (PW-04) and Bhukhan Sinha (PW-03) informed her that the accused persons had entered her house, quarreled with her husband, and assaulted him with rod, stick and tangia, which resulted in his death. On the basis of her information, a rural complaint (Ex.P-1) was lodged at Police Station Kergaon, which led to registration of the case. However, it was elicited in her cross-examination that she was not an eyewitness to the assault, as at the relevant time she was in village Basikhai. She admitted that she did not see the accused assaulting her husband and had only deposed on the basis of what was informed to her by others. 19. Bhukhan Sinha (PW-03), a co-villager, had stated that on the date of incident, around 7-8 pm, there was a quarrel between the deceased and the accused persons inside the house of the deceased. He admitted that he had not witnessed the quarrel but came to know about it only on the following morning. At about 11:00 AM, when he along with Narayan Verma (PW-04), Nandkishore Sahu (PW-02) and Kirtan Yadav (PW-06) went inside the house of the deceased, they found him lying face down near the stairs with his right hand and leg fractured and blood-stained clothes. 20. Narayan Verma (PW-04), the village Kotwar, corroborated 11 Bhukhan Sinha (PW-03) to the extent that in the morning hours, on being called by Bhukhan Sinha, he also reached the house of the deceased and saw him lying dead with broken limbs and blood-stained clothes. He stated that on being questioned, accused Basant Dhruv admitted before them that there was a quarrel at night, during which he had snatched an iron plate from the deceased and assaulted him on his hands and legs, which caused injuries leading to his death. 21. Lalita Dhruv (PW-05), daughter of the deceased, deposed that after being informed by Kirtan Yadav (PW-06), she along with her mother (PW-01) and husband (PW-07) returned to her father’s house and found him lying dead with fractured hands and legs. She further deposed that she was told that her father was assaulted by the accused persons with iron plates, sticks and tangia. 22. Kirtan Yadav (PW-06) deposed that on the night of the incident, while taking his dinner, he heard quarrel and abuses between the deceased and the accused persons, though he did not enter the house of the deceased. On the following morning, when he noticed no movement in the house of the deceased, he informed the village headmen and on opening the house, they found the deceased lying dead. 23. Other witnesses, namely, Jeturam Markam (PW-07), Urmila Sahu (PW-08), Kaushalya Yadav (PW-09) and Nandkishore Sahu (PW-02), were also not eyewitnesses to the incident. They corroborated the prosecution version to the limited extent that they had either heard 12 the quarrel between the accused and the deceased on the night of incident or came to know of the assault in the following morning through other villagers. 24. From the evidence of Assistant Sub-Inspector, namely Prakash Nag (PW-14), supported by Bhukhan Sinha (PW-03) and Narayan Verma (PW-04), it clearly emerges that during the investigation both accused were interrogated and their memorandum statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act were duly recorded. Pursuant to such statements, a wooden stick, an iron plate, and blood-stained clothes of the accused were recovered. These seizure proceedings, i.e. Ex.P-5, Ex.P-6, Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-9, were duly proved and were not disputed in cross-examination. Thus, the recovery of weapons and blood-stained clothes at the instance of the accused stands established. 25. The prosecution has further proved that the seized articles were sent for forensic examination through Retired Sub-Inspector Santosh Sahu (PW-13). The FSL report Ex.P-38 confirmed the presence of blood on the wooden stick, iron plate, clothes of the accused as well as on the clothes of the deceased and the cement collected from the scene of occurrence. However, the report was inconclusive regarding the origin of blood, i.e., whether it was human blood and if so, whether it matched with that of the deceased. It is, however, well settled that inconclusiveness of serological report does not ipso facto demolish the prosecution case, once the seizure itself is proved beyond doubt and the articles recovered are shown to be stained with blood. The 13 recoveries made pursuant to the voluntary disclosure of the accused, when read in conjunction with the medical evidence of Dr. R.K. Soni (PW-12) that the deceased died a homicidal death due to multiple traumatic injuries, do furnish a strong incriminating circumstance against the appellants. 26. Further, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses reveal that the dispute between the deceased and the accused over pulling of the wooden plank in the khapara chhani was the immediate cause for the quarrel on the night of 02.06.2022. No other enmity or cause of hostility with any other person in the village has been brought on record. The consistent version of witnesses that such disputes had earlier taken place between the deceased and the accused lends assurance to the prosecution case about motive. 27. In view of the above, this Court finds that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the death of Nakcheda Dhruv was not accidental or natural but was homicidal in nature, and that the accused persons were responsible for inflicting the fatal injuries with the recovered weapons. 28. Having carefully considered the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and the State, and upon re- appreciation of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds no merit in the contentions urged on behalf of the appellants. 29. The principal defence put forward is that the incident was not witnessed by anyone, as the place of occurrence was inside the house 14 of the deceased, and further that there was darkness due to absence of electricity, thereby making identification of the assailants doubtful. The appellants have also sought to suggest that the deceased was of unsound mind and that two days prior to the incident he had assaulted the son of accused Kuman Singh Dhruv. However, these pleas have remained unsubstantiated. Except for bald suggestions in cross- examination, no credible material has been produced to support the same. Even the investigating officer has not been confronted on these aspects. The testimony of Chitralekha Dhruv (PW-01), Bhukhan Sinha (PW-03), Lalita Dhruv (PW-05), Kirtan Yadav (PW-06) and other prosecution witnesses clearly dispels the theory of the deceased being mentally deranged or incapable of normal conduct. On the other hand, the prosecution evidence stands on firm footing. The testimonies of Bhukhan Sinha (PW-03), Narayan Verma (PW-04), Kirtan Yadav (PW- 06) and others consistently point towards a quarrel between the deceased and the appellants on the night of 02.06.2022 over pulling of a wooden beam in the khapara chhani. 30. The evidence further reveals that the deceased was last seen alive with the appellants on that very night. The extra-judicial confession made by the appellants in the presence of independent witnesses, coupled with the recoveries effected pursuant to their memorandum statements under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, lend substantial corroboration. The medical evidence and the FSL report also support the prosecution case, though the latter may be partially inconclusive. 15 31. The chain of circumstances proved by the prosecution is complete and unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellants, ruling out any hypothesis of their innocence. The trial Court has meticulously scrutinised the evidence and has rightly come to the conclusion that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, committed house trespass at night and murdered deceased Nakcheda Dhruv. 32. This Court, while exercising appellate jurisdiction, finds itself in complete agreement with the reasoning assigned by the learned trial Court. The conviction of the appellants under Sections 450 and 302/34 IPC is well-founded. The sentence imposed also cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. 33. In the result, the criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12.10.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, District Dhamtari (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.31/2022, convicting and sentencing the appellants under Sections 450, 302/34 IPC, is hereby affirmed. 34. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are in jail, they shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 35. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their jail sentence to serve the same on the appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with 16 the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 36. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu