1 CRA No.2228 of 2023 2025:CGHC:24640-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2228 of 2023 1 - Lundri Bai W/o Budhman Ram Aged About 32 Years R/o Dobh, P.S. Sanna, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Budhman Ram S/o Mangra Ram Kindo Aged About 33 Years R/o Dobh, P.S. Sanna, District- Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Sanna, District-Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Atul Kesharwani, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 13.06.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellants-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03/10/2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Jashpur, District-Jashpur (C.G.) in Sessions AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.17 10:33:34 +0530 2 CRA No.2228 of 2023 Case No. 06/2022, whereby the appellants-accused have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC (2 counts for committing murder of Maghanu & Gangotri Bai) Life Imprisonment & fine of Rs.100/- on each count with default stipulation Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. 1. Brief facts of the case is that the complainant Larang Sai (PW-4) lodged a report at P.S. Sanna that when he came back from Talasili at 6.00 pm, his wife Parvati Bai told him that his parents had been killed by the accused Budhman Kindo and Lundari Bai. When he came home, he saw that his mother Gangotri Bai and father Maghanu Ram (deceased) were lying dead on the road in front of the house. It is alleged that the son of the accused persons namely; Budhaman Kindo had died three years ago, due to which, both the accused Budhaman and Lundri suspected the deceased that they killed their son by practicing witchcraft, hence, to take revenge, accused/appellants committed the murder of both the deceased. Thereafter, on the basis of information, police has investigated the matter and registered an FIR vide Ex. 29 & 30 and on the basis of memorandum of statement, police has arrested the appellants for the offence under section 302 of IPC. Merg intimation (Ex/P-16 & 17) was registered. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-18. The dead-body of deceased were sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination 3 CRA No.2228 of 2023 report (Ex.P/21 & 22), Dr. Manish Kumar (PW-6) opined that the cause of death of deceased Gangotri bai is due to suffocation and cardiac arrest, excessive bleeding, cardio-respiratory failure. Cause of death of deceased-Maghnu Ram is due to obstruction of breathing, vutting of windpipe. Nature of death of both the deceased is homicidal. Thereafter, appellants-accused were arrested vide Ex.P/36 and their memorandum statement were recorded (Ex.P-4 and P-6) pursuant to which, seizure of articles (Ex.P-5 and P-7) were made and sent for chemical examination to FSL and FSL report is marked as Ex.P-42. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 43 documents. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of CrPC were recorded wherein they denied guilt, however, they examined none in their defence and did not bring any document in support support either. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellants herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced them as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4 CRA No.2228 of 2023 4. Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior counsel for the appellants, submits that the entire case of prosecution is based upon the statement of the interested witnesses and the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellants beyond all the reasonable doubts. He submits that because of pervious enmity, the prosecution has falsely implicated the present appellants in the crime in question. It is submitted that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is material contradiction and omission in the statement of several witnesses. He submits that the conviction and sentence of the appellants is based on surmises and conjectures. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. 5. 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. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for aforesaid mentioned offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court 5 CRA No.2228 of 2023 has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/21 & 22) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Manish Kumar (PW-8). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/21 & 22) and the statement of Dr. Manish Kumar (PW-8) that the nature of death of both the deceased was homicidal in nature, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding 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. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 8. Now the next question would be whether the accused-appellants herein is the author of the crime in question ? 9. Jataro Bai, (PW-1), who is the eyewitness in the instant case stated that on the date of incident, deceased-Maghanu was returning home from his field, on the way, accused Budhman caught and threw him on the ground and assaulted him with a stick. Thereafter, appellant/Budhman assaulted the deceased on his head with a stick, due to which, he fell down and became unconscious, then the appellant again hit him in his waist. The accused/Lundri Bai tied the rope around the neck of deceased Maghanu, and dragged him towards the road, then accused 6 CRA No.2228 of 2023 Budhman hit him on the neck with a tangia. She further deposed that after seeing the incident, she ran towards the house to tell Parvati (PW-2), who is the daughter-in-law of deceased, about the incident and she narrated the incident, to which, Parvati told the incident to her mother-in-law/Gangotri (deceased) that accused have killed Maghanu Ram, on getting this information, Gangotri ran towards the spot. Thereafter, accused/Lundri Bai caught hair of Gangotri/deceased and threw her on the ground. After that both the accused assaulted the deceased/Gangotri too by means of Tangi. She further stated that the above incident was seen by her. 10. Parwati Bai (PW-2), Daughter-in-law of deceased, stated that in her evidence that Jatro Bai(PW-1) came to her and told her about the incident that Budhman and Lundri have killed her father-in-law (Maghanu). On receiving the above information, she went to the spot with her mother-in-law Gangotri Bai. After reaching the spot, accused/Lundri Bai caught her mother-in-law (Gangotri Bai) and threw her on the ground, then the accused Budhman came out with a Tangi and assaulted her mother-in-law Gangotri Bai on all sides of the neck, due to which, Gangotri Bai died. She further stated that accused Budhman ran with a Tangi to kill her also by saying that he would kill her all the members of his family. She further stated that the accused/appellants had killed her father-in- law/Maghanu before she came. 7 CRA No.2228 of 2023 11. In FSL report Ex.P-42, blood stains were found in weapons used in the crime i.e. Tangi and wooden stick. 12. According to postmortem report Ex.P-21 & 22 conducted by Dr. Manish Kumar, following injuries were found on both the deceased:- Injuries caused to deceased/Gangotri - Right eye was closed and swollen on left eye. Cut injury of 3 x 2 cm size on right side of head near ear, along with fracture. There was a cut wound above right eye, whose size was 2 x 1.5 cm, there was a grazed wound on right arm, whose size was 4 x 2 cm. There was swelling around right eye. Injuries cause to deceased/Maghanu - Both the eyes of the deceased were closed, there was blood in the mouth, a rope was tied around the neck, which was made of nylon, there were mutilated injuries on the forehead size of 1 X 0.5 cm, there were mutilated wounds on the front side of the lower part of the right leg of size 1 X 0.5 cm, there were mutilated wounds on the right chin of size 1 X 0.5 cm, there were many mutilated wounds on the throat which were deep of the size 3.5 X 2 X 2 cm, 4 X 2.5 X 1 cm, 4 X 2 X 2 cm, windpipe and food pipe were seen to be cut from 8 CRA No.2228 of 2023 outside. 13. Considering the statements of eye witness- Jataro (PW-1), Parvati Bai (PW-2), Dr. Manish Kumar, who conducted the postmortem of deceased, in which, he found the injuries caused to the deceased which are grievous in nature; further the fact that the articles containing bloodstains were proved in the FSL report; and particularly on the basis of memorandum of both the accused, by which, weapons were seized which was used in the crime, we hereby accept the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellants-accused who assaulted both the deceased by which they suffered grievous injuries and died. Thus, from the aforesaid facts and circumstances it is crystal clear that there is direct evidence against the accused persons. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellants have caused the injuries upon the deceased is based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question. The finding recorded by the trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 14. The appellants are stated to be in jail and they shall serve out the remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to them by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 9 CRA No.2228 of 2023 15. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing the 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 the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 16. The Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Judge Amardeep