1 2025:CGHC:47394-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1907 of 2019 Judgement reserved on: 04.08.2025 Judgement delivered on : 16.09.2025 Hardaylal S/o Late Ramkewal @ Kevla Kharvar, aged about 33 years, R/o Village Chandra, Police Station- Chalgali, District: Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Police Station- Chalgali, District- Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent/State For Appellant : Mr. Abhishek Sinha, Senior Advocate assisted by Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate appears through Legal Aid. For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, G.A. Hon'ble Smt Justice Rajani Dubey, J. Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. C A V Judgment Per, Rajani Dubey , Judge 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment and order of sentence dated 18.07.2018 passed by Additional Sessions Judge of Second Additional Judge, District- Balrampur Place- Ramanujganj, C.G. in S.T. No. 60/2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty of commission of offence and sentenced as described below:- Digitally signed by AMIT PATEL 2 Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of IPC (Two times) R.I. for life with fine amount of Rs. 2000/-, in default of payment of fine, to undergo additional R.I. for three months. 2. The case of the prosecution, as unfolded from the impugned judgment and the records of the case, is that the informant/complainant Ranjit Khairwar (PW-1) appeared at police station- Chalgali and informed that the marriage of Rampratap (PW-9), who was the adopted son of Bhola Nath Khairwar had taken place at the house of the deceased Bhola Nath Khairwar and there was a social feast Jagdhari, Raju, Bhola and Phoolmatiya, Manmati etc. were talking about preparing food in the courtyard of Hardaylal’s house. Hardaylal under the influence of liquor asked his aunt (Bua)/Phoolmatiya and uncle (Fufa)/Bhola that why they solemnized the marriage of his brother Ramprasad (PW-9) without being apprising him and out of nowhere, he being so infuriated took out the sword and assaulted Bhola and Phoolmatiya and decapitated them. On the basis of above information given by the complainant- Ranjeet Khairwar (PW-1), Morgue No. 13/2015 vide Ex. P/1 and Morgue No. 14/20155 vide Ex. P/17 were registered at Police Station- Chalgali and thereafter F.I.R. (Ex. P/2) was registered at Police Station- Chalgali under Crime No. 34/2015 for offence under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant, spot map was prepared vide Ex. P/3. During the course of investigation, notice was issued to the witnesses vide Exs. P/6 and P/7 for the Panchnama of the body of deceased persons Bhola and deceased Phoolmatiya. Thereafter, the Panchnama of the deceaseds’s body were prepared vide Exs. P/8 and P/9. Moreover, application form Exs. P/14-"A" and P/15-"A" were prepared for postmortem of body of deceased persons Bhola and Phoolmatiya and the bodies were 3 sent for postmortem to C.H.C., Balrampur. Blood stained and plain soil were seized from the spot as per seizure memo (Ex.P/10) and statements of the witnesses were recorded. The appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex. P/11 before the witnesses. On being so apprised by the accused/appellant regarding the hide out of the weapon (iron sword), the police seized it from the drain, which was taken out by the accused himself. The cloth worn by the accused at the time of the incident was seized as per seizure memo (Ex. P/12). The accused was found to have committed the crime under section 302 IPC and hence he was duly arrested as per arrest memo ( Ex. P/13) and information was given to his family members vide Ex. P/18. On being presented by Constable 658 Rajendra Lakra, clothes worn by deceased persons Bhola and Phoolmatiya at the time of the incident were seized in two sealed packets as per seizure memo Ex. P/19. Query of the seized items were done and sent for its chemical examination and spot map was prepared by the Patwari. 3. After completion of due and necessary investigation, charge-sheet was led before the jurisdictional Magistrate who, in turn, committed the case for trial. On the basis of the material contained in the charge-sheet, learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for alleged commission of offence under Sections 302 (two times) of IPC. The appellant having abjured guilt was subjected to trial. 4. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. The statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has been recorded, in which he denied the incriminating charges leveled against him and pleaded his innocence that he has been falsely implicated in this case. However, one witness adduced by him in his defence. 4 5. After hearing learned counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. 6. Assailing correctness and validity of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned Senior counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment and sentence passed by learned trial Court is bad, illegal, contrary to the facts and law. Learned trial Court has committed a grave error to convict the appellant for offence under Sections 302 of IPC. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of the murder and there is no evidence on record on the basis of which the appellant can be convicted for an offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The conviction of the appellant based on surmises and conjunctures and it is therefore liable to be set-aside. It has been further argued by learned Senior counsel for the appellant that when there is no evidence which could directly indicate towards accused having committed the crime and the available evidences are neither corroborative nor reliable and trustworthy under such circumstances, the conviction is liable to be set-aside. Learned trial Court has failed to appreciate to prove the guilt of the accused person due to paucity of reliable evidences, conviction of accused cannot be justified. Learned trial Court has committed a gross error in taking inference that since the relation of the appellant and deceased persons were not cordial, therefore, it can be safely held that he had committed murder of them. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the aforesaid charge. In support of his contention, he relied upon the judgement passed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Balu Sudam Khalde and Another vs. State of Maharashtra1 1 (2023) 13 SCC 365 5 7. Ex adverso, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions of learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court minutely appreciated the oral and documentary evidence and thereby rightly convicted the appellant for the alleged offence and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence needs no interference by this Court. 8. 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 learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 9. It is evident from record of learned Trial Court that it framed charges against the appellant for offence under Sections 302 (two times) of IPC. Learned Trial Court after minutely appreciating the oral and documentary evidence convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 (two times) of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in inaugural para of this judgment. 10. First of all we have to see whether death of the deceased persons Bhola and Phoolmatiya were homicidal in nature or not? 11. PW-1 Ranjeet Khairwar has stated that he know the accused, who present before the court. He also know Bhola and Phoolmatiya, who have passed away. The incident is of the year 2015 and the incident took place at about 3:00 pm. On the date of the incident, there was a social feast for a wedding at the house of the deceased Bhola. Further, he stated that brother of the accused namely Shivbhajan told him that Bhola and Phoolmatiya had been murdered. Shivbhajan did not tell him as to who is the perpetrator of the said crime, later he came to know that the accused had murdered Bhola Ram and Phoolmatiya with a sword. On this, then he went to the house of the deceased Bhola, there he saw that the head and neck of the deceased 6 Phoolmatiya and Bhola were separately lying detached from their bodies. Thereafter, he had lodged the report of the said incident at Police Station- Chalgali and he admitted his signature on A to A part of morgue intimation (Ex. P/1) and FIR (Ex. P/2). 12. PW-13 Inspector L.P. Patel has stated that during the year 2014 to 2015, he was posted as Station In-charge and upon the information given by the complainant- Ranjeet Khairwar (PW-1) S/o Jatu Khairwar, morgue was registered as Morgue Intimation No. 13/2015 (Ex. P/1) regarding the death of deceased Bhola and FIR (Ex.P/2), in which he admitted his signatures on B to B part. He has also lodged morgue regarding the death of deceased Phoolmatiya vide morgue intimation Ex.P/17. He issued notice to the witnesses for inquest memo vide Ex. P/6 and Ex. P/7 and he prepared inquest memo vide Ex.P/8 and Ex.P/9 on the same day, in which he admitted his signature on R to R part. He gave application for autopsy of the deceased persons Bhola and Phoolmatiya vide Ex.P/14 “A” and Ex. P/15 “A” to C.H.C., Balrampur, in which he admitted his signature on A to A part. 13. PW- 12 Dr. Vijay Agrawal conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased Bholaram on 28.04.2015. External Examination:- Rigor Mortis was found to be present and the entire body was of pale colour. The injuries found on the body of the deceased Bholaram are as follows - 1. The entire neck was decapitated away from the body by some sharp and hard weapon. 2. Deep incised wound on forehead, size 8 cm x 1 cm, in which 6 cm fracture of frontal bone on the inside. 3. There was an incised wound on the right side of the chest, size 5 cm x 1 cm x 1/2 cm. 7 4. An incised wound on the back side of the left wrist, inside which the ulna and radius bone were completely broken. 5. An incised wound in the middle of the right hand, size 5 cm x 4 cm, in which muscles were visible. 6. Two incised wounds on the left shoulder, the size of the first one was 6 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm and the size of the second one was 2 cm x 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm. 7. Incised wound on right side of face, size 8 cm x 1/2 cm. 8. Incised wound on right side of face near jaw, size 3 cm x 2 cm, in which jaw and teeth were visible. All the above injuries had blood clot around them. The entire body was yellowish and there were many incised wounds and blood clot around the wounds were found before death. Internal Examination:- The brain of the deceased was found pale, both lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were found pale. Both chambers of the heart were empty. There was half-digested food in the stomach, small intestine and fecal matter in the large intestine. The urinary bladder was empty. There was a yellow coloured towel (gamcha) on the body of the deceased which had blood stains on it. It was sealed and given to the concerned constable with the advice of chemical test. In his opinion, cause of death of the deceased was shock caused by excessive bleeding from the above-mentioned injuries leading to Cardiopulmonary arrest. Further opined that the nature of death is homicidal and the death occurred within 24 hours of conducting post-mortem. He gave his report vide Ex. P/14. 14. On the same day, PW- 12 Dr. Vijay Agrawal conducted the post- mortem on the body of the deceased Phoolmatiya. 8 External Examination:- Rigor Mortis was found to be present and the entire body was of pale colour. The injuries found on the body of the deceased Phoolmatiya are as follows - 1. The entire neck was decapitated away from the body by some sharp and hard weapon. 2. Deep incised wound of left arm near elbow, in which radius and ulna bone were completely fractured. 3. There was an incised wound size 10 cm x 5 cm over one third of the left arm. 4. There was an incised wound near the wrist of the left hand, size 6 cm x 2 cm, in which bones were visible. 5. A deep incised wound in the elbow of the right arm, in which the radius and ulna bone were completely fractured. 6. Two incised wounds on the right hand, the size of the first one was 5 cm x 2 cm x 1/2 cm and the size of the second wound was 10 cm x 3 cm x 1/2 cm. 7. Deep incised wound in index finger of right hand, tip of which was cut and hanging. 8. Incised wound on the left side of the face, size 10 cm x 2 cm. Jaw and teeth were visible in the same injury. External Examination:- The brain of the deceased was found to be pale, both the lungs, liver, spleen and kidneys were pale. Both the chambers of the heart were empty. There was half-digested food in the stomach, half- 9 digested food in the small intestine and fecal matter in the large intestine. The urinary bladder was empty. The deceased was wearing a green coloured blouse and a saree which had blood stains on it. These were sealed and given to the concerned constable for chemical examination. In his opinion, cause of death of the deceased was shock caused by excessive bleeding from the above-mentioned injuries leading to Cardiopulmonary arrest. Further opined that the nature of death is homicidal and the death occurred within 24 hours of conducting post-mortem. He gave his report vide Ex. P/15. 15. PW-12 Dr. Vijay Agrawal has also examined the seized iron sword on 26.05.2015, which had a lot of blood clots on it. He was asked whether the injuries to the deceased persons could have been caused by the said sword and whether the injuries caused by the said sword could have caused death or not. After examining the said sword, he had opined that the injuries to the deceased persons could have been caused by the said sword and the injuries caused by the sword could have caused death. He gave his report vide Ex. P/16. In his cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve his deposition. Thus, the prosecution has successfully proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased persons Bhola and Phoomatiya are homicidal in nature. 16. Now we have to examine the evidence to ascertain whether it is the appellant who is author of the crime in question or not. 17. PW-1 Ranjeet Khairwar, who is the informant of the said crime, has stated that on the date of the incident, there was a social feast for a wedding at the house of the deceased Bhola. Further, he stated that brother of the accused namely Shivbhajan told him that Bhola and Phoolmatiya had been 10 murdered, though, Shivbhajan did not tell him who was perpetrator of the said crime. He later came to know from someone else that the accused had murdered Bhola and Phoolmatiya with a sword. Though, the prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him and in cross-examination, then he admitted the suggestion that Raju Pando told him at the time of incident at deceased Bholaram’s house, Jagdhari, Raju, Mangi Bai and other were present. He denied the suggestion of the prosecution and stated that he did not had conversation with Shivbhajan on the date of the incident. 18. PW-2 Rajuram is the eye-witness of the said incident, has stated that on the date of incident, there was a social feast for Rampratap's marriage at the house of deceased Bhola, where he had gone at around 12:00 noon and where Sukhmania, Ghanzi Bai, Manmati, Jagdhari, Phoolmatiya etc. were also present. He further stated at around 03:00 pm, Phoolmatiya called him, then he went inside the room of the house and was making arrangements to bring goods from the shop, right at that moment, where he sat, he heard knocking sound from the inside room where Phoolmatiya was shouting his name by saying that to save her. On this, he ran inside the room and saw that the accused was assaulting Phoolmatiya with a sword, then he caught the accused's hand to rescue Phoolmatiya and asked him as to why he is assaulting her and upon such intervention, he got pushed by the appellant and even he too got assaulted by the appellant with the sword, being frightened by the act of the appellant, he ran out of the room screaming that the accused is assaulting with the sword. At that moment, Bhola entered inside the room, then the accused assaulted him with the sword too and he did not spare his life. He admitted this fact that he saw that Phoolmatiya had injuries on her head and hand. Later, he saw that due to this carnage the heads of deceased Bhola and Phoolmati were decapitated from their necks. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion of the defence that at the time of incident, he was not present at the place of incident, though he 11 remain firmed in his statement. He himself admitted this fact that he is the eye- witness of the said incident and stated that the accused assaulted the deceased persons. Further, he admitted this suggestion that Bhola was his uncle (Fufa) and Phoolmatiya was his aunt (bua). In his cross-examination, nothing could be elicited to disbelieve his deposition. 19. PW-3 Jagdhari has stated that on the date of incident, Bhola had arranged food of Rampratap's wedding and he was cooking food with Manmati, Phulmati, Mangi Bai etc who were resident of the village. When we were cooking food, Bhola and Phoolmatiya were in their room, the accused was also present in the house. When Phoolmatiya shouted for help at around 3:00 pm, Raju Pando entered the house and subsequently, some people had also entered the room behind him and saw that Phoolmatiya had sword injuries on both her arms and head. Raju had told that the accused assaulted Phoolmatiya with a sword. He admitted his signatures on A to A part of notices (Exs. P/6 & P/7) and in inquest memos (Exs. P/8 & P/9). Though, the prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted the suggestion of the prosecution that when Raju Pando came running out of the room, he told that the accused was assaulting Phoolmatiya blindly with a sword and when he tried to intervene to rescue her, the accused tried to assault him as well. Further admitted this fact that Raju told that the accused assaulted Phoolmatiya on the neck with a sword and decapitated her. At the same time, when Bhola went to rescue her, the accused also assault him with a sword on the neck and decapitated him as well. He admitted the suggestion of the defence that Raju is his own nephew and Manmati is his sister-in-law and also admitted this suggestion that Bhola belonged to the Khairwar caste he belong to the Pando caste. Further admitted this suggestion that if there is a function in the Khairwar caste, then people of the same caste cook food. He denied the suggestion that they do 12 farming in Bhola's land and he himself admitted this fact that his nephew Rampratap does farming. 20. PW-4 Manmati, PW-5 Sukhmaniya, PW-6 Ganzi Bai, PW-7 Gulpatiya and PW- 8 Ramsubaran have stated that on the date of the incident, Bhola and Rampratap had arranged food for the wedding and were invited to cook and eat. Ramdhari, Phoolmatiya, Ganzi Bai etc were cooking. When we were cooking food, Bhola and Phoolmatiya were in their room and the accused was also at home at that time. When Phoolmatiya shouted for help, Raju Mando entered the house and shouted that the accused was assaulting Phoolmatiya and Bhola. After that, when they entered the room, they saw that Phoolmatiya and Bhola had injuries on their necks. Raju had told that the accused had assaulted Phoolmatiya and Bhola with a sword. 21. Rampratap Singh (PW-9) has stated that accused is his elder brother and he is also familiar with Bhola and Phoolmatiya, they were his uncle (Fufa) and aunt (Bua), who died a year ago. Bhola and Phoolmatiya had adopted him as they had no children, he lived with them in their house. His marriage was solemnized by his aunt and uncle. On the date of the incident, there was a social feast at home to celebrate his marriage and he was at his in-laws' house. Raju called and told him that the accused had murdered his aunt and uncle with a sword, then he came to the village on the next day. He admitted his signature on B to B part of spot map (Ex. P/4). In his cross- examination, he admitted the suggestion of defence that all the arrangements for his marriage were done by the accused and his wife and also admitted that there was no hindrance caused in his marriage ceremony. However, he denied the suggestion of defence that Raju did not inform him about the incident over phone. 22. PW-10 Sali Poorte and PW-11 Bhuneshwar Singh, they are the witnesses of the memorandum statement (Ex. P/11) of the appellant and 13 seizure witnesses (Ex. P/12), but they have only admitted their signatures in Exs. P/11 & P/12. They have denied this fact that any memorandum statement of the appellant taken by police before them and also denied the seizure of iron sword before them. Though, the prosecution declared them hostile and cross-examined them, then they denied all suggestions of the prosecution. 23. PW- 13 Inspector- L.P. Patel, who is the investigating Officer has stated that he recorded the memorandum statement of the accused vide Ex. P/11, wherein he admitted his signature and as per the memorandum, he had recovered one iron sword from the drain and worn cloth and prepared seizure memo (Ex. P/12) 24. As per FSL report (Ex. P/21), in iron sword (Article- D1) and t-shirt of accused, blood was found. 25. DW-1 Smt. Mankunwar, who is the wife of the accused has stated that she knows the deceased Bhola and Phoolmatiya and her brother-in-law Rampratap's marriage took place about 3 years ago in Phoolmatiya's house. During Rampratap's marriage, all the functions were arranged by her and her husband Hardaylal/accused. After the marriage, social feast for the people of the village was organized, at that time, she went to the puja room to pray and saw that Bhola and Phoolmatiya were lying dead. Then they raised an alarm as to how did this happen? In her cross-examination, she admitted this fact that the people say that her husband Harday murdered both of them. 26. From bare perusal of the record and from close scrutiny of statements of all witnesses, especially of an eye witness i.e., PW-2 Rajuram, it is quite evident that he saw that the accused was assaulting Phoolmatiya with a sword, he caught the accused's hand to rescue her and said as to why you 14 are assaulting, even the accused pushed him and attacked him with the sword too, being frightened by the act of the appellant, he ran out of the room screaming that the accused is assaulting with the sword. At that moment, Bhola Ram entered inside the room, then the accused assaulted him with the sword too. Other witnesses PW-3 Jagdhari, PW-4 Manmati, PW-5 Sukhmaniya, PW-6 Ganzi Bai, PW-7 Gulpatiya, PW-8 Ramsubaran have supported the statement of PW-2 Rajuram and they have all stated that they were present at the time of incident in house of deceased Bhola to attend the marriage function and when Raju shouted that the accused was assaulting Phoolmatiya and Bhola. After that, they entered the room to confirm the same and they saw that Phoolmatiya and Bhola had injuries on their necks and lying dead. 27. As per morgue intimation (Ex. P/1) regarding the death of deceased Bhola and morgue intimation (Ex. P/17) regarding the death of deceased Phoolmatiya, lodged by PW-1 Ranjeet Khairwar same day i.e., on 27.04.2015 at about 4:10 pm and on 27.04.2015 at about 4:20 respectively. 28. It is also quite evident that memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have also not supported the seizure of iron sword on the basis of memorandum of the accused (Ex.P/11), but eye witness PW-2 Rajuram has categorically stated against the accused and other witnesses have supported his presence in room where the accused assaulted both the deceased Bhola and Phoolmatiya with a iron sword and PW-2 has remained firm in his cross-examination. 29. PW-12 Dr. Vijay Agrawal has supported his post-mortem reports (Exs. P/14 & P/15) and proved the cause of death of deceased persons Bhola and Phoolmatiya as homicidal in nature. 15 30. Learned Senior Counsel has strongly objected that the prosecution has not been able to establish any motive on the accused for committing this dastardly act is in fact true, but since this is a case of eye-witness where there is nothing to discredit the eye-witness, the motive itself is of little relevance. It would be necessary to mention some of the leading cases on this aspect which are as under:- In Chandan vs. The State (Delhi Admn.)2 in paras 10 & 11 which read as under :- “ 10. In Shivaji Genu Mohite v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 55, it was held that it is a well-settled principle in criminal jurisprudence that when ocular testimony inspires the confidence of the court, the prosecution is not required to establish motive. Mere absence of motive would not impinge on the testimony of a reliable eye-witness. Motive is an important factor for consideration in a case of circumstantial evidence. But when there is direct eye witness, motive is not significant. This is what was held: “ In case the prosecution is not able to discover an impelling motive, that could not reflect upon the credibility of a witness proved to be a reliable eye- witness. Evidence as to motive would, no doubt, go a long way in cases wholly dependent on circumstantial evidence. Such evidence would form one of the links in the chain of circumstantial evidence in such a case. But that would not be so in cases where there are eye- witnesses of credibility, though even in such cases if a motive is properly proved, such proof would strengthen 2 2024 SCC OnLine SC 496 16 the prosecution case and fortify the court in its ultimate conclusion. But that does not mean that if motive is not established, the evidence of an eye-witness is rendered untrustworthy" 11. The principle that the lack or absence of motive is inconsequential when direct evidence establishes the crime has been reiterated by this Court in Bikau Pandey v. State of Bihar, (2003) 12 SCC 616; Rajagopal v. Muthupandi, (2017) 11 SCC 120; Yogesh Singh v. Mahabeer Singh, (2017) 11 SCC 195. ” 31. In the light of above cited judgment and having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that the finding of guilt recorded by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of overall evidence on record and rightly finds that the accused has committed the murder of deceased Bhola and Phoolmatiya. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. 32. In the result, the appeal being bereft of any merits is liable to be and is, accordingly, dismissed. The appellant is reported to be in jail, therefore, no specific order regarding his arrest, surrender etc. is required to be passed. 33. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned trial Court and 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/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) JUDGE JUDGE AMIT PATEL