1 2025:CGHC:10727-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 115 of 2021 Ludruram Nag S/o Tonde Nag Aged About 66 Years Caste- Madiya, Age 66 Years, R/o Village Ulnar, Khutagudapara, Thana Perpa, District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Frezerpur (Perpa), District Bastar, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr.Alok Kumar Dewangan, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 5/3/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.2020 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Jagdalpur, District Bastar in Sessions Case BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.03.07 17:40:29 +0530 2 No.03/2019 by which the appellant has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of 1000/-, in default, to ₹ further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.09.2018 at 3 P.M. in village Ulnar Khutagudapara, Police Station Perpa, District Bastar, Durjan Kashyap was grazing his cattle in the field of Kamap Kashyap, during that time, some pigs went for grazing in the field of the present appellant. Thus, the present appellant went to drag pigs from his field carrying axe in his hand. At that time, the deceased interfered and asked the appellant as to why he is beating his pigs. Thus, the appellant replied that his pigs are grazing his corn crops, why he is not controlling his pigs resulting into quarrel. Thus, the present appellant assaulted Durjan Kashyap with his axe, due to severe injury on the vital part of the body, Durjan Kashyap died at the spot. The incident was witnessed by daughter-in-law of the deceased Smt.Sunita (PW-1), granddaughter of the deceased Ku.Hembati (PW-2), Nukesh Kashyap (PW-5) and grand daughter of the appellant Ku.Padma Nag (PW-10). Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-2 and on the basis of his memorandum statement, axe stains with blood was seized at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P-3. Shirt was seized from the appellant vide Ex.P-4. The appellant was arrested on 19.09.2018 vide arrest memo Ex.P-5. Inquest was prepared over the body of the 3 deceased vide Ex.P-6. Dehati nalishi was registered vide Ex.P-7 and dehati merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-8. Thereafter, on the basis of information given by Smt.Sunita Kashyap at Police Station Frezerpur (Perpa), merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-9 and thereafter the FIR in Crime No.157/2018 against the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC vide Ex.P-10. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-11. Clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-18. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the Government Hospital, Jagdalpur where Dr.Kiran Patil (PW-13) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased and found following injuries:- 1) Avuised chop wound present obliquely curved over left temporal region of head at a distance of 6.5 cm from left ear, of size 12 cm X 1.2 cm (Maximum width) X bone deep with sharp margins, front angle acute and back angle round. The wound margins are reddish blood clotted. The hair, subcutaneous tissues in between wound dimensions are cut at places. 2) Chop wound present over right side of back of head vertically placed 8.5 cm from right mastoid process of size 5.5 cm X 1 cm (Maximum width) X bone deep. The margins are sharp with lower angle acute and upper angle round. There is reddish clotted blood stained margins. 4 3) Chop wound present over left side of back of head (occipital region) horizontally placed at a distance 8.5 cm from left mastoid process, of size 5.5 cm X 0.3 cm (Maximum width) X bone deep The wound margins are sharp with left angle acute and right angle round and reddish blood stained margins. 4) Chop wound obliquely present over left side of back of head (occipital region) placed 8 cm from left mastoid process and 0.8 cm below injury no. 3, of size 4.2 cm X 1 cm (maximum width) X bone deep. The margins are sharp with upper round angle and lower acute angle. There is extravasation of blood present and contused inner margins and scalp layer inside wound. On tracing the injury, there is linear fracture of underlying left part of occipital bone of skull. 5) Incised wound of size 7 cm X 0.2 cm X sub-cutaneous deep vertically present left upper back placed 9 cm below left shoulder line. The margins are sharp with upper angle round and lower angle acute and blood stained margins. 6) Abrasion obliquely present over front of left upper arm, of size 3 cm X 0.1 cm placed 9 cm below left shoulder, reddish brown. Head-Scalp-Under-scalp contusion and extravasation of blood over underlying injuries nos. 2, 3rd & 4, reddish. Skull- fractured underlying injury no. 4. Meninges- Intact, tensed, 5 pale, redematous. Brain-diffused sub-arachnoid haemorrhage over both parietal region, reddish. All the injuries mentioned above are ante-mortem in nature and of recent duration (within 4 hrs) prior to the death. The injury no. 4 is individually sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. The doctor has opined that cause of death is shock and haemorrhage due to head injury associated with chop wound over head and manner of death was homicidal. 3. Query was made by the Station House Officer of Police Station Frezerpur to the doctor regarding axe used crime in question vide Ex.P-21 and the doctor has given her report vide Ex.P-22. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-28), human blood was found on Article C (gamacha) of the deceased, Article D1 (axe) seized from the appellant, Article E (shirt) seized from the appellant, Article F (gajpis of the deceased), Article H (hair of the deceased), on Article 11 and 12 (lungi and underwear of of the deceased). 4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. After usual investigation, the accused / appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions, Bastar at Jagdalpur, from where the Second Additional Sessions Judge, 6 Jagdalpur received the case on transfer for trial in accordance with law. 5. The accused / appellant abjured the guilt and entered into witness. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 18 witnesses and exhibited 33 documents. The defence has examined none and no document has been exhibited. 6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who has caused the murder of the deceased, proceeded to convict and sentence him under Section 302 of the IPC in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred. 7. Mr.Alok Kumar Dewangan, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant for offence as mentioned above because there is no eyewitness of the case. Conviction of the appellant is bad, illegal and improper because learned trial Court has erred in considering the statements of the witness who favoured the appellant and thus adopted pick and choose method to anyhow convict the appellant. He further submits that the prosecution has failed to prove that the appellant has involved in any criminal activity prior to this incident. The prosecution failed to prove the motive or intention to commit 7 the alleged crime. The finding of the trial Court itself was perverse since there are many contradictions in the statement of the witnesses regarding incident and procedure adopted by the Police. Having reached in this finding, conviction of the appellant is bad in the eye of law. He also submits that the prosecution has also not proved the other circumstances. The story was doubtful looking to the evidence recorded. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 8. On the other hand, Mr.Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submit that statements of Smt.Sunita (PW-1), Hemvati (PW-2), Nukesh Kashyap (PW-5) and Padma Nag (PW- 10) are wholly reliable and trustworthy as their testimonies inspire confidence. He further submits that the appellant has rightly been convicted by the trial Court and as such, the criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 10. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Durjan Kashyap was homicidal in nature ? 8 11. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr.Kiran Patil (PW- 13), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Durjan Kashyap vide Ex.P-20, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Durjan Kashyap 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 appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 12. The next question is that the appellant has been convicted on the testimonies of Smt.Sunita (PW-1), Hemvati (PW-2), Nukesh Kashyap (PW-5) and Padma Nag (PW-10), whether testimonies of these witnesses should be relied upon to base conviction unless it is corroborated by other appropriate valid piece of evidence. 13. Smt.Sunita (PW-1) has stated in para 2 of her evidence that the incident took place this year. Durgan Kashyap was her father-in- law. Durgan Kashyap was assaulted two-three times on the head with axe by Ludru Nag due to which he died on the spot. Ludru Nag killed her father-in-law, her father-in-law was grazing cows and bulls. After killing her father-in-law, Ludru Nag moved an arrow repeatedly on his corpse. She was shouting a lot, her father-in-law is being killed, someone please come and save him. In para 3 of her evidence, she has stated that her daughter Hemvati was sitting at her friend Padma Nag’s place. Their pig 9 had gone to Ludru Nag’s Jondra garden, so Ludru Nag killed her father-in-law by assaulting him with axe in front of her. 14. Hemvati (PW-2) has stated in para 2 of her evidence that the incident took place about 4 months ago. Her grandfather was grazing the cows on the day of the incident. Ludruram Nag was killing her grandfather’s pig, then her grandfather asked why he is assaulting pig, then Ludru came and assaulted her grandfather with axe first on the left side of the head and then on the back of the head, due to which her grandfather died on the spot. Ludruram Nag assaulted her grandfather with axe three-four times. 15. Nukesh Kashyap (PW-5) has stated in para 2 of his evidence that on the day of the incident, they were near the house. That day they saw Ludru Nag assaulting Durjan Kashyap with axe in the field. He saw him assaulting Durjan Kashyap. Durjan Kashyap was hit on the head and behind the back by Ludru Ram Nag with axe due to which he died. He himself stated that he first hit him on the head with axe and then behind the back. Seeing the weapon in Ludru Ram’s hand they ran away from there in fear. 16. Padma Nag (PW-10) has stated in para 2 of her evidence that the incident happened last year when her grandfather Ludru was grazing cows. When a pig entered the Jondra farm, her grandfather was chasing and assaulting pig, then Durjan came and said why he is killing his pig and while saying this, Durjan 10 assaulted her grandfather with stick twice, then her grandfather assaulted Durjan with axe and assaulted him three-four times, which resulted in the death of Durjan. 17. In criminal cases, the credibility of witnesses, particularly those who are close relatives of the deceased, is often scrutinized. However, being a relative does not automatically render a witness "interested" or biased. The term "interested" refers to witnesses who have a personal stake in the outcome, such as a desire for revenge or to falsely implicate the accused due to enmity or personal gain. A "related" witness, on the other hand, is someone who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, and their testimony should not be dismissed simply because of their relationship to the deceased. Courts must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of their statements rather than labelling them as untrustworthy. 18. The distinction between "interested" and "related" witnesses has been clarified in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, 1954 SCR 1453, where the Supreme Court emphasized that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent person. Therefore, in evaluating the evidence of a related witness, the court should focus on the consistency and credibility of their testimony. This approach ensures that the evidence is not discarded merely due to familial ties, but is instead assessed based on its inherent reliability and consistency with other 11 evidence in the case. 19. Thus, it is clear that the evidence of a “related witness” cannot be discarded only on the ground of relationship. On the contrary, why a “related witness” would spare the real culprit in order to falsely implicate some innocent person? There is a difference between “related witness” and “interested witness”. “Interested witness” is a witness who is vitally interested in conviction of a person due to previous enmity. The “Interested witness” has been defined by the Supreme Court in the matter of Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam, reported in (2019) 19 SCC 567 as under : “13. As regards the contention that all the eyewitnesses are close relatives of the deceased, it is by now well- settled that a related witness cannot be said to be an “interested” witness merely by virtue of being a relative of the victim. This Court has elucidated the difference between “interested” and “related” witnesses in a plethora of cases, stating that a witness may be called interested only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, which in the context of a criminal case would mean that the witness has a direct or indirect interest in seeing the accused punished due to prior enmity or other reasons, and thus has a motive to falsely implicate the accused (for instance, see State of Rajasthan v. Kalki; Amit v. State of U.P.; and Gangabhavani v. Rayapati Venkat Reddy). Recently, this difference was reiterated in Ganapathi v. State of T.N., in the following terms, by referring to the three-Judge Bench decision in State of Rajasthan v. Kalki: (Ganapathi case, SCC p. 555, para 14) 12 “14. “Related” is not equivalent to “interested”. A witness may be called “interested” only when he or she derives some benefit from the result of a litigation; in the decree in a civil case, or in seeing an accused person punished. A witness who is a natural one and is the only possible eyewitness in the circumstances of a case cannot be said to be “interested”.” 14. In criminal cases, it is often the case that the offence is witnessed by a close relative of the victim, whose presence on the scene of the offence would be natural. The evidence of such a witness cannot automatically be discarded by labelling the witness as interested. Indeed, one of the earliest statements with respect to interested witnesses in criminal cases was made by this Court in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab, wherein this Court observed: (AIR p. 366, para 26) “26. A witness is normally to be considered independent unless he or she springs from sources which are likely to be tainted and that usually means unless the witness has cause, such as enmity against the accused, to wish to implicate him falsely. Ordinarily a close relative would be the last to screen the real culprit and falsely implicate an innocent person.” 15. In case of a related witness, the Court may not treat his or her testimony as inherently tainted, and needs to ensure only that the evidence is inherently reliable, probable, cogent and consistent. We may refer to the observations of this Court in Jayabalan v. State (UT of Pondicherry): (SCC p. 213, para 23) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases 13 where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 20. Though the eyewitnesses who have been examined in the present case were closely related to the deceased, namely his daughter- in-law (PW-1) and granddaughter (PW-2), their testimonies are consistent with respect to the accused person being the assailant who inflicted wounds on the deceased. As is revealed from the sequence of events that transpired, one of the family members was subjected to an assault. It was thus quite natural for the other family members to rush on the spot to intervene. The presence of the family members on the spot and thus being eyewitness has been well established. In such circumstances, merely because the eyewitnesses are family members, their testimonies cannot be discarded solely on that ground. 21. Considering the statements of the eyewitnesses Smt.Sunita (PW-1), Hemvati (PW-2), Nukesh Kashyap (PW-5) and Padma Nag (PW-10), evidence of Dr.Kiran Patil (PW-13), her autopsy report (Ex.P-20), further considering the material available on 14 record and also considering the finding recorded by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 22. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 23. It is stated at the Bar that the the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by learned trial Court. 24. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. 25. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant 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/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu