Page No.1 of 9 IN CRA-1017-2019 2025:CGHC:55817-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Criminal Appeal No. 1017 of 2019 [Arising out of judgment dated 03.05.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Anand Bhaina & Buti Ram) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG)] Anand Bhaina @ Buti Ram S/o Suraj Bhaina Aged About 38 Years R/o Village- Chhatouna, Police Station- Kota, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant (On Bail) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate- Bilaspur, District- Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh., District : Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Afroz Khan, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (17.11.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J (1) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 9 IN CRA-1017-2019 sentence dated 03.05.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No.92 of 2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Anand Bhaina & Buti Ram) by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- and, in default of payment of fine, sentenced to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. (2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that in the intervening night of 26-27/04/2018, between 08:00 PM to 06:00 AM, at Village Chhatauna, Baindhapara, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Kota, District Bilaspur (CG), the accused-appellant herein with the intent to kill Mayaram (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) assaulted him by means of wooden stick and stone, due to which he suffered grievous injuries and died and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offence. (3) It is further case of the prosecution that when the matter was reported to the police by Rambai (PW-01) [wife of the deceased]), dehati merg intimation (Ex.P/01) and dehati nalsi (Ex.P/02) were registered and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/05 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/06. Nazari Naksha and panchnama were also prepared vide Ex.P/09 & Ex.P/10 respectively. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem Page No.3 of 9 IN CRA-1017-2019 examination, which was conducted by Dr. DP Dhruv (PW-15) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/23), cause of death of the deceased has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to injury on vital organ i.e. brain and nature of death is homicidal. Further, merg intimation and FIR were also registered vide Ex.P/11 & Ex.P/12 respectively. The appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/18 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/03 and, pursuant to which, weapon of the offence i.e. bamboo stick has been alongwith one full-pant/jeans seized vide Ex.P/04. From the place of incident, plain soil, blood-stained soil and one stone were seized vide Ex.P/07. The said seized articles were sent for chemical examination and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/25), it has been opined stains of human blood were found on the bambook stick and full-pant/jeans seized from the appellant as also on the stone seized from the spot. After statements of witnesses were recorded and due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. (4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 16 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents, whereas the appellant- accused in support of his defence, though not examined any witness, Page No.4 of 9 IN CRA-1017-2019 but exhibited 05 documents. (5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (6) Mr. Vineet Kumar Pandey, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the appellant has been convicted on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There is no legally admissible evidence available against the appellant to hold him guilt for the offence. He vehemently argued that Rambai (PW- 01) is not an eye-witness, as she nowhere states specifically that she has seen the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased. Though, the appellant and the deceased were only lastly seen together, but there is considerable time gape between the time when they were lastly seen together and recovery of dead-body of the deceased. Moreover, so far as recovery of blood stained weapon from the appellant is concerned, only on that count alone he could not have been convicted by the learned trial Court in absence of any other Page No.5 of 9 IN CRA-1017-2019 connecting link or valid piece of evidence more particularly when it is settled legal position that sole recovery of blood stained article cannot form basis for recording conviction of the accused that too for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. As such, the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and, therefore, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is liable to be acquitted of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt. (7) 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. In view of the statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. (8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. (9) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/23), wherein it has been opined that death Page No.6 of 9 IN CRA-1017-2019 of the deceased has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to injury on vital organ i.e. brain and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. DP Dhruv (PW-15). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/23) and the statement of Dr. DP Dhruv (PW-15), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion 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. We hereby affirm the said finding. (10) Now, the next question would be whether the accused- appellant herein is the author of the crime in question or not? (11) In the case at hand, the first piece of evidence that has been relied upon by the learned trial Court is that Rambai (PW-01) [wife of the deceased] has seen the appellant and the deceased together lastly at about 8 PM on the date of incident and, thereafter, the dead-body of the deceased was found in the morning at about 06 AM by Durjan Agariya (PW-03) (father of the deceased). However, a careful perusal of the statement of Rambai (PW-01) would show that on the date of incident, at about 8 PM, the appellant came into their house and asked Rambai (PW-01) to cook food (chicken), to which, she refused and, thereafter, the appellant started abusing and left the house. It is not the case of the prosecution that Rambai (PW-01) Page No.7 of 9 IN CRA-1017-2019 has seen the appellant and the deceased together at any point of time till the recovery of the dead-body of the deceased. Even otherwise, in dehati nalsi (Ex.P/02) lodged by Rambai (PW-01), she has only stated that she is apprehending that the appellant must have caused murder of his husband (deceased). As such, it is not clear that Rambai (PW-01) has lastly seen the appellant and the deceased together. Furthermore, Rambai (PW-01) has projected herself as an eye-witness during the course of trial. In Para-02 of her statement she has stated that the appellant has assaulted her husband (deceased) on road by means of wooden stick, however, when she was confronted with her statement recorded under Section 161 of CrPC (Ex.D/01), she stated that she has informed the police that the appellant surrounded the deceased and assaulted him by means of wooden stick, but if said fact is missing in her statement recorded vide Ex.D/01, she could not tell the reason. (12) Similarly, Investigating Officer, AK Sharma (PW-09) was also confronted with the statement of Rambai recorded vide Ex.D/01 and also with regard to the merg intimation, whereby he has clearly stated that there is no statement made by Rambai (PW-01) that she has seen the appellant causing murder of the deceased. Similarly, in Para-18 he has also stated that Rambai (PW-01) did not inform him that she has seen that the appellant has surrounded the deceased and assaulted him by means of wooden stick. Even in the FIR (Ex.P/12), which was lodged at the instance of Rambai (PW-01), it is Page No.8 of 9 IN CRA-1017-2019 no where stated that she has seen the incident of appellant chasing the deceased and, thereby committing his murder. As such, from the above evidence available on record it quite clear that Rambai (PW- 01) has only stated that on the date of incident at about 08:00 PM the appellant came into her house and asked her to cook chicken, to which she refused and, thereafter, the appellant started abusing and left the house, but it could not be proved that it is the appellant who has chased the deceased, encircled him and caused his murder by assaulting him via wooden stick. As such, neither the theory of last seen together by Rambai (PW-01) is established nor Rambai (PW-01) can be treated to be an eye-witness to the incident of appellant assaulting the deceased. Therefore, the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in relying upon the aforesaid piece of evidence in order to hold the appellant guilt for the offence. It is held accordingly. (13) Now, the next piece of evidence that has been relied upon by the learned trial Court is that pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded vide Ex.P/03, weapon of the offence i.e. bamboo stick alongwith one full-pant/jeans have been seized vide Ex.P/04, in which, as per FSL report (Ex.P/25) stains of human blood were found. However, The Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Nayka v. State of Chhattisgarh 1 by relying upon its earlier decision rendered in the matter of Mustkeen @ Sirajudeen v. 1 2024 SCC Online SC 67 Page No.9 of 9 IN CRA-1017-2019 State of Rajasthan 2 has held that sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained article cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated with other piece of incriminating circumstances. Consequently, the recovery of aforesaid article is also of no help to the prosecution. We hereby hold accordingly. (14) In view of aforesaid discussion, the conviction and sentence of the appellant for offences punishable under Section 302 of IPC, as imposed upon him by the learned trial Court, is liable to be and is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charge on the basis of benefit of doubt. Since the appellant is already on bail, he need not to surrender. However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437A of the CrPC. (15) Consequently, this criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. (16) Let a certified copy of this order alongwith original record be transmitted to the trial Court for necessary information and action, if any. sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge s@if 2 (2011) 11 SCC 724