1 CRA No.320 of 2025 2025:CGHC:40078-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 320 of 2025 1 - Arjun Chauhan S/o Rathoram Chauhan Aged About 35 Years R/o Bhakurra, P.S. Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Lailunga, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause title taken from CIS) For Appellant : Shri Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri S.S. Baghel, Dy. Govt. Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 11.08.2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 415 (2) of B.N.S.S. 2023 is directed against the SHOAIB ANWAR Digitally signed by SHOAIB ANWAR Date: 2025.08.14 12:02:03 +0530 2 CRA No.320 of 2025 impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13.12.2024 (Annexure P/1) , passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 32/2018, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Imprisonment for Life & fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default, additional R.I. for 01 months. 2. (a) The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 20.07.2017 at about 21:00 hours, the complainant Sufal Ram (PW1) lodged an information at Police Station Lailunga stating that his father-in-law had three brothers, and the land belonging to them had been divided among them. At the time of his father- in-law’s death, as there was no male heir, the said land was given to Arjun (appellant) for the purpose of performing the mundan ceremony. Arjun cultivated the land and earned income therefrom for about four to five years. Thereafter, the wife of the complainant namely; Bhushkavati (since deceased), reclaimed possession of the said land. Disputes had earlier 3 CRA No.320 of 2025 arisen between the parties in relation to this matter. (b) It was alleged that due to this animosity, on 20.07.2017 at about 17:00 hours, accused Arjun Chauhan assaulted Bhushkavati with the intention to kill her. He allegedly struck her on the head with a spade, causing her to fall on the ground, and thereafter hit her twice on the back with the handle of the spade. It was further stated that the accused attempted to assault her again, but Banmali Sidar intervened, and Chhabilo Yadav snatched the spade from the accused and threw it away. Subsequently, Santram Chauhan and other villagers apprehended the accused and tied him with a rope. 3. On the basis of information, merg was registered by the police vide (Ex.P/22,) spot map was prepared vide (Ex.P-2) and FIR was registered vide Ex. P/19. After due investigation, police arrested the appellant vide (Ex.P-23). On the basis of memorandum (Ex.P-9), seizure of pickaxe (Gaiti), blood stained soil and clothes was seized and sent for chemical examination to FSL. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/14), Dr. S. Lakda (PW-05) opined that the death of the 4 CRA No.320 of 2025 deceased was due to excessive bleeding caused by injury on the head by some sharp and heavy object and the nature of death is homicidal. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 4. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 08 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents and FSL report as P/27. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court committed grave error by convicting the 5 CRA No.320 of 2025 appellant solely on the basis of evidence of witnesses who claimed to be eye witness of the case, which have not been duly proved by the prosecution. The prosecution had no evidence to bring home the charges against the present appellant and learned Court committed grave error by convicting the appellant. He further submits that the learned trial Court committed grave error by shifting the onus on appellant to prove his innocence despite the fact that it was duty of the prosecution to prove the charges leveled against the appellant which prosecution has failed to do so. He lastly argued that the evidence of eyewitness has major omission and conjectures and despite that the learned trial Court relied upon the same to convict the appellant and committed grave error of law. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 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. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the 6 CRA No.320 of 2025 aforesaid offence, 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, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P-14) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. S. Lakda (PW-05). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P-14) and the statement of Dr. S. Lakda (PW-05) opined that the death of the deceased was due to excessive bleeding caused by injury on the head by some sharp and heavy object and the nature of death is homicidal, 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. 7 CRA No.320 of 2025 Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 10. Now the next question would be whether the accused- appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ? 11.PW-1, Sufal Ram Chauhan, Husband of deceased, eye witness in the present case, stated in his examination in chief that he knew the accused, Arjun Chauhan, who is the cousin of the deceased. He further stated that on 20.07.2017, at about 16:45 hours, near the house of Banmali, the accused chased his wife and assaulted her with a spade, causing her death. He, along with Banmali and Santram, witnessed the assault. It was also stated that at that time, the accused chased him with the intention to kill him, but the villagers intervened and saved him. He further stated that his wife was lying on the village street in a blood-soaked condition. Upon receiving information about the incident from the Sarpanch of Lailunga, the police arrived and admitted his wife at Lailunga Hospital for treatment. Thereafter, she was referred to Raigarh for further treatment. However, after some time, the doctor informed that the deceased had succumbed to her injuries. He added that the deceased had sustained a severe head 8 CRA No.320 of 2025 injury caused by the accused striking her with the pointed end of a pickaxe, which had penetrated her head, and that the accused had also inflicted an injury on her chest with the same weapon. 12. PW-2, Santram Chauhan, another eye witness in the present case stated that he knew the accused, Arjun Chauhan, as well as the deceased, Bhushkavati. He further stated that the accused was the cousin of the deceased. The incident had occurred about two years back. On the date of the incident, at about 17:00 hours, he was present in front of the house of a villager named Banmali. At that time, he saw the accused strike the deceased on the head with a spade, causing her to sustain a severe head injury, which resulted in profuse bleeding. The deceased was taken to Raigarh for treatment, where she succumbed to her injuries during the course of treatment on the same day. 13. PW3 Banmali Sidar, eye witness in the present case, stated in his examination in chief that he knew the accused, Arjun Chauhan, as well as the deceased, Bhushkavati, who was the cousin of the accused. He further stated that the incident had 9 CRA No.320 of 2025 occurred about one or two years earlier. On the date of the incident, at about 17:00 hours, he was tying a cow at his house at that time his son, Ghonoram, entered in a hurry and on being asked what had happened, his son informed him that the accused was moving about while holding a pickaxe in his hand. Upon receiving this information, he came out of his house and saw the accused holding a pickaxe-like object. He witnessed while the accused attacked on the head of the deceased with the said object, causing her to sustain a severe head injury, which resulted in heavy bleeding. The deceased was taken to Raigarh for treatment, where she succumbed to her injuries during the course of treatment on the same day. 14. Dr. Gulshan Sidar (PW-7) stated that on 20.07.2017 at about 21:15 hours, he examined the injured Bhushkavati Chauhan, wife of Sufal Ram Chauhan, at the Community Health Centre, Lailunga. Referring to and confirming his examination report (Ex. P/16), he stated that, upon examination, he found a crushed and lacerated wound on the left frontal region of the head, measuring 15 × 5 × 3 cm and 7 × 3 × 3 cm, extending deep up to the bone, with active bleeding. In his opinion, the 10 CRA No.320 of 2025 injuries were likely caused by a hard and blunt object. He further stated that the nature of the injuries appeared to be serious, had been inflicted approximately six hours prior to the examination, and that the patient was in a moribund (dying) condition at the time. 15. Dr. S. Lakra (PW-5) stated that on external examination, the body was found to be in a state of complete rigor mortis. Two assault-related injuries were present, each bearing approximately five stitches. On removal of the scalp, tearing of the scalp muscles was noted, and percussion produced a sound suggestive of a skull fracture. Pupils were swollen with bluish discolouration. The mouth was half open, lips slightly parted exposing the upper teeth. Dried foamy blood was present over the upper lips and cheeks. Genital organs were fully developed and opined that the death of the deceased was due to excessive bleeding caused by injury on the head by some sharp and heavy object and the nature of death is homicidal. As per FSL Report, (Ex. P/27) it is found that the blood stains were found on the clothes of the deceased and soil. The cumulative effect of the evidence of eyewitnesses, 11 CRA No.320 of 2025 medical evidence, and the recovery proceedings clearly indicate that the accused had a motive to kill the deceased, stemming from a land dispute. 16. A careful perusal of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court reveals that the prosecution has successfully established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature; and the appellant murdered the deceased by assaulting her with Pickaxe (Gaiti). 17. Upon consideration of the statements of prosecution witnesses, the findings of the learned trial Court, and in the absence of any explanation by the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and particularly the consistent and credible testimonies of the eyewitnesses Sufal Ram Chauhan (PW-1), Santram Chauhan (PW-2) and Banmali Sidar (PW-3) who categorically deposed that the appellant assaulted the deceased with pickaxe, it is evident that the appellant acted with a clear intention to cause death. The act of striking the deceased with Pickaxe reflects a deliberate and conscious intention to kill. In view of this, and in the absence of any credible defence from the appellant, we are of the considered 12 CRA No.320 of 2025 opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC. We find no illegality or perversity in the findings so recorded. we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question. 18. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 19. The appellant is stated to be in jail and he shall serve out the remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence 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. 13 CRA No.320 of 2025 20. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. SD/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice shoaib/Gowri