1 2025:CGHC:47085-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1793 of 2019 • Kuhrami Deva S/o Bose Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Jabeli, Rimapara, Police Station Kunwakonda, District - South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus • State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kunwakonda, Civil And Revenue District - South Bastar Dantewada Chhattisgarh., District : Dantewada, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. C. R. Sahu, Advocate/Panel Lawyer appointed by Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee . For Respondent(s)/State : Ms. Sunita Sahu, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench RAGHVENDRA JAT Digitally signed by RAGHVENDRA JAT 2 Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. & Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Order on Board Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad 15/09/2025 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant herein calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.1.2007, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No. 146/2005, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code Imprisonment for life. 2. Brief facts of the case, is that, the complainant, Kumrami Bhima, resides with his father in the village of Jabeli, Rimapara, under the jurisdiction of Kunwakonda police station in the South Bastar district of Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. On the morning of May 24, 2005, at about 8:00 a.m., Kumrami Bhima left his house, and upon returning around 9:30 a.m., he discovered his father lying on the ground in a pool of blood, having suffered a fatal neck 3 injury caused by a sharp weapon. Acting upon the complaint lodged by Kumrami Bhima, the police registered a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which pertains to the offense of murder, initially against unknown individuals. During the course of the police investigation, based on the statements recorded and the memorandum prepared, the appellant was subsequently arrested in connection with the case. The complainant Kuhrami Bheema (PW-2) reported the matter to the police, merg intimation vide Ex.P/12 was registered. Thereafter FIR vide Ex.P/11 was also registered against the appellant- accused. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/07. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/1), Dr. B.D. Rai (PW-03) opined that the cause of death of the deceased was stated to be due to hemorrhagic shock and cardiorespiratory shock, and the nature of death was stated to be homicidal. Thereafter, appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/9 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/3. Weapon of offence i.e. Banda has been seized from the possession of the appellant vide Exs.P/4 & 5. 3. After completion of investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences before the jurisdictional Criminal Court, which was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for 4 hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses and exhibited 16 documents. Statement of the appellant was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that, even if the evidence on record is accepted in its entirety, the appellant’s criminal conduct does not extend beyond the ambit of Section 304-II of the Indian Penal Code. It is argued that the unfortunate incident arose out of a sudden quarrel between brothers, without any premeditated intention to cause death. He further submits 5 that the appellant is said to have inflicted only a single injury, which, though grievous, resulted in the deceased’s death unintentionally. He further submits that the appellant is aged about 45 years and appellant is in jail from date of arrest and if he will take long time in jail, he has to face adversely affected for his livelihood of his family, and considering the significant delay in the hearing of the appeal. Therefore, considering the aforesaid infirmities, it must be held that the prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, learned counsel prays to allow the appeal and set aside the impugned judgment. 7. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State submits that the learned Trial Court, after due and careful consideration of the evidence, has already convicted the appellant and imposed the sentence of life imprisonment for the grave offence committed under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Given the heinous nature of the crime, which involved a deliberate and fatal assault with a deadly weapon ('Banda') resulting in the immediate death of the deceased. The prosecution’s case stands firmly established through unimpeachable eye-witness testimony, notably from Kuhrami Gangi (PW-1), who categorically identified the appellant as the assailant causing fatal injuries, a fact further substantiated by the postmortem report (Ex.P/1) and the seizure 6 of the weapon (Ex.P/4) based on the appellant’s own recorded memorandum statement (Ex.P/3). The Trial Court’s judgment meticulously appreciates and weighs the evidences adduced, concluding beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant is guilty of the offence charged. Considering the seriousness and the impact of such offences on society. Therefore, the trial Court has correctly convicted the appellant for the offence mentioned hereinabove, as such, the 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 question for consideration is as to whether the death of deceased Kuhrami Deva was homicidal in nature, which has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P/1), proved by Dr. B.D. Rai (PW-3), in which cause of death of the deceased was stated to be due to hemorrhagic shock and cardiorespiratory shock, and the nature of death was stated to be homicidal, which in our considered opinion is the correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 7 10. Kuhrami Gangi (PW-1) is the eye witness who categorically stated that the accused, Kuhrami Deva, assaulted the deceased on the neck with a 'Banda', causing instantaneous death. This direct evidence forms the core of the prosecution's allegations, providing a clear account of the events and implicating the appellant, namely, Kuhrami Deva in the crime. 11. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the finding of the trial court is correct and warrant no interference. The eyewitness, Kuhrami Gangi (PW-1), clearly testified that the accused, Kuhrami Deva, assaulted the deceased on the neck with a sharp-edged iron rod (‘Banda’), causing instantaneous death. This testimony is further supported by the expert evidence of B.D. Rai (PW-3), who described the seized iron rod as approximately 11 inches long and 16 inches wide with a hole on one edge, and opined that it was possible the rod caused the fatal injuries. Although he could not definitively confirm whether the blood stains on the pot, towel, and soil were human, the rod was sent for chemical examination in Raipur, and the report bearing his signature corroborates the evidence. Collectively, these testimonies and forensic findings firmly establish that the accused inflicted the fatal injury with the iron rod, thereby justifying the trial court’s conclusion, which does not merit interference. 8 12. Learned trial Court also relied upon the statement of the witnesses and found that accused person is guilty of Section 302 of IPC and convicted the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. This finding is based on oral and documentary evidence, therefore, this Court find no error. The appeal being devoid of merits is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13. As per the report received from Secretary, Chhattisgarh High Court Legal Services Committee, Bilaspur, the appellant has been released on 15.08.2020 by the Government of Chhattisgarh after granting remission of the remaining part of the sentence under the powers conferred by subsection (1) of Section 432 of the Criminal Procedure Code, therefore no further order for his arrest, etc. is required. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Raghu Jat