1 / 16 2025:CGHC:14765 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2128 of 2023 Roshan Chhedaiya S/o Late Shyam Lal Chhedaiya Aged About 21 Years R/o Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Near Jaitkhamb, Police Station- Civil Lines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through- Police Station- Civil Lines, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Amit Buxy, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA CRA No. 91 of 2024 Mukesh Yadav S/o Videsh Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Near Jait Khambh, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Civil Line, Raipur (C.G.) --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA CRA No. 2370 of 2023 1 - Naresh Yadav @ Monu S/o Suraj Yadav Aged About 20 Years 2 - Sanjay Yadav S/o Suraj Yadav Aged About 21 Years Both are R/o Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Jaitkham Police Station Civil Line, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Civil Line, Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2025.05.16 11:47:22 +0530 2 / 16 For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA CRA No. 2378 of 2023 1 - Ghanshyam Sahu S/o Shri Khemchand Sahu Aged About 23 Years 2 - Govind Sahu S/o Khemchand Sahu Aged About 20 Years Both are R/o Dr. Rajendra Nagar, Near Jaitkham, Police Station-Civil Line, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station, Civil Line, Raipur, District - Raipur, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For State : Ms. Sunita Manikpuri, Dy. GA (Hon’ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma) Order on Board 27/03/2025 1. All these appeals are being heard together, as the common thread passes through the issue. 2. The present appeals are preferred against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06/10/2023 passed in S.T. No.258/2019 by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, C.G. 3. CRA No.2128 of 2023 has been preferred by Roshan Chhedaiya (A/2) and he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 147 of I.P.C. 1 Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 Days additional rigorous imprisonment. 3 / 16 Under Section 323/149 of I.P.C. 6 Months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 Days additional rigorous imprisonment. Under Section 304 (Part-II)/149 of I.P.C. 10 Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine 15 days additional rigorous imprisonment All sentences to run concurrently. 4. CRA No.2370 of 2023 has been preferred by Naresh Yadav @ Monu (A/5) & Sanjay Yadav (A/6). These accused persons have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 147 of I.P.C. One Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 Days additional rigorous imprisonment (to both the appellants) Under Section 323/149 of I.P.C. Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.100-100/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 Days additional rigorous imprisonment (to both the appellants) Under Section 304 (Part-II)/149 of I.P.C. Ten Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of 4 / 16 Rs.500-500/-, in default of payment of fine 15 days additional rigorous imprisonment (to both the appellants) All sentences to run concurrently. 5. CRA No.2378 of 2023 has been preferred by Ghanshyam Sahu (A/3) & Govind Sahu (A/4). They have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 147 of I.P.C. One Year Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.100-100/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 Days additional rigorous imprisonment (to both the appellants) Under Section 323/149 of I.P.C. Six Months Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.100-100/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 Days additional rigorous imprisonment (to both the appellants) Under Section 304 (Part-II)/149 of I.P.C. Ten Years Rigorous Imprisonment and fine of Rs.500-500/-, in default of payment of fine 15 days additional rigorous 5 / 16 imprisonment (to both the appellants) All sentences to run concurrently. 6. 6. CRA No.91 of 2024 has been preferred by Mukesh Yadav (A/1) and he has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 304(Part-II)/149 of I.P.C. R.I. for 10 Years and fine of Rs.500/- Under Section 323/149 of I.P.C. R.I. for 6 months and fine of Rs.100/- Under Section 147 of I.P.C. R.I. for 01 Year and fine of Rs.100/- Under Section 25 (1-B)(B) Arms Act R.I. for 02 Years and fine of Rs.100/- Under Section 27 of the Arms Act R.I. for 03 Years and fine of Rs.100/- In default of payment of fine amount of each offence, further 15-15 days R.I. All sentences to run concurrently. 7. As per the prosecution case, the complainant, father of the deceased namely Abdul Salim Qureshi (PW-7) on 15/09/2019 lodged a report (Ex. P/22) at Police Station, Civil Line, Raipur, against an unknown person alleging therein that his adopted son Sohail Qureshi alias Chota Monu on the date of incident on 14/09/2019 at around 11.00 PM had gone along with his friend Vicky alias Azhar Khan on his 6 / 16 motorcycle. At around 12 o’clock in the night he received a call from one Vicky that some quarrel has taken place with the residents of the locality in Rajendra Nagar in a Lord Ganesh Immersion Procession (Ganesh Visarjan Julus) and Sohail has been stabbed with a knife and he is been taken and admitted to Ambedkar Hospital, Raipur. On receiving such phone call, the complainant reached there and found that Sohail Qureshi alias Chota Monu has died. 8. Thereafter, a Merg 30/19 was registered. The dead body of the deceased was sent for Postmortem and a report was obtained which opined that the nature of death was homicidal. 9. After investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Raipur and the matter was committed to the Sessions Judge for trial. In the trial all the accused persons abjured their guilt. 10. On behalf of the prosecution, as many as 12 witnesses were examined and 39 documents were exhibited. The learned trial Court after evaluating the evidence, convicted and sentenced the accused persons as aforementioned. Hence this appeal. 11. Mr. Amit Buxy, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA No.2128 of 2023 would submit that the appellant Roshan Chhedaiya (A/2) has been falsely implicated and the statement of the witnesses Abdul Salim Qureshi (PW-7), Rahul Upadhyay (PW-8) & Sheikh Azhar alias Vicky (PW-9) are hearsay and interested witnesses, 7 / 16 therefore, their evidence could not have been relied upon. He would next contend that even the witnesses Rahul Upadhyay (PW-8) & Sheikh Azhar alias Vicky (PW-9) and the Investigating Officer Sushanto Banarjee (PW-11) have not deposed anything against the present appellant. He would next contend that no seizure has been made from the present appellant. 12. He would next contend that in the Lord Ganesh Idol Immersion Procession there were around 100 to 150 people were present and the appellant was also amongst them and he has been implicated only on the basis that he was a member of Mahakal Ganesh Utsav Samiti, which was carrying out the immersion procession. He would place reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’be Supreme Court in the matter of Vijay Pandurang Thakre and Others Vs. State of Maharashtra {(2017) 4 SCC 377} and also judgment rendered by this Court in the matter of Yudhistthir Painkra & Ors. Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {CRA No.1103 of 2013, decided on 09/11/2022} and would next contend that this appellant was not at all involved in the crime in question, therefore, the conviction of the appellant namely Roshan Chhediya (A/2) is bad in law, therefore, the appellant may be acquitted from the charges leveled against him. 13. Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellants Naresh Yadav @ Monu (A/5); Sanjay Yadav (A/6); Ghanshyam Sahu (A/3); Govind Sahu (A/4); and Mukesh Yadav (A/1) and would make the following submissions as under:- 8 / 16 Submission on behalf of appellants Naresh Yadav @ Monu (A/5); Sanjay Yadav (A/6); Ghanshyam Sahu (A/3); Govind Sahu (A/4): 14. Learned trial Court has convicted the appellants on the basis of evidence of alleged eye witness Sheikh Azahar @ Vicky (P.W.-9), who has specifically deposed that the accused Mukesh Yadav assaulted the deceased Monu @ Sohel with the help of knife and thereafter due to fear, this witness fled away and when he called one Rahul over the phone, he came to know that the deceased Monu @ Sohel has been taken to Mekahara Hospital. He would next contend that the contradictions and omissions are also there in the evidence of Sheikh Azahar @ Vicky (P.W.-9). He would next contend that the TIP is also doubtful. He would next contend that the independent witnesses of memorandum and seizure namely Shabaj Khan PW-3 and Syed Sohel PW-12 have not supported the case of prosecution and they turned hostile. He would next contend that these appellants were not the members of the unlawful assembly and they have not inflicted any injury to the deceased. Submission on behalf of appellant Mukesh Yadav (A/1): 15. There is no eyewitness to the incident and no any witnesses supported to the committed murder of Sohel Qureshi @ Chota Monu and from perusal of the F.I.R. it is clear that the complainant has not mentioned the name of the applicant in the F.I.R. He would next contend that the complainant has stated in the FIR that some unknown person from Rajendra Nagar had stabbed his son. He 9 / 16 would next contend that Abdul Rehman Kuraishi (P.W.-1), who has clearly stated in Para 3 that he did not give any written complaint to the police Station but in the FIR (Ex-22) the type of information is mentioned as "Written". He would next contend that as per the persecution there is only one eye witness Sheikh Azahar @ Vicky (P.W.-9) was present at the scene of the incident and there is contradiction in his statement because Sheikh Azahar @ Vicky (P.W.-9) earlier in his statement in Para 13 has stated that the appellant brought the knife from himself and Stabbed deceased stomach and subsequently he stated in Para 14 that he ran away from there after seeing the fight taking place and later on someone told him on phone call that deceased had been stabbed in the stomach. He would lastly contend that the trial Court has convicted the appellant Mukesh Yadav (A/1) only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, therefore, the appeal on behalf of appellant Mukesh Yadav (A/1) may kindly be allowed and he may be acquitted of the charges leveled against him. 16. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the documents and evidence with utmost circumspection. 17. Perusal of the statement of Rahul Upadhyay (PW-08) would show that he has stated that deceased Sohail Qureshi was his friend. On the date of the incident, he had gone on a scooter to see the Ganesha tableau along with his friend deceased Sohail Qureshi alias Chhota Monu and injured Vicky. Since Chhota Monu was already 10 / 16 acquainted with the Dhumal band members in the said tableau in Rajendra Nagar, the band members called him and talked to him. At the said place, he saw that the people present there were beating Vicky and blood was coming out of Chhota Monu's mouth. The said witness has stated that he saw the accused Mukesh and Naresh beating the deceased with their hands and fists. After which he ran away from there and called Vicky and reached him, after which he came to know about Chhota Monu's murder. He and Vicky had gone to Mekahara Hospital to see the deceased. From where Vicky's maternal uncle brought him and Vicky to Civil Line Police Station. The said witness has stated that he later heard about Monu alias Sohail being murdered by stabbing. On being asked leading questions by the prosecution, the said witness has clarified in paragraph 8 that he himself had seen accused Mukesh and Naresh fighting. In paragraph 10, the said witness has accepted the suggestion that on calling Vicky, Vicky had told him that Chhota Monu was beaten up at the Ganesh immersion ceremony and accused Mukesh Yadav snatched his knife and stabbed him on his stomach. On being suggested by the defence, the said witness has accepted that on receiving a call from his sister, he went away from there and went into the lane while talking to his sister, till he left, there was no fight or quarrel in the Ganesh immersion procession. However, in para 26 he clearly rejected the suggestion that he did not see any event taking place. This witness has accepted the suggestion in para 25 that he does not know the names of the people 11 / 16 present in the Ganesh Visarjan procession. He has also accepted that he does not know the names of the accused who are present in the court, the police did not ask him to identify the accused. In this regard, the said witness has himself clarified that on the incident date 14/09/2019, the accused were sitting with him in the police station, where the police had asked whom he knew. 18. Sheikh Azhar alias Vicky (PW 9) is another eyewitness of the incident. Said witness has stated that he had gone to see the Ganesh Visarjan tableau along with deceased Chhota Monu alias Sohail Qureshi and Rahul Upadhyay. Monu went to the musicians as he knew them. At the same time, Chhota Monu started fighting with the accused. Accused Mukesh Yadav stabbed Chhota Monu near his stomach with a knife. He himself was standing at the same place. When accused Sanjay Yadav came towards him with a knife, he ran away from there and went near Shyam Nagar. When he called Rahul, he came to know that Chhota Monu has been taken to Mekara Hospital. Said witness has accepted the suggestion given by the prosecution that Mukesh had stabbed Monu in his stomach due to which blood was flowing. He has also accepted that he hid in Rajendra Nagar lane by running away from the people who were attacking him. In clause 10, he has accepted that accused Mukesh Yadav had stabbed Chhota Monu in his stomach, due to which he was bleeding. 19. Rahul Upadhyay (PW-8) in his statement recorded under Section 12 / 16 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex.D/2) has stated that on 14.09.19 at 09.15 pm Azhar alias Vicky and Chota Manu alias Sohale Qureshi came to his milk cart and after sitting for some time, all three sat on Azhar alias Vicky's scooty no. TG 04/MR/1381 and went to Azhar's house in Kashiram Nagar. He took off Azhar's clothes and wore them and all three came towards Rajendra Nagar on the scooty. There, the Ganesh immersion band was playing near the Ravana effigy. There was a huge crowd of people. Azhar parked his scooty in front of the Ravana effigy. All three got down and were standing. At around 09.30 pm Monu went to the band party and asked to play the band and started arguing saying we will dance. At the same time, he got a call from his sister Aarti Upadhyay. Due to the music being played at a high volume, he entered in a street while talking and started talking. When he returned, he saw that the people in the crowd were beating Chota Monu alias Sohail and Vicky. Then he ran away from the street from behind Budhi Mata Mandir and came back towards Naya Bridge. Later, hecame to know that someone from among the people involved in Ganesh Visarjan had stabbed Monu in the stomach. He was taken to the hospital where he died. 20. Likewise Sheikh Azhar alias Vicky (PW 9) in his statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. (Ex. P/24) has stated that on 14.09.19 at 9.30 pm, Rahul Upadhyay called from his mobile and said that he had gone to Rajnandgaon with vegetables in a vehicle and has returned to Raipur from there and staying in City Mall and asked him to come to City Mall with his scooter to pick, on which this 13 / 16 witness asked his friend Sohail Qureshi alias Chota Monu to go to City Mall to pick up Rahul and he went with him from his house at about 10.15 pm with his scooter no. CG 04 MR 1381. This witness further stated that on the way, Roshan Chhidaiya, Sanjay Yadav, Monu Yadav, Govind Sahu, Ghanshyam Sahu, Vikas Sahu, Malik Das, Om Yadav alias Amu, Krishna Krishna Sahu, Santu Nishad, Mahesh Yadav, Sunny Chhidaiya of Rajendra Nagar were going to immerse Ganesha near Ravana's effigy, dancing and singing to the Dhumal Baja. It was around 11 o'clock at that time, all three of them had parked the scooter on the side and he was sitting in his motorcycle with Monu going for Ganesh immersion. He had gone to the procession's platform and when Rahul Upadhyaya got a call on his mobile, he came to another place to talk to him. When this witness saw that some people were assaulting with hands and fists to Chota Monu on seeing this, he went to intervene but the people in the procession caught hold of him too and took him some distance away and beat him with their hands and fists and tore his clothes. In the dispute, Chhota Monu took out the knife he was carrying and started using it in the crowd, due to which one person got injured. Due to which the people in the procession got even more agitated and beat Chota Monu and threw him on the ground. Mukesh Yadav snatched the knife from Monu's hand and stabbed him in the stomach near the navel, injuring him and blood started flowing. Somehow he got free from the person who was attacking him and ran to Rajendra Nagar and hid in the lane and called his friend Asfar 14 / 16 Qureshi who brought a motorcycle and he was going to his house in Kashiram Nagar via Katora Talab. When he reached near Udyog Bhawan, he got a call from Babar Mama and he told him that Chota Monu has been stabbed in the stomach and he has been brought to Ambedkar Hospital by Policeman Bhola Saheb who is calling him. Then I went to Ambedkar Hospital by auto with Sheikh Aslam alias Assu where he came to know that Monu has been seriously injured due to the blows on his stomach. Chota Monu has been stabbed in the stomach by Mukesh Yadav. Due to which he died. 21. From perusal of the statement it is apparent that the deceased Chota Monu was keeping a knife with him and beat one person then Mukesh Yadav snatched the said knife and during that process the knife was stabbed in the stomach of the deceased. Therefore, there is no premeditation to commit murder whereas the deceased was having knife and he beaten one person then Mukesh intervened, therefore, it is crystal clear that the other persons were not having any knowledge as the knife was in possession of the deceased, therefore, there was no any intention or premeditation on the part of the co-accued persons to kill the deceased. As such, the other accused persons namely Roshan Chhedaiya (A/2), Ghanshyam Sahu (A/3), Govind Sahu (A/4), Naresh Yadav @ Monu (A/5) and Sanjay Yadav (A/6) against whom the offence punishable under Section 147 & 34 IPC would not be made out. Conclusion:- 15 / 16 22. The appeal on behalf of appellants Roshan Chhedaiya (A/2) CRA No. 2128 of 2023; and the appeal on behalf of appellants Ghanshyam Sahu (A/3) & Govind Sahu (A/4) CRA No.2378 of 2023 are allowed. These appellants are acquitted of the charges leveled against them. Appellants Roshan Chhedaiya (A/2), Ghanshyam Sahu (A/3) & Govind Sahu (A/4) are reported to be in jail, they be set at liberty forthwith if not required to be detained in any other case. 23. So far as the appellants Naresh Yadav @ Monu (A/5) & Sanjay Yadav (A/6) CRA No.2370 of 2023 are concerned there is no active participation of these appellants, therefore, they are acquitted from the charges leveled under Section 147 IPC and under Section 304 Part-2/149 of IPC but they are convicted under Section 323/34 IPC and sentenced to the period already undergone by them. CRA No.2370 of 2023 is partly allowed. 24. So far as the appellant Mukesh Yadav (A/1) in CRA No.91 of 2024 is concerned he is acquitted from the charges for the offence punishable under Sections 323/149 & 147 IPC and Sections 25 (1-B) (B) & Section 27 of the Arms Act. However, his conviction is maintained under Section 304 Part-II/149 IPC and his sentenced is reduced to R.I. for 04 Years instead of R.I. for 10 Years. The sentence of fine amount shall remain intact. In the result, the CRA No.91 of 2024 is allowed in part to the extent indicated herein- above. 16 / 16 25. The appellant Mukesh Yadav (A/1) is reported to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as modified above. 26. Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance and also send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his 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, if so advised, with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 27. The trial Court record (TCR) along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) JUDGE ashu