1 CRA No.292/2021 2025:CGHC:51316-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 292 of 2021 Pandru Ram Kawasi S/o Shri Jogaram Kawas Aged About 33 Years Occupation Agriculturist Resident Of Village Kapanar Dharapara, Chouki Pakhnar Police Station Darbha, District Bastar, Jagdalpur Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station House Chowki Pakhnar, Police Station Darbha, District Bastar Chhattisgarh., District : Bastar(Jagdalpur), Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Jain, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 15.10.2025 Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04-02-2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar, Place Jagdalpur, C.G. in Sessions Case No.52/2019 whereby learned Court below convicted and AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.10.16 10:39:48 +0530 2 CRA No.292/2021 sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 302 of IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of fine, R.I. for three months. 1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant- Dhorko Kawasi PW-1, wife of Budhram Kawasi (deceased), resident of Dharapara, lodged a report at Pakhnar police station alleging therein that on 16.7.2019, she went to the weekly market at Pakhnar along with her husband Budhram Kawasi. After returning from the market, both of them consumed liquor and got intoxicated. Due to intoxication, she went to sleep at the house of her relative-Somdi in Kapanar Schoolpara. Her husband Budhram told her to sleep at his own house and then went back in Dharapara. On 17.7.2019, around 6:00 AM, when she came to her home, she saw her husband Budhram Kavasi lying dead under the Koliari tree in front of the house. There were injury marks on his head and blood was scattered on the ground. Upon seeing this, she inquired with the neighbours and Devraj Kawasi PW-2, neighbour told her that at night, an altercation took place between the present appellant and Budhram regarding money and farming matters, due to which, the appellant assaulted Budhram with a wooden stick 3 CRA No.292/2021 and killed him. Based on above facts, merg was registered and thereafter FIR was registered vide Ex.P-23. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-13. Memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-6, on the basis of which, a wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P-7 and the same was sent to chemical examination to FSL. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/20), Dr. Mahendra Prasad (PW-14) opined that the cause of death is coma & shock due to head injury. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 2. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. to bring home the charges. The accused person abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication. 3. 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. 4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit 4 CRA No.292/2021 that the appellant has been convicted without there being any basis of the prosecution evidence present. The main witnesses of the case i.e. Smt. Dhorko (PW-1), Devraj Kawasi (PW-2), Bhudhu Kawasi (PW-3), Damu Ram Kashyap (PW-6) & Manhgu Kawasi (PW-7) have turned hostile. The witness of the memorandum and seizure of wooden stick have turned hostile. Learned counsel would further submit that the circumstantial evidence does not complete the chain nor an inference of guilt can be drawn on the basis of such evidence as has been brought on record by the prosecution. He further submits that the feature and ingredients of Section 302 of the IPC is not available in the present case. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed. 5. 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 aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5 CRA No.292/2021 7. In the postmortem report vide Ex.P-20, Dr. Mahendra Prasad found following injuries:-  On the right side of the deceased’s forehead, there was a horizontal lacerated wound measuring 3.5 inches by 1 inch, extending up to the depth of the skin.  On the outer part of the deceased’s lower lip, there was a scratch measuring 3 cm by 1 cm, extending to the depth of the skin; on the chin, a scratch measuring 2 cm by 1 cm; on the right jaw, scratches measuring 7 cm by 2 cm and 7 cm by 4 cm were present. Blood was coming out of the left ear. Blood clots were found in the nose. On the upper one-third part of the right leg, scratches measuring 4 cm by 4 cm and 4 cm by 3 cm were present.  On the right bone of the deceased’s waist, there was redness along with a scratch measuring 2 cm by 2 cm. On the muscles of the right shoulder, a scratch measuring 3 cm by 3 cm was present. On the inner upper one-third part of the left scapula, there was a scratch measuring 4 cm by 2 cm, and on the outer part, a contusion 6 CRA No.292/2021 measuring 6 inches by 2 inches was present. Opinion : The cause of death is coma & shock due to head injury. 8. 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 injuries found in the postmortem report (Ex.P/20) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Mahendra Prasad (PW-14). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/20) and the statement of Dr. Mahendra Prasad (PW-14) that the cause of death is coma & shock due to head injury and the nature of death of deceased was homicidal in nature, 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. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 9. The question would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ? 10. PW-1 Smt. Dhorko, wife of deceased stated in her evidence 7 CRA No.292/2021 that on the date of the incident, she had gone to the weekly market at Pakhnar with her husband, where her husband left her and returned home. She then went from the market to her brother Lakhmu's house and stayed there overnight. In next morning, when she came back home, her husband was not there. She searched the entire house, but upon not finding him, she went outside the house and saw her husband lying dead under a tree outside the house. There were injuries on his head and body, and blood was oozing out from his body. Then she called out to the nearby people. She does not know who killed her husband. In cross- examination, she categorically stated that it is incorrect to say that when she returned home in the morning, Deoraj Kawasi PW-2 told her that there had been a dispute between Pandru and her husband Budhram regarding a financial transaction due to which, Pandru had killed her husband by assaulting him with a stick. It is incorrect to say that even before the incident, the accused Pandru used to have disputes with my husband over agricultural land. The witness herself stated that she still does not know who killed her husband. 11.PW-2, Devraj Kawasi, nephew of the appellant and grandson of the deceased in relation. He stated in his evidence that he does not know anything about the incident. 8 CRA No.292/2021 He has no information about the death of deceased and who killed him. He further stated that a few days after the incident, the police called him and took his signature on some documents. When the witness was shown the crime scene map (Exhibit P-5), memorandum statement (Exhibit P-6), seizure memos (Exhibit P-7, 8), and the dead body handover receipt (Exhibit P-9) attached to the case, he accepted that his signatures are present on the relevant parts. However, the police did not record his statement after questioning him. In cross-examination he stated that when he signed on the papers, the papers were blank. The police called him to the road and made his signature on the documents, but he did not remember after how many days, he put his signature on the documents. 12.PW-3, Budhu Kawasi, Uncle of the appellant and cousin of the deceased, stated in his evidence that he came to know about death deceased on the next day of the incident, but he does not remember the name of the person who told him. He further stated that the police did not take my statement during the investigation. In cross-examination, he stated that it is incorrect to say that on the date of incident, there was altercation took place between the appellant and deceased, due to which, the appellant assaulted the deceased by means of wooden stick and died. Similarly PW-6 Damu and 9 CRA No.292/2021 PW-7 Mahangu, neighbours of deceased both stated that they do not have knowledge about the incident and don’t know who killed the deceased. 13.PW-15, Ravi Kumar Baiga, Sub-Inspector (I.O.) stated in his evidence that the time mentioned in the memorandum Ex.P- 6 has overwriting. It is correct to say that the wooden stick seized in the incident is commonly found in almost every household in the village. It is correct to say that he did not prepare a panchnama regarding the recovery of the wooden stick from the accused. It is correct to say that he did not serve any notice to the witnesses before recording their statements. It is correct to say that there is no eyewitness in this case and all the witnesses are hearsay witnesses. None of the witnesses mentioned the name of the appellant involved in the crime. 14.After going through the above evidence, there is no ocular version of the crime except the memorandum statement of the appellant, as no witness has seen the appellant committing the crime. Case of the prosecution, therefore, rests on circumstantial evidence. The principle as to when an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been propounded by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein it has underlined 10 CRA No.292/2021 the conditions, which must be fulfilled for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and held in para-153 as under : “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the following observations were made: ‘certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’ (2) the facts so established should 11 CRA No.292/2021 be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 15.In a judgment in Nathiya Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore, (2016) 10 SCC 298, the Supreme Court has reiterated the above principles. 16.In the case at hand, PW-1 Dhorko, wife of deceased stated that it is incorrect to say that when she returned home in the morning, Deoraj Kawasi PW-2 told her that there had been a dispute between Pandru and her husband Budhram 12 CRA No.292/2021 regarding a financial transaction due to which, Pandru had killed her husband by assaulting him with a stick. It is incorrect to say that even before the incident, the accused Pandru used to have dispute with her husband over agricultural land. The witness herself stated that she still does not know who killed her husband. PW-2 Devraj Kawasi categorically stated that he does not have any knowledge about the incident and who killed him. He further stated that when he signed on the papers, the papers were blank. The police called him to the road and made his signature on the documents, but he did not remember after how many days, he put his signature on the documents. Apart from that PW- 15, Ravi Kumar Baiga, Sub-Inspector (I.O.) stated in his evidence that there was overwriting in the memorandum Ex.P-6. Moreover, he did not serve any notice to the witnesses before recording their statements. There is no eyewitness in this case and none of the witnesses mentioned the name of the appellant involved in the crime. 17.In the FSL report, blood was found on the seized wooden stick. However, PW-15, Ravi Kumar Baiga, Sub-Inspector (I.O.) stated that the wooden stick seized in the incident is commonly found in almost every household in the village and he did not prepare a panchnama regarding the recovery of the wooden stick seized from the accused, which raises 13 CRA No.292/2021 doubts about the seizure. 18.In view of the aforesaid discussion of evidence adduced by the witnesses and material available on record, it is manifest that there is no eyewitness in the case, memorandum and seizure witnesses have turned hostile. The chain of circumstantial evidence is not complete. Only on the basis of memorandum statement, the appellant has been implicated in the case. Thus, this evidence alone is not sufficient to establish that the appellant was present at the place of occurrence and murdered the deceased by assaulting him with a wooden stick. There is no other evidence of conclusive nature by which his guilt of committing murder of the deceased can be proved. In the state of evidence on record, the appellant is entitled for the benefit of doubt. 19.Accordingly, conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant is hereby set aside and he is acquitted of the said charges. In the result, this appeal is allowed. 20.Appellant is on bail. Surety and personal bonds earlier furnished by him at the time of suspension of sentence shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 14 CRA No.292/2021 21. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep