1 2025:CGHC:50576-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 416 of 2018 1 - Antonis Kerketta S/o Late Patras Keketa Aged About 67 Years R/o Village Gadkakiya, P. S. Bagicha, Dist. Jashpur Chhattisgarh, 2 - Jitendra Kerketta (Died And Abated) As Per Honble Court Order Dated 08-05-2025 3 - Pankaj Kerketta S/o Shri Antonis Kerketta Aged About 31 Years R/o Village Gadkakiya, P. S. Bagicha, Dist. Jashpur Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Bagicha, Dist. Jashpur Chhattisgarh, District : Jashpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer. 2 Hon’ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J Judgment on Board (10th October, 2025) Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Challenge in this appeal is the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.2.2018 passed by Sessions Judge, Jashpur in ST No.45/2017 whereby the accused/appellants stand convicted under Section 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of Rs.1000/-, in default thereof to suffer additional RI for three months. 02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 6.4.2015 at around 6 am accused/appellant Antonis came to the house of deceased Ignesh Kerketta and at around 10 am they went to the Bagicha court for the purpose of compromise. Accused/appellant Antonis disliked Flora, a maid in the house of the deceased. Her parents had died and she had no relative in the village, so she would work in the house of the deceased. Since the last rites of father of Flora was performed by the family of the deceased, therefore, accused Antonis nourished animosity against him and the villagers also deserted the deceased. A case in this connection under Sections 107 and 116 of CrPC was going on in Bagicha court where the accused Antonis along with the 3 deceased went for compromise. They came back from the court at around 12 noon. Accused Antonis along with the deceased was roaming in the village for getting signature of the villagers as witnesses on the documents prepared for the purpose of compromise. At about 5 pm they returned and thereafter accused Antonis again took the deceased to his house and after some time dropped him back at his house. 03. It is further case of the prosecution that thereafter deceased Ignesh along with PW-2 Remjiyus went on his scooty to the house of accused Antonis. There all the three accused persons, in presence of PW-2, alleged that the deceased objects to their acts and they beat the deceased with hands, fists and legs. When PW-2 Remjiyus tried to intervene, he was threatened by the accused persons of life, so out of fear he fled from there. Next day at 5.30 am PW-5 Dilip while going for collecting mahua, spotted the scooty of the deceased on the road and the deceased lying by the side of the road at some distance. Thereafter, he informed PW-3 Flora, who was collecting mahua at some distance and in turn she informed wife of the deceased Friska (PW-1) and then she reached the place of occurrence. By that time, a large crowd had gathered there. The deceased Ignesh was then sent to Community Health Center, Bagicha by Constable Dinesh Paikra of PS-Bagicha where Dr. CR Bhagat (PW-4) examined him and noticed abrasion of size 2 x 2 cm on left side of head and abrasion of size 4 x 3 cm on below left eye and there was light alcohol smell emanating from 4 his mouth. Seeing the critical condition of the deceased, he was referred to Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur immediately where PW-12 Dr. Rachna Arthor examined him and upon x-ray of his chest, the lung was found ruptured. However, on 7.4.2015 at around 7 pm he succumbed to the injuries. 04. During the course of investigation, on information being given by PW-9 Bhinsent Lakda, Driver in Holy Cross Hospital, PW-15 Rakesh Yadav recorded Merg No.0/56/15 (Ex.P/10). Thereafter, the dead body was sent for postmortem to District Hospital, Ambikapur vide Ex.P/23 where PW-14 Dr. Shailendra Gupta conducted postmortem on 8.4.2015 and opined that the cause of death is shock due to penetrative injury to lung and the death was homicidal in nature. His report is Ex.P/22. Spot map (Ex.P/2) was prepared. On 11.5.2015 statement u/s 164 of CrPC of PW-1 Smt. Friska Kerketta, wife of the deceased, was recorded and on 28.5.2017 and 29.5.2017 statements of PW-2 Remjiyus Kerketta and PW-10 Ajay Kerketta were recorded. The accused persons were arrested on 30.5.2017 and after completing usual investigation, charge sheet u/s 302 of IPC was filed against the accused persons. 05. Learned trial Court framed charge under Section 302/34 of IPC against the accused persons which was abjured by them and they prayed for trial. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses in all. Statements of the accused were 5 recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by them in their defence. 06. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced all the accused/appellants as mentioned above. Hence this appeal. However, during pendency of this appeal, appellant No.2 Jitendra Kerketta died on 23.5.2021, therefore, vide order dated 8.5.2025, the instant appeal in respect of appellant No.2 stood abated and it survives only in relation to appellants No. 1 & 3. 07. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Jha, learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the impugned judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on record. The whole prosecution case stands on the evidence of PW-2 Remjiyus Kerketta whose statement u/s 164 of CrPC was recorded with an inordinate delay of more than two years after the incident on 29.5.2017 which is sufficient to discredit its evidentiary value. No valid reason is offered for such a long delay. This witness states that while running away from the spot he passed by the house of Prabodh Hermon and Nirmal but all these three persons were not presented by the prosecution for examination. As per PW-2 the deceased entered the house of the appellants with half liter liquor and it is also proved from his statement that the villagers convened meeting 6 in relation to illicit relationship of the deceased with Flora (PW-3). There are major contradictions in the statements of all the prosecution witnesses especially PW-1 & PW-2. It has come in the evidence of the witnesses that the appellants and the deceased were under the influence of liquor, so there is all possibility that while returning from the house of the appellants by his scooty, the deceased sustained injuries by falling off the scooty and succumbed to death. However, this aspect has been ignored by the investigating agency as also by the learned trial court. There is absolutely no credible and clinching evidence proving the complicity of the accused/appellants in the crime in question. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove its case against them beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, they deserve to be acquitted of the charge by giving them benefit of doubt. 08. On the other hand, Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the State vehemently opposing the contention of the appellants submits that the learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence has rightly passed the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence which need no interference by this Court. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of any substance is liable to be dismissed. 09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 7 10. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the accused/appellants were charged under Section 302/34 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence learned trial Court convicted and sentenced under Section 302/34 of IPC as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment. 11. As regards homicidal death of the deceased, PW-14 Dr. Shailendra Gupta conducted postmortem on the body of the deceased on 8.4.2015 whereas the report bears the date 22.4.2015. The autopsy surgeon noticed contusion with swelling over left side of head of size 12 x 8 cm; on left side of neck contusion of size 6 x 4 cm; three abrasion marks on left side of leg of size 2 x 1 cm, 3 x 2 cm and 2 x 2 cm respectively; abrasion of size 6 x 2 cm over left shoulder; four penetrative wounds over left side of chest out of which three were upto muscle deep and fourth one travelled upto left lung which was measuring 2 x 1 cm. On internal examination, the doctor noticed that there was blood and blood clot in the lungs, the left lung was ruptured. In his opinion, the cause of death is shock due to penetrative injury to lung and the death was homicidal in nature. However, in cross- examination this witness admits that if someone falls off while riding scooter, he can sustain injuries as were suffered by the deceased below his year and if fallen on a pointed object, lungs can get injured. 12. PW-4 Dr. CR Bhagat who first examined the deceased at Community Health Centre, Bagicha, admits in cross-examination that 8 if someone slightly falls on the road while riding a motorcycle, he can suffer injuries as are found on the body of the deceased. PW-12 Dr. Rachna Arthor, Surgeon in Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur, who examined deceased Ignesh on 7.4.2015 also admits in cross- examination that if someone falls on the chest, his lungs may rupture. 13. PW-1 Smt. Friska Kerketta, wife of the deceased, and PW-3 Flora Tirkey, niece of the deceased, admit that the deceased was lying by the side of the road where asphalting work was going on and people were passing by that road. It is also an admitted position in this case that the deceased was under the influence of liquor at the relevant time. 14. It is a trite law that medical evidence alone is not always sufficient to hold a death homicidal; it is a crucial component, but a court requires additional evidence to prove the death was a murder, not an accident or suicide. The medical evidence must confirm the cause of death, while the prosecution must present other credible evidence to connect the death to a perpetrator, including motive and opportunity. In the present case, though as per postmortem report, the autopsy surgeon opined that the death was homicidal in nature but in the cross- examination he admits possibility of deceased suffering such injuries due to fall from a vehicle. Though PW-2 Remjiyus, so-called eyewitness, states that the deceased was beaten mercilessly with hands, fists and legs by the accused persons, however, PW-4 Dr. CR 9 Bhagat found the injuries on the body of the deceased simple in nature and admitted that there was no compression mark on his neck and no injury on his face. Looking to the evidence of the autopsy surgeon (PW-14), Dr. CR Bhagat (PW-4), Dr. Rachna Arthor (PW-12) coupled with the evidence of PW-1 Smt. Friska Kerketta and PW-3 Flora Tirkey, it is difficult to hold conclusively that the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that death of Ignesh was homicidal in nature and in the given facts and circumstances of case and the nature of evidence on record, the possibility of deceased suffering the injuries due to fall from the vehicle cannot be ruled out in toto. Learned trial Court has also not discussed properly about the nature of death of the deceased and mainly on the basis of medical evidence held the death of Ignesh to be homicidal in nature. 15. PW-1 Smt. Friska Kerketta, wife of the deceased, admits that there was enmity between the accused Antonis and the deceased family and since the deceased and his family members performed last rites of father of Flora (PW-3), who happens to be her niece, accused Antonis recovered fine of Rs.5000/- from the deceased and Rs.3000/- fine from Flora. She admits that on 6.4.2015 compromise between the accused Antonis and deceased took place in the Court at Bagicha. In para 8 she states that on 6.4.2015 accused Antonis came to her house at 8 pm in drunken condition with liquor along with her husband/deceased and took him to his house for consuming more liquor to celebrate the compromise effected between them on that day. 10 However, she then states that her husband having dropped Antonis at his house returned to his house and thereafter went with PW-2 Ramjiyus to the house of Antonis and bolted the door of her house from outside. 16. PW-2 Ramjiyus Kerketta, the so-called eyewitness to the incident, states that on the date of incident he along with the deceased went to the house of Antonis at 5 pm where the accused Jitendra and Pankaj with accused Antonis beat the deceased brutally with hands, fists and legs and also threatened him to kill, so out of fear he ran away from the spot. He states that after this incident, his statement was recorded in the Court at Kunkuri under Section 164 of CrPC (Ex.P/3). However, it is worthwhile to mention here that this statement was recorded on 29.5.2017 i.e. more than two years after the incident. He admits that when he went to the house of deceased, accused Antonis was not there. In para 14 he states that while running away from the house of Antonis, he did not inform about the incident to the family members of Prabodh, Hermon and Nirmal or even to the family members of the deceased. In para 18 he states that he gave statement to the police one to two months after the incident. However, he then volunteers that since the accused persons had threatened him of life, being afraid he did not disclose the incident to anyone. 17. PW-3 Flora Tirkey, niece of deceased, has stated nothing against the accused and rather expressed ignorance about the incident. 11 18. PW-5 Dilip Kujur states nothing against the accused/appellants. He simply states that while going by motorcycle for collecting Mahua, he spotted the scooty of the deceased standing by the side of the road and at some distance the deceased lying and then he informed about the same to Flora. 19. PW-6 Tanuja Kerketta, daughter of the deceased, states that on the date of incident at about 6 am accused Antonis came to her house and took her father/deceased with him to the Court for the purpose of compromise. After compromise, at about 6 pm accused Antonis came to her house with the deceased and again took him to his house for celebrating the compromise. However, next day at about 5 am Flora came to her house and informed that her father is lying dead by the side of the road whereupon she rushed to the spot and he was taken to hospital. However, in cross-examination she admits that there was no dispute between the deceased and Antonis and that after returning from the Court, her father/deceased went with PW-2 Remjiyus on scooty. 20. PW-7 Shivshankar Dhivar, Patwari, prepared the spot map Ex.P/4 and admitted his signature on the same from A to A part. PW-8 Mukesh Kerketta is a witness to inquest Ex.P/7 whereas PW-9 Bhinsent Lakda, Driver in Holy Cross Hospital, Ambikapur, informed about death of the deceased to the police. 12 21. PW-10 Ajay Kerketta, brother of the deceased, has turned hostile. However, he admits that after compromise the deceased went with Remjiyus to the house of accused Antonis on scooty. He states that 2-3 days after the incident, PW-2 disclosed to him that it is the accused persons who brutally beat the deceased with hands, fists and legs saying that he harassed them in the court case. However, PW-2 has nowhere stated in his statement that he ever informed about the incident to this witness. 22. PW-11 MJ Firdausi, investigating officer, admits that statement u/s 164 of CrPC of PW-2 was recorded on 29.5.2017. He denied the suggestion that PW-2 gave any statement to him after two months of the incident. He did not explain as to why statement of PW-2 u/s 164 of CrPC was recorded with such an inordinate delay. PW-13 Gambhir Sonwani, Inspector, and PW-15 Rakesh Yadav, ASI, also conducted part of investigation and supported the prosecution case. 23. Close scrutiny of the evidence makes it clear that the prosecution has not been able to prove homicidal death of the deceased beyond reasonable doubt. From the evidence of PW-1 Smt. Friska Kerketta, PW-2 Remjiyus, PW-6 Tanjuja Kerketta and PW-10 Ajay Kerketta it is quite clear that the deceased along with PW-2 went to the house of accused Antonis and thereafter, the deceased was found lying by the side of the road in injured condition. There is only one so-called eyewitness in this case i.e. PW-2 Ramjiyus and learned 13 trial Court has heavily relied upon his evidence to hold the guilt of the accused/appellants. However, his statement u/s 164 of CrPC was recorded more than two years after the incident on 29.5.2017 with no explanation at all for such a considerable long delay whereas statement u/s 164 of CrPC of Smt. Friska Kerketta, wife of the deceased (PW-1), was recorded just after five days of the incident on 11.5.2015 in which she stated that at the time of incident Remjiyus Kerketta was with her husband/deceased. Though PW-2 states that after two months of the incident, his police statement was recorded but the said statement is not there on record. PW-11 MJ Firdausi, IO, has also denied the suggestion that PW-2 gave any statement to him after two months of the incident. From the record it is seen that his case diary statement was recorded only on 28.5.2017 and the same remains unexhibited. PW-10 Ajay Kerketta, brother of the deceased, though states that 2-3 days after the incident, PW-2 Remjiyus disclosed to him about the incident but PW-2 states that he never disclosed the incident to anyone out of fear. PW-2 also admits that on the date of incident while running away from the house of accused Antonis, he passed by the houses of Prabodh, Hermon, Nirmal and the deceased as well, but did not inform them or their family members about the incident. Thus, looking to the conduct of this witness (PW-2) during the alleged incident and subsequent thereto, he cannot be considered to be a reliable witness for basing conviction of the accused/appellants. Apart from the evidence of PW-2, which is found to be not worth reliance, 14 there is no other evidence, either direct or circumstantial, of such a nature which could lead to irresistible conclusion about guilty of the accused/appellants. Though previous enmity between the parties raises a strong suspicion against the accused/appellants, but law is well settled that suspicion howsoever strong cannot take the place of proof. The prosecution is required to substantiate its case on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence, meaning thereby leaving no room for any doubt consistent with the innocence of the accused. However, as discussed above, the prosecution has utterly failed to adduce any such evidence and therefore, the accused/appellants deserve to be acquitted of the charge by extending them benefit of doubt. 24. On the basis of aforesaid discussions, the criminal appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of learned trial Court convicting the accused/appellants u/s 302/34 of IPC is hereby set aside and they are acquitted of this charge by giving them benefit of doubt. 25. The accused/appellants are reported to be on bail. However, in view of provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, each of them shall furnish a bail bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety of the like amount to the satisfaction of the concerned trial Court to ensure their appearance before the higher Court as and when such Court issues notice in respect of any appeal being filed against this judgment, and this bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today. 15 A copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance. A copy of this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent where the appellants were undergoing the sentence, for information and necessary action. Sd/ Sd/ (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Khan MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Digitally signed by MOHD AKHTAR KHAN Date: 2025.10.14 10:17:54 +0530