1 2025:CGHC:311-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1520 of 2021 Munna Mandavi S/o Mangda Mandavi, Aged About 30 Years R/o. Village - Kumakoleng Nayapara, Thana - Puspal, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, Through Thana - Puspal, District - Sukma Chhattisgarh, District : Sukuma, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Samir Singh, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 03/01/2025 1. Heard Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State/ respondent. 2. Today, the matter is listed for orders on IA No. 1 of 2024, which is an application for urgent hearing as the appellant is in jail since 30.12.2017. The application is allowed and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage only. 2 3. Challenge in this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.11.2021 passed in Sessions Trial No. 119/2018 by the learned Sessions Judge, South Bastar, Dantewada, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Jail Sentence (Rigorous) Fine Default Sentence 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) Life imprisonment Rs. 500/- 3 months R.I. more. 5 of the Chhattisgarh Tonhi Pratadna Niwaran Adhiniyam, 2005 (for short, the Act of 2005) 5 years Rs. 500/- 3 months R.I. more Both the above jail sentences to run concurrently. 4. The case of the prosecution, in short, is that 6-7 years before 28.12.2017, the son of accused Munna Mandavi died due to illness after which the appellant used to accuse Somaru Mandavi of practicing witchcraft. 2-3 years before the incident, when the accused's health deteriorated, he accused Somaru Mandavi of practicing witchcraft. On 28.12.2017 at 6:00 p.m., Somaru Mandavi, his wife Sunny Mandavi, their children and aunt Bhima Mandavi were warming themselves by the fire in village Kuma Koleng Nayapara, when the appellant came with an Axe (tangia) and told Somaru Mandavi that he was harassing the family by practicing witchcraft. The appellant hit Somaru Mandavi on his head, face, throat and right leg with the axe due to which Somaru Mandavi died on the spot. Hearing the sound, the neighbor Kunjam Kesa also came and saw the incident. On 29.12.2017 a Panchayat was held in the village regarding the incident and when the accused was questioned, he 3 admitted to have killed Somaru Mandavi suspecting him of performing witchcraft. 5. Sunny Mandavi (PW-5) got the merg intimation (Exhibit P/14) and First Information Report (Exhibit P/15) registered at Police Station, Puspal regarding the death of Somaru Mandavi. Police gave notice to the witnesses for preparing the Panchnama of Somaru Mandavi's body and prepared the inquest (Exhibit P/4) of the body. The postmortem examination (Exhibit P/23) of Somaru Mandavi's body was done in Primary Health Center Tongpal. Police prepared the spot map of the place of incident. The Patwari (PW-1) prepared the site map of the place of incident. Plain soil and blood stained soil were seized from the place of incident. The Police recorded the memorandum statement of the accused and recovered an iron axe at his instance. The blood stained T- shirt was also seized from the accused. The seized axe was also examined by a Doctor. The accused was arrested and statements of witnesses were recorded. The seized soil, iron tangia and T-shirt were chemically tested at the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur, in which human blood was found in the soil found at the crime scene, the tangia seized from the accused and the T-shirt. 6. After investigating the matter, the police submitted the police report alongwith charge-sheet against the appellant/convict under section 302 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Act of 2005 on 19.03.2018 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Sukma which was registered as Criminal Case No. 78/2018 and was later committed to the Court of Sessions vide its order dated 27.03.2018. 4 7. The learned Sessions Judge framed charge on 08.05.2018 charging the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Act of 2005. 8. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses namely; the Patwari Chandrashekhar Nag (PW-1), brother-in- law of the appellant-Panduram Markam (PW-2), maternal uncle of the appellant-Laxman Vetti (PW-3), neighbour Kunjami Kesa (PW-4), wife of the deceased-Sunny Mandavi (PW-5), daughter of the deceased - Ku. Fagani Mandavi (PW-6), Investigating Officer-Mayank Mishra (PW-7) and Dr. Neeraj Kumar Paikra (PW-8), who conducted the postmortem and exhibited as many as 23 exhibits. 9. The statement of the appellant/convict under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 20.10.2021. He stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. In support of his case, he got the evidence of Mandavi Pandu and Neelaram recorded as DW-1 and DW-2. 10. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 5 of the Act of 2005 and convicted the appellant as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 11. The present appeal was filed on 28.11.2021 and the matter was listed before the Court on 06.12.2021. On 21.07.2022, the matter was adjourned for four weeks. Thereafter, on 03.11.2022, the application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail filed by the appellant was rejected and today, the matter is heard finally with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties. 5 12. Mr. Samir Singh, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. The witnesses are interested witnesses being the wife and daughter of the deceased. The learned trial Court ought to have considered this fact that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty of the offence in question. The learned trial Court has heavily relied on the memorandum statement of the appellant and the conviction and sentence cannot be based upon the same. Prosecution witnesses namely Panduram Markam (PW-2) and Laxman Vetti (PW-3) have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. 13. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous offence of murder with an axe in a brutal manner and there are eye witnesses also in the present case. The evidence of the witnesses, medical report as well as the forensic report clearly indicates towards the guilt of the appellant. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 15. There is no doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which is evident from the statement of Dr. Neeraj Kumar Paikra (PW-8) and the postmortem report (Exhibit P/23). As per the postmortem report, there are as many as 5 injuries (i) fracture on frontal bone 9x4 c.m. approximately and rupture of brain in frontal side (ii) laceration present in below right eye 4x3 c.m. approximately (iii) laceration present in left side 6 of head 5x3 c.m. approximately (iv) laceration of lower lip (v) laceration of lower and left foot 4x3 c.m. He has opined the cause of death to be brain hemorrhage and intracranial hemorrhage due to cardio-respiratory failure due to come and the time elapsed between death and postmortem was 16 to 20 hours and the nature of death was homicidal. Hence, there remains no manner of doubt that the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. 16. Now the question arises whether it was the appellant who has caused the murder of the deceased. 17. In the present case, Sunny Mandavi (PW-5) and Ku. Fagni Mandavi (PW-6) are the eye witnesses to the incident. Sunny Mandavi, who is the wife of the deceased, stated that on the date of incident, in the evening at about 6 p.m., she was enjoying the bonfire in her own house alongwith the deceased and children as well as aunt (Bua), the accused all of a sudden came alongwith an axe and alleged the deceased to perform witchcraft and assaulted on his head, face, neck and right leg and the deceased died on the spot. Similarly, Ku. Fagni Mandavi, who is the daughter of the deceased has deposed in a similar manner. 18. After the incident, the FIR was lodged promptly by the wife of the deceased on 29.12.2017 at about 7:30 a.m. and the incident had taken place on 28.12.2017 at 6 p.m. The memorandum statement (Exhibit P/6) of the accused/appellant was recorded on 30.12.2017 at 8:00 a.m. wherein the appellant stated that he had suspicion on the deceased that he used to perform witchcraft as he was seriously ill for about 2-3 months. On his instance, the weapon of assault i.e. the axe was recovered vide Exhibit P/8 and the clothes worn by the appellant was seized vide Exhibit P/9. The said weapon and the clothes were 7 examined at FSL, Jagdalpur in which human blood has been found on both the articles i.e. the clothes of the appellant as well as the axe as is evident from the report (Exhibit P/22). 19. There has been a motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased which stands proved in this case. The weapon of assault has also been seized at the instance of the appellant himself which contains human blood. The blood stained clothes of the appellant have also been recovered. There are eye witnesses present who had seen the incident and even in the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. no explanation has been offered by the appellant as to why the witnesses would be falsely implicating him in the crime in question. The appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court. 20. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/ convict. 21. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 22. The appellant-Munna Mandavi is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 23. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail 8 sentences 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. 24. Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Aadil / Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.01.07 15:11:28 +0530