1 2025:CGHC:56273-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1788 of 2018 {Arising out of judgment dated 29.06.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. R-78/2015 by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj} Nanhu Gond, S/o. Jheelga Gond, Aged About 40 Years, R/o. Village Bimlapur, Chowki-Dindo, P.S. Trikunda, District Balrampur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Trikunda, District Balrampur-Ramanunjganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Puskar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Vivek Mishra, Advocate (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (19.11.2025) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2025.11.19 16:51:41 +0530 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. The sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2017, passed by the learned First Additional Judge to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, in Sessions Trial No.R-78/2015, by which he has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, 3 months additional rigorous imprisonment while acquitting co-accused Jodhi Ram for the aforesaid offence. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 08.06.2015 at 1:30 A.M. at Police Chowki Dindo, Village Bimlapur, Police Station- Trikunda, District Balrampur, the appellant herein along-with one co-accused Jodhi Ram have assaulted Shivnarayan (now deceased) by axe, by which, he suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby, the aforesaid offence has been committed. Ramsurat Gond (PW-1) reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body of 3 deceased Shivnarayan was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal (PW-7), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.11, according to which, cause of death was stated to be coma due to excessive bleeding and cardio respiratory arrest. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-7, axe has been seized vide Ex.P-8, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL, but the FSL report has not been exhibited and as per the FSL report, no blood was found on the stole & weapon of offence. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness but has exhibited the documents Ex. D-1 & Ex.D-2. 4 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 5. Mr. Puskar Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, would submit that the conviction of the appellant is based on the statement of Ramkumari (PW-5), whose evidence that she had seen the appellant running away in the night is completely improbable and improvement on her diary statement and it has been elicited in the cross-examination wherein she states that she had seen some unknown person running away, and even in the FIR, which has been lodged by son of the deceased, is registered against some unknown person. If the wife of the deceased had seen the appellant and identified, then there is no reason as to why the name of the appellant was not disclosed in the FIR. It has also been submitted that the weapon of offence i.e. axe alleged to be recovered from the possession of the appellant and the stole of the appellant have not been found to be stained with blood. Therefore, the conviction of the appellant herein is wholly unsustainable in law and he is entitled for acquittal on the 5 basis of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. Vivek Mishra, learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Shivnarayan was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-11), proved by Dr. Ashok Kumar Jaiswal (PW-7), according to which, cause of death was stated to be coma due to excessive bleeding and cardio respiratory arrest and death was homicidal in nature, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 6 9. The trial Court has relied upon the statement of Ramkumari (PW-5), wife of deceased, who stated that she had seen the appellant running away from the spot in the night. However, a careful perusal of the her statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. (Ex.D-2) would show that she did not identify the person who was running away from the spot. As such, there is complete omission in her direct statement and the FIR is against unidentified person. 10. The next piece of evidence is that pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, weapon of offence has been seized, which was subjected to FSL, but the FSL report was not exhibited and as per the FSL report, no blood was found on the seized weapon. Furthermore, the Supreme Court in the matter of Mustkeem Alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan1, has held that disclosure alone would not automatically lead to conclusion that offence was also committed by accused and burden lies on prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of material object and its use in commission of offence and it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under : 25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the 1 (2011) 11 SCC 724 7 disclosure of the accused but such disclosure alone would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. What is admissible under Section 27 of the Act is the information leading to discovery and not any opinion formed on it by the prosecution. 27. The scope and ambit of Section 27 were also illuminatingly stated in Pulukuri Kotayya v . King Emperor2 reproduced hereinbelow:- 11. "...it is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A' these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant." 2 AIR 1947 PC 67 8 12. In that view of the matter, we are of the considered opinion, that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.06.2017 is set aside and the appellant stands acquitted of the offence under Section 302 of I.P.C. extending him the benefit of doubt. 13. In the result, the appeal is allowed. 14. The appellant is already on bail, he need not surrender; however, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Ashok