1 2025:CGHC:59969-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1581 of 2024 Nattu Singh @ Naan Babu S/o Shivbakas Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Village Fulidumar, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House O昀케cer, Police Station Basantpur, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10/12/2025 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, the BNSS) questioning the impugned judgment dated 16.07.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 01/2020 by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, by which the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under: 2 Conviction under Section Rigorous Imprisonment Fine Default Sentence 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) Life Rs. 1000/- 30 days 4 of the Tonhi Pratadana Nivaran Adhiniyam (for short, the TPN Act) 2 years Rs. 200/- 10 days 5 of the TPN Act 3 years Rs. 300/- 15 days All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 2. The appellant/convict was charged for the o昀昀ence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and Section 4 and 5 of the TPN Act alleging that on 04.09.2019 at around 06:30 p.m. in village Phulidumar Aamapara under the jurisdiction of Police Station Basantpur, he called his grandmother, deceased Smt. Shukwaro, a Tonhi (witch), identi昀椀ed her as a witch, hit her with an axe, in昀氀icted serious injuries and intentionally and knowingly caused her death and committed murder. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 05.09.2019 at 8:30 a.m. informant Sumer Sing (PW-1) gave a merg intimation to the Police stating that on 04.09.2019 he had gone to Jansai's shop to buy goods. Returning home at approximately 6:30 p.m., he found his mother Shukwaro's body lying at the doorstep, bleeding from a head injury. Upon entering the house, he inquired of his wife, Kunti Bai, who revealed that at approximately 6:30 p.m., his nephew, i.e. the appellant-Nattu Singh, had murdered the deceased by hitting her on the head with an axe calling her a witch. Based on the informant’s report, Inspector Anuranjan Lakra (PW-8) registered a merg intimation bearing No. 54/2019 (Exhibit P-1). During the inquest, Inspector Anuranjan Lakra (PW-08) issued notice (Exhibit P/3) to the witnesses and thereafter, the inquest report (Exhibit P/4) was prepared in presence of the witnesses. For conducting the 3 postmortem of the deceased and for providing the query report after conducting the postmortem, a memo (Exhibit P/15) was sent to CHC Wadrafnagar, in compliance of which postmortem report (Exhibit P/14) and answer to the query report (Exhibit P/15) were given by Dr. Umashankar Kanwar (PW-07). On 05.09.2019, on the basis of the aforementioned inquest, a First Information Report (Exhibit P/2) was registered against the appellant Nattu Singh for the o昀昀ence under Section 302 of the IPC bearing Crime No. 133/2019 at Police Station Bastapur and the case was taken into investigation. 4. During the investigation, on 05.09.2019, the appellant was arrested in presence of witnesses vide Exhibit P/6 and his family was informed of his arrest vide Exhibit P/16. As told by the informant Sumer Singh, the site map of the incident was prepared in presence of witnesses as per Exhibit P/5. On 15.10.2019, for preparing the Patwari site map, a memo (Exhibit P/18) was sent by the Investigation O昀케cer to the Tehsildar Wadrafnagar, in compliance with which Patwari, Satyam Kumar (PW-06) prepared Patwari Panchnama (Exhibit P/8) in presence of the witnesses and the site map of the incident (Exhibit P/9). The memorandum statement of appellant was recorded in presence of witnesses as per Exhibit P-10. About 100 grams of blood soaked soil in a box and about 100 grams of plain soil from the scene of incident were seized in presence of witnesses and seizure memo Exhibit P/12 was prepared, and in a sealed packet, deceased’s Saree of pink and green colour, a blouse of blue colour, viscera preserved by the doctor during post-mortem in three separate sealed boxes were seized as seizure memo (Exhibit P/13) was prepared and from the possession of the appellant, an iron axe with a bamboo haft attached to it, length of haft 2½ feet having three knots, was seized in presence of witnesses as per seizure memo (Exhibit P/11). During the 4 investigation, the statements of witnesses Bir Bahadur (PW-4), Basmatiya (PW-3), Kunti Bai (PW-2) and Sumer Singh (PW-1) were recorded as narrated by them. For providing the report after conducting chemical test of the seized material in the case, a memo was prepared through Superintendent of Police Balrampur and sent to Joint Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Ambikapur, Surguja, whose exhibit receipt is Exhibit P/19. After the complete investigation, the charge sheet was 昀椀led before the concerned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Wadrafnagar. As the case was triable by the Sessions Court, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 17.12.2019. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant for the o昀昀ences under Sections 302 of the IPC and Section 4 and 5 of the TPN Act. The appellant denied the charges and prayed for trial. 6. In order to bring home the o昀昀ence, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses, namely Sumer Singh (PW-1), who is the son of the deceased and had lodged the merg intimation (Exhibit P/1), FIR (Exhibit P/2), and is a witness to the Patwari Spot Map (Exhibit P/9), inquest (Exhibit P/4) and dead body supurdnama (Exhibit P/7), Kunti Bai (PW-2), who is the daughter-in-law of the deceased and witness to spot map and Panchnama (Exhibits P/8 and P/9), Basmatiya (PW-3), Bir Bahadur (PW-4), Mahavir Singh (PW-5) who are independent witness, out of which Mahavir Singh is the witness to Exhibits P/3, P/4, P/5, P/6, P/9, P/10, P/11, P/12, and P/13, Satyam Kumar, (PW-6) is the Patwari who prepared spot map and spot panchnama (Exhibits P/8 and P/9), Dr. Uma Shankar Kanwar (PW-7) who conducted the postmortem and prepared the query report (Exhibits P/14 and P/15), as well as Anuranjan Lakra, 5 Inspector and Investigating O昀케cer. The prosecution has exhibited as many as 19 exhibits in support of its case. The appellant did not adduce any evidence in support of his case. 7. The statement of the appellant/convict under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He expressed his ignorance with respect to some of the questions and some of them were denied as well. 8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 9. Mr. Praveen Dhurandhar, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. Though Kunti Bai (PW-2) claims herself to be the eye witness, from perusal of her deposition, it is evident that she is not an eye witness in this case. The conviction of the appellant is based on the testimony of Kunti Bai (PW-2), Sumer Singh (PW-1) and Basmatiya (PW-3) who are all interested witness and related to the deceased. There was no motive for the appellant to cause murder of the deceased. Even if the prosecution story is taken on its face value, then also the o昀昀ence said to have been committed by the appellant would not travel beyond the purview of Section 304 IPC as the appellant is said to have caused injury on a spur of moment and there was no premeditation and the appellant had not acted cruelly. As such, his conviction may be altered to Section 304 of the IPC, instead of Section 302 of the IPC or may be acquitted of the charges and this appeal may be allowed. 6 10. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a 昀椀nding with regard to the guilt of the appellant and the learned trial Court was fully justi昀椀ed in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the o昀昀ences in question. The judgment is based on evidence available on record and as such, the same does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. There is no dispute with regard to the 昀椀nding of the learned trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report (Exhibit P/14) states that there were 昀椀ve incised wound on the skull of the victim which were following in size(s): (i) 4.7 – 7.2 x 1.3 c.m. till brain matter (ii) 5 c.m. x 1.2 c.m. x till brain matter (iii) 6 c.m. x 1 c.m. x till brain matter (iv) 4.8 c.m. x 1 c.m. till brain matter (v) 5 c.m. x 1.2 c.m. till brain matter. The meninges was found to be damaged. Ventricle damaged and brain matter was also found to be damaged. The cause of death was found to be hemorrhagic shock caused due to excessive bleeding due to skull injury. In answer to the query made by the police, Dr. Uma Shankar Kanwar (PW-7) has stated that the mode of death was homicidal in nature. This aspect has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant and as such, we agree with the 昀椀ndings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to the nature of death being homicidal. 13. Sumer Singh (PW-1) is the son of the deceased. The appellant is the nephew of Sumer Singh. This witness stated that on the date of incident, 7 his wife had seen the appellant in昀氀icting 3 to 4 injuries on the head of his mother with an axe and thereafter the appellant ran away carrying the axe. At that time, he was returning back from the shop after purchasing some grocery. He had given the merg intimation at Police Station. 14. Smt. Kunti Bai (PW-2) is the daughter-in-law of the deceased. She stated that the appellant in昀氀icted injuries on the head of the deceased with an axe from behind stating that she was a witch and at that time, her husband had gone to grocery shop. When her husband (PW-1) returned back at 5 p.m., she narrated the entire story. Smt. Basmatiya Bai (PW-3) is the daughter-in-law of Kunti Bai (PW-2). She stated that on the date of incident, the deceased was grinding the corn on a hand operated mill in her house at that time, the appellant entered their house calling the deceased a witch and thereafter assaulted her with an axe on herhead because of which blood started oozing out. The deceased died instantaneously on the spot. At that time, there was no other person in the house. 15. The axe which is the weapon of assault was recovered at the instance of the appellant from his house on his disclosure and seized by the police vide Exhibit P/11. The same was sent to the FSL for examination. The FSL report (Exhibit C/1) states that human blood was found on the articles A-soil, C-axe, D1-Saree of the deceased and D2-blouse of the deceased and the group of blood found on Articles A and C was ‘AB’ 16. According to the prosecution, the appellant used to suspect the deceased of having performing witchcraft because of which he had grudge with the appellant and as such, caused the murder. Though, the motive suggested by the prosecution is not so strong, however, even in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has failed to give 8 any explanation as to how the deceased sustained injuries which were incised in nature and why the witnesses namely Kunti Bai (PW-2) and Basmatiya (PW-3) would falsely implicate him in this case. 17. The submission advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant that the case would not fall under Section 302 of the IPC but under Section 304 of the IPC, is noticed to be rejected as the appellant has acted in a very cruel manner as there are as many as 昀椀ve incised injuries on the head, which is a vital part of the body and that too, with an axe. The injuries were brain deep which goes to suggest that the intention was to anyhow cause death of the deceased. The appellant had attacked on a poor old aged lady for no rhyme or reason on suspicion that she used to perform witchcraft and as such, the act of the appellant falls purely under Section 302 of the IPC as has been held by the learned trial Court. 18. There are eye witnesses in the present case, the weapon of assault i.e. axe has been recovered at the instance of the appellant and the FSL report con昀椀rms presence of human blood on the said axe and there was a motive also for the appellant to commit the murder. Even there is no delay in lodging the merg intimation and the FIR by the informant. 19. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Court with regard to conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is just and proper warranting no interference. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 20. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court. 9 21. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail term, 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. 22. Let a certi昀椀ed copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2025.12.12 17:11:18 +0530