1 2025:CGHC:54999-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.845 of 2017 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 20.08.2025 12.11.2025 -- 12.11.2025 1 - Ramkumar @ Binjkotiya S/o Natturam Agaria, Aged About 35 Years Occupation Labour, R/o Binjkot, Police Station Bhupdevpur, Present Address Bichchhinara, Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Gharghoda, District Raigarh, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Ms. Sareena Khan, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2017 passed by the learned 1st Additional Session Judge, Raigarh in ST No.137/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.5000/- and RI for 1 year with fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, with default stipulations. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 31.07.16 at about 7-8 pm in the night the complainant Smt. Saukhilal PW-1 lodged the report stating that the appellant has killed the deceased Manoj Kumar striking on the head and other parts of body with the help of stick due to which he died on the spot thereafter he took the dead body towards burial ground and left there, thereafter a case was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. There is no eye witness in the present case and only on the conjectures and surmises the appellant has been roped in the present case. Apart from it, the medical report as well as the FSL report of the deceased also does not support the prosecution case, but the 3 learned Trial Court has not considered the said aspects of the matter. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. Reliance has been placed on the judgments rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Balwan Singh vs The State of Chhattisgarh, reported in AIR 2019 SC 3714 and the judgment rendered by the M. P. High Court in the matter of Ghanshyam @ Pushkarlal vs The State of Madhya Pradesh, passed in CRA No.8751/2023, decided on 31.01.2024. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. The first question we have to consider is that whether the death of deceased Manoj was homicidal in nature or not? 8. PW-1 Saukhilal stated that on 31st, Sunday, year 2016 he had gone with Manoj to Village Bichhinara and in the night at about 8 pm the accused assaulted Manoj by club and he ran away and 4 after 2-3 days he came to know that the dead body of Manoj was found. 9. The Inspector D. L. Mishra (PW-13) stated that on 03.08.2016 in information was given by Ramlal regarding death of unknown person, upon which he lodged Merg No.52 vide Ex-P/16 and after enquiry he lodged FIR on 05.08.2016 as Crime No.214/2016 vide Ex-P/21 and he admitted his signatures on B to B part vide Ex-P/16 & P/21 and he also sent counter FIR to concerned Court, acknowledgment of which is Ex-P/22. 10. ASI D. Lakra (PW-14) stated that he enquired merg No.52/2016 and for this he issued notice under Section 175 of CrPC vide Ex- P/1. He prepared inquest memo (Ex-P/2) before witnesses and all witnesses admitted their signatures on inquest memo (Ex-P/2). He gave application for postmortem of deceased Manoj vide Ex-P/5. 11. Dr. P. R. Bodalkar (PW-12) conducted postmortem of deceased Manoj and he found that the wounded cuts were present on the occipital region of head of the body, measurement of which was 2.5 x 0.5 Inch. The wounded cuts were present on the parietal region, measurement of which was 5x1 Inch which can be caused by hard and blunt object. After postmortem, he opined that death was due to hypo volumic shock, as a result of huge internal and external bleeding, nature of death is homicidal in nature and gave his report vide Ex-P/17. He also examined the club and opined that injury of deceased can be caused by this 5 club and advised for chemical examination as per Ex-P/19. He also examined clothes and sent for chemical examination as per Ex-P/20. In his cross-examination, nothing came out to negate his statements therefore the prosecution has proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt that death of deceased is homicidal in nature, as such the learned Trial Court has rightly found that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature. 12. Now we have to consider that whether the accused is author of this crime or not? 13. PW-1 Saukhi Lal stated that the accused assaulted Manoj by club then he ran away and after 3 days he came to know that dead body of Manoj was found. 14. PW-3 Heeramoti stated that she was in love affair with Manoj. In the night of incident, she was talking to Manoj at that time the accused came there and slapped him 3-4 times, thereafter she went to her house and after 2-3 days she came to know that Manoj has been killed. She also stated that when she was talking to Manoj, the accused assaulted the deceased Manoj on his head by club, upon which he fell down. The prosecution declared her hostile and cross-examined her then she admitted this suggestion of prosecution that on the next day of the incident, when Saukhi Lal had asked her where is Manoj, then she told that Manoj has gone to his house at 10 pm. 15. PW-5 Baiga Ram, father of Heeramoti stated that when he was sleeping, at that time the accused came there and called him and 6 told that he has killed the deceased Manoj. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him then he admitted this suggestion of prosecution that the accused had told him that he has slapped the deceased 2-3 times and also told that Manoj has run away from there. 16. D. Lakra (PW-14) stated that he prepared spot map (Ex-P/32) and admitted his signature on A to A part of the same and seized clothes from spot and from the pocket of the deceased, one photo of a girl, aadhar card and intex mobile phone were seized as per seizure memo (Ex-P/10) and admitted his signature on C to C part of the same. 17. Budhwar Singh (PW-8) stated that the police seized clothes of deceased and one purse and mobile were also seized from the pocket of the trouser of the deceased and in the seized purse, one photo of a girl was found, which belongs to Heeramoti. The Police recorded memorandum of accused (Ex-P/9) and as per memorandum one club was seized. The other witness Ramesh Kumar (PW-4) also admitted his signature on memorandum and stated that the accused had told him that he has kept club on the roof and police recovered club as per seizure memo (Ex-P/10). The defence suggested some witnesses that on the date of incident the accused only slapped Manoj but PW-1 Saukhi Lal and PW-3 Heeramoti who were eye witnesses of the incident remained firm on their statement that the accused assaulted the deceased by club on his head and thereafter ran away. 7 18. PW-12 Dr. P. R. Bodalkar found injuries on occipital region of deceased and also found fracture on the head of the deceased and defence also suggested that on the date of incident, the accused had slapped him. Thus, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident, the accused assaulted the deceased and after sometime deceased died due to internal and external injuries from his vital part. 19. The Hon’ble High Court of M. P. in Ghanshyam (supra) held in paras 24 & 25 as under:- “24. In Mahendra Singh vs. State of Delhi Administration (AIR 1986 SC 3091, it is held that grievous heart caused by blunt weapon like lathi, can fall with section 325 of IPC and not under Section 326 of IPC Likewise, in another case, Halke vs. State of M.P. (AIR 1994 SC 951), wherein it is held that the accused caused death of deceased by inflicting blows on him with stick Head injury proved to be fatal and deceased died after a week. In this case, the accused was held liable and punished under Section 325 of IPC. The following excerpts of the aforesaid judgement is worth to refer here- “9………………..No doubt the injury on the head proved to be fatal after lapse of one week but from that alone it cannot be said that the offence committed by the two appellants was one punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC. The injuries found on the witnesses are also of the same nature and for the same they are convicted under Section 325 of IPC " 25. Having gone through the evidence available on record, the case of the appellant came under "Eighthly" of Section 320 of IPC which defines "Grievous Hurt" Since the deceased had suffered a head injury which endangers his life as suggested under the clause. It is established that the deceased was conscious throughout the treatment and he expired after five days of the incident Le. on 21 05 2021 The medical evidence also does not bring out that the injury which was caused, was fatal fatal injury 8 in ordinary course of nature of cause death. Admittedly, a single blow was used, hence in the considered opinion of this Court, the appellant can only be attributed for committing the offence punishable under Section 325 of IPC.” 20. In the present case also, it is clear that as per prosecution story on the date of incident, Heeramoti and Manoj were talking to each other, at that time the accused objected as he is brother-in- law (jija) of Heeramoti and as per defence itself, he slapped Manoj and assaulted him by club on 31st day, after that Manoj left the spot and after sometime his dead body was found by the villagers on 03.08.2016 and as per PW-12 Dr. P. R. Bodalkar death of the deceased was due to excessive internal and external bleeding and fracture in parietal and occipital region. It is the prosecution case that after assault deceased left the spot and after sometime his dead body was found. The medical evidence does not bring out that the injuries sustained by the deceased were vital in ordinary course to cause death and it is an admitted position that admittedly single blow was inflicted by the accused/appellant, hence in the considered opinion of this Court the appellant can only be attributed for committing the offence under Section 325 of IPC. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant is altered into Section 325 of IPC instead of Section 302 of IPC, whereas his conviction and sentence under Section 201 of IPC shall remain intact. 21. The appellant remained in jail from 07.08.2016 to 24.04.2019 i.e., 9 for the period of almost three years. Therefore, he is sentenced to the period already undergone by him. 22. The appeal is partly allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is modified to the extent indicated above. 23. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 24. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Judge Nirala