1 CRA No. 584 of 2017 2025:CGHC:55359-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 584 of 2017 [Arising out of judgment dated 28.11.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No.05/2016 by the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh.]  Suresh Rao S/o Niranjan Rao, aged about 21 years R/o Bagdei Para, Kasdol, Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through the Police Station Kasdol, District Balodabazar-Bhatapara, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Advocate. For State-Respondent :- Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (13.11.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1.Non-bailable warrant issued by this Court against the appellant vide order dated ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.11.14 10:50:29 +0530 2 CRA No. 584 of 2017 08.10.2025 is hereby recalled. With the consent of the parties, the matter is heard finally. 2.Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant herein, is to the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 28.11.2016 passed by the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar, District Balodabazar, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.05/2016, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of ₹10,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for one year and also convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 7 years with fine of 2,000/-; in default of payment of fine ₹ he has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both sentences are directed to run concurrently. 3 CRA No. 584 of 2017 Prosecution story:- 3.Case of the prosecution in nutshell is that between 02.10.2015 to 05.10.2015 the appellant caused the death of Dhansuram Sahu by assaulting him by iron chopper knife and to screen himself (appellant) from the offence he threw the knife into the Laat river. Brother of the deceased Dharmu Lal Sahu (PW-3) reported the merg intimation/information of sudden and untimely death (Ex.P/4) pursuant to which FIR was registered vide Ex.P/16. Nazari naksha was prepared vide Ex.P/8. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/2 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/3) proved by Dr. Amitraj Jangde (PW-10), cause of death was multiple injuries and homicidal in nature. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/9) weapon of offence i.e. iron chopper knife and scooty were recovered vide Exs.P/10 & P/11, respectively. Other 4 CRA No. 584 of 2017 articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL. In the FSL report (Ex.P/20) on Articles A1 & A2 (bedsheets) blood was found; on Articles B & C (hair and soil) human blood was found, however, on the weapon of offence neither human blood nor blood was found. 4.After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 5.In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents, whereas, defence, in support of its case, has not examined any witness, but exhibited 1 documents. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against 5 CRA No. 584 of 2017 him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 6.The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the Parties:- 7.Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified on convicting appellant for offences in question. He would also submit that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of recovery of weapon of offence i.e. iron chopper knife pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant, however, no blood was found in the FSL report on the weapon of 6 CRA No. 584 of 2017 offence. Furthermore, as per the prosecution case, scooty was also seized pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant. However as per the seizure witness Jeevrakhan Sahu (PW- 5) he has seen the scooty standing at the police station and the same was not seized in his presence. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 8.Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State counsel, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence in question as pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant weapon of offence seized, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein above and gone through the records precisely. 7 CRA No. 584 of 2017 Discussion & Analysis:- 10. The first question, as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P/3) proved by Dr. Amitraj Jangde (PW-10), which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 11. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has assaulted the deceased? 12. The trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of seizure of weapon of offence i.e. iron chopper knife and scooty vide Exs.P/10 & P/11, respectively pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant also in the FSL report (Ex.P/20) on the bedsheets, hair and soil 8 CRA No. 584 of 2017 blood was found though in the chemical analysis no blood was found on the iron chopper knife. 13. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the appellant has rightly been convicted on the basis of seizure of iron chopper knife and scooty which were recovered pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant. 14. As per the prosecution, the weapon of offence was seized in the flowing water of Laat river. The seizure of iron chopper knife (Ex.P/10) was proved by Jeevrakhan Sahu (PW-5). PW-5 at para 7 of his statement before the Court has stated that the Police personnel had informed him that the appellant had disclosed that he had thrown the chopper into the canal of Saalar village pursuant to which weapon of offence was recovered. However, in this regard decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v State of Rajasthan 1 may be noticed herein in which their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the disclosure 1 (2011) 11 SCC 724 9 CRA No. 584 of 2017 alone would not automatically lead to conclusion that offence was also committed by the accused and, therefore, the burden lies on prosecution to establish a close link between the discovery of material object and its use in commission of offence and observed in paragraph No.25 as under:- “25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is important is discovery of the material object at the 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 object 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.” 15. In view of the aforesaid law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the above- stated decision, seizure of iron chopper knife is of no use to the prosecution. Further, pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/9) scooty was seized vide 10 CRA No. 584 of 2017 Ex.P/11 proved by Jeevrakhan Sahu (PW-5). However PW-5 at para 5 of his statement before the Court has clearly stated that though he has proved the seizure Ex.P/11, but he had seen the seized scooty at Police Station Kasdol, which is said to have been used by the appellant at the time of the crime and it was not seized in his presence. As such, seizure of the scooty from the possession of the appellant has not been proved and the same is of no use to the prosecution and also the appellant could not be convicted on the basis of said seizure of iron chopper knife and scooty in absence of other corroborative piece of offence that too for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 16. Furthermore, in the FSL report (Ex.P/20) on the bedsheets, hair and soil blood and human blood were found. However the said articles were seized from the spot and even otherwise, in light of the decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar v. State of 11 CRA No. 584 of 2017 Chhattisgarh 2 it is well settled that only on the basis of forensic evidence appellant could not be convicted that too for offence under Section 302 of the IPC without corroboration. Conclusion:- 17. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.11.2016 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences in question, is hereby set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt. Appellant is stated to be on bail. He need not surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial 2 2024 SCC Online SC 67 12 CRA No. 584 of 2017 Court concerned, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Ankit