1 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 2025:CGHC:55288-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2151 of 2024 1. Karan Banjare S/o Ramnarayan Banjare Aged About 22 Years R/o Village Mission Parsabhader, P.S. City Kotwali Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. 2. Pankaj Banjare S/o Ram Narayan Banjare Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Mission Parsabhader, P.S. City Kotwali Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. City Kotwali Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar- Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 2083 of 2024 Pintu Banjare S/o Santosh Banjare Aged About 24 Years Resident Of Mission Parsabhader, P.S. City Kotwali, Balodabazar Chhattisgarh. ---Appellants(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station City Kotwali, Balodabazar District Balodabazar Bhatapara Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Mr. Bharat Lal Sahu and Mr. Rekh Raj Baghel, Advocates For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G. ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.11.14 16:26:58 +0530 2 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 13.11.2025 These criminal appeals, filed by the appellants-accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.10.2024, passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Balodabazar, District- Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 32/2023, whereby the appellants-accused have been convicted and sentenced as follows: Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 r/w Section 34 of the IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/- in default of fine additional 3 months of imprisonment 1. In the present case, 14 accused persons namely; Phulesh, Girish Tandon, Hitesh @ Hitesh Tandon, Somnath, Nikhil, Poonam Kaushal, Tiger Tandon, Nitesh, Sagar Banjare, Pintu Banjaree, Manoj Banjaree, Karan Banjaree, Pankaj Banjaree, Vilas Chalak were tried before the learned Trial Court. Upon conclusion of the trial and appreciation of the evidence on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted 11 accused persons of all charges, while convicting 3 accused persons, who are the appellants namely; Karan Banjare, Pankaj Banjare (CRA No. 2151 of 2024) and 3 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 Pintu Banjare (CRA No. 2083 of 2024) in the present appeals before this Court. 2. The prosecution’s case is that on 27.11.2022, complainant Priyanshu Patle (PW-1) and his grandfather Ganesh Ram Patle (since deceased) had come from Mungeli to Balodabazar to attend the wedding reception of Vijay Anant at Late Nayandas Smriti Satnam Bhawan, Balodabazar. Around 11:00 p.m., while guests and family members were dancing to DJ music after dinner, a quarrel broke out between some guests and a group of boys who were dancing. During the altercation, several boys, armed with wooden sticks and stones, began assaulting the guests and vandalizing chairs, tables, and food arrangements. The complainant, out of fear, hid nearby and witnessed his grandfather being surrounded and brutally beaten by the assailants, resulting in serious injuries. Other guests, including Ajay Navrange and Ayush Kumar Dahriya, were also injured. The injured were taken to the District Hospital, Balodabazar, where Ganesh Ram Patle was declared dead. Based on the complainant’s report, a crime was registered, and during the investigation, a site map was prepared, a Panchanama of the deceased was conducted, and the body was sent for post- mortem. The autopsy revealed multiple injuries, and the cause of death was opined to be due to a head injury, with the nature of death declared homicidal. 4 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 3. During investigation, blood-stained soil, plain soil, and slippers were seized from the scene (Ex. P-28). The accused were arrested after being interrogated, and their memorandums were recorded, leading to the seizure of bricks, sticks, rods, and iron angle pipes used in the assault. A panchnama of the damage (Ex. P-29) was prepared, and the seized weapons were examined by a doctor. Statements of witnesses were recorded, and after completing the investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 25.02.2023 before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Baloda Bazar. 4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 21 witnesses, exhibited 67 documents and 4 defence witness as well. The statement of the appellants under Section 313 of the CrPC were recorded, wherein they denied the allegations. 5. The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellants for the aforementioned offence and sentenced them as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved thereby, the appellants- accused have preferred the present appeals questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. The prosecution primarily relied on P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3, who are related and interested witnesses. Their cross-examinations clearly reveal that 5 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 none of them actually saw the appellants assaulting the deceased, and their statements were based merely on information received from villagers and police personnel. P.W.1 lodged a named FIR against 11 persons and 10–15 others despite not knowing or identifying them and later resiled from his earlier version before the court. P.W.2 and P.W.3 also made similar contradictory statements. No test identification parade was conducted, and the alleged seized weapons were recovered from an open place accessible to all. There is no established motive, as the deceased was neither known to nor had any enmity with the appellants. Hence, there is no credible evidence to sustain their conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and the learned Trial Court erred in appreciating the evidence. Therefore, it is humbly prayed that the appellants be acquitted of the said offence. 7. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submitting that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by adducing clinching evidence. It is argued that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, and hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the 6 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 records with utmost circumspection. 9. The first and foremost question for consideration is whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The learned Trial Court has answered this in the affirmative, relying on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly the postmortem report (Ex.P-06), which stands duly proved by the testimony of Dr. Narendra Kumar Bhoi (PW-16). 10. On careful consideration of the postmortem report (Ex.P-06) and the categorical statement of Dr. Narendra Kumar Bhoi (PW-16) that the death of the deceased was homicidal, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in holding so. The said finding is a correct finding of fact, based on evidence, and is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we affirm the said finding. 11. The next question for consideration is whether the accused- appellants herein are the author of the crime in question. 12. Priyanshu Patle (PW-1) stated that he is the grandson of the deceased, Ganesh Ram Patle. On 27.11.2022, he had accompanied his grandfather, father, and other relatives as baratis to attend the marriage of Vijay Anand at Lendas Smriti Satnam Bhavan, Balodabazar. He further stated that after the jaimala ceremony, DJ music was playing, and both baratis and 7 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 gharatis were dancing. He further stated that he and his grandfather were seated on a bench near the stage when a quarrel suddenly broke out among certain persons. Though he did not know them earlier, he later came to know and identified the accused persons — Karan Banjare, Pintu Banjare, Pankaj Banjare — along with one child in conflict with law (CCL), whose trial conducted by the concerned Juvenile Justice Board, as participants in the scuffle. He deposed that the said persons were armed with sticks and iron rods and were shouting “maro, maro.” They advanced towards the baratis and started assaulting them. He further stated that he along with his younger brother and others, ran behind the temple for safety, while his grandfather remained behind. From a distance of about 9-10 feet, he saw the accused and the CCL assaulting his grandfather. After the assailants left, he went near his grandfather and found him injured, bleeding from the head and with a fractured right hand. His grandfather was still breathing. On hearing the commotion, the police arrived, and an ambulance was called. The injured was taken to the District Hospital, Balodabazar, where the doctor declared him dead. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that about 100–150 baratis and 200–300 gharatis were present at the venue, and that the jaimala and DJ were going on simultaneously. He conceded that there was some crowding but denied that movement was 8 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 impossible. He stated that there was video recording and mobile photography during the function. He was unaware of his father’s exact location when the quarrel started. He admitted that the initial scuffle took place between some baratis and gharatis who were dancing, and that his grandfather was not involved in that quarrel. He could not say what caused the dispute. He further admitted that he did not know whether the accused persons belonged to the barati or gharati side and that he came to know their names only later when police showed them to him. About 14–15 persons were brought before him by the police, but no formal test-identification parade (TIP) was conducted. He admitted that in the FIR, he named only four accused persons Karan, Pintu, Pankaj, and one CCL and that other names were later added by the police. He accepted that he had not mentioned the names of 14–15 persons in his police statement (Ex. D-1). He denied the defence suggestion that he was not present at the scene or that the deceased sustained injuries accidentally during the scuffle between baratis and gharatis. He also denied false implication of the accused due to enmity, stating that he identified them based on information received later from villagers and police. He admitted that he himself did not suffer any injury as he had run away and hidden during the assault. 13. Pramod Narayan Patle (PW-2) stated that the deceased, Ganesh Ram Patle, was his father. On 27.11.2022, he along with his 9 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 father, his son Priyanshu (complainant), and other relatives had come from District Mungeli to attend the marriage of Vijay Anand at Lendas Smriti Bhavan, Balodabazar, as baratis. Approximately 150–200 baratis were present. Around 11:00 p.m., after having dinner, he, his father, his son, and some relatives were sitting on chairs near the stage where DJ music was being played and both baratis and gharatis were dancing. He deposed that at about 11:00 p.m., four persons came running towards the dancing area and began shouting “maro, maro.” At that time, he recognized those persons by face but they are not present before the Court on the date of his deposition. Later, when the police showed him certain photographs, he identified three persons namely, Karan Banjare, Pintu Banjare, and Pankaj Banjare as those involved in the assault. He further stated that the said three accused persons along with a CCL attacked his father with sticks, iron rods, and iron angles near the temple adjacent to the venue. The witness himself, along with his brothers, climbed onto the roof of the temple out of fear and from there he saw the accused persons assaulting his father. After the incident, police arrived at the spot, following which the injured was taken by ambulance to the District Hospital, Balodabazar, where doctors declared him dead. He stated that he could not recall exactly which accused had used which weapon to assault his father. He confirmed having given his statement to the police. 10 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 This witness deviated from his previous statement and he was declared hostile at this stage. During cross-examination by the prosecution, the witness denied the suggestion that other accused persons — namely, Ritesh Tandon, Nikhil Chelak, Khileshwar Bandhe, Somnath Tandon, and Vilas Chelak were also involved in the offence. He maintained that he had recognized only Karan, Pintu, and Pankaj Banjare from the photographs shown to him. He denied that the accused were called by the DJ operator or that they had come along with 10–15 other persons. He also denied having told the police that the accused and their associates had surrounded the baratis and prevented them from leaving the venue. He further stated that around 150–200 baratis and an equal number of gharatis were present. He admitted that both sides were dancing to the DJ music, and a quarrel had started among them. He stated that he did not know who initiated the quarrel and that his father was not initially involved in it. He also admitted that he could not say whether the accused persons belonged to the barati or gharati side. He stated that the police later showed him several persons (about 10–15) and asked him to identify those involved, and he recognized four persons namely, Karan, Pintu, Pankaj, and a CCL. He admitted that the police had told him their names during the identification process. He denied knowing on what basis the police had ascribed names to the accused 11 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 persons. He further admitted that the police had written in his statement that 25–30 persons were involved in the assault, though he himself had not mentioned such a number. The witness clarified that the reference in his police statement describing the deceased as his grandson’s “grandfather” instead of his own “father” was a clerical error, and he came to know of it only upon reading his statement in court. He denied intentionally giving a false description to conceal his identity. He admitted that he did not file the FIR; rather, his son Priyanshu lodged the report with the police. He clarifies that the persons were not carrying weapons at the time of dancing. He also stated that there was video recording, mobile photography, and drone footage of the marriage, though he personally had not seen the recording in the pen drive. He admitted that the police had shown him some of the accused at the police station and asked him to identify them as participants in the incident. He denied the defence suggestion that he was not present at the scene of occurrence, that he had falsely implicated Karan, Pintu, and Pankaj Banjare due to personal bias, or that he had reached a compromise with the other accused. He maintained that he had seen his father being assaulted but admitted that he could not specify who struck which blow or what exact weapons were used. 14. Tarun Patle (PW–3) stated that he identified the accused persons present in court. He pointed out one tall and well-built accused, 12 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 who disclosed his name as Pankaj Banjare when asked by the Court. He further identified another accused wearing a blue shirt, who stated his name as Karan Banjare. The witness added that there was one more accused involved in the incident who was not present in court, and against whom proceedings were pending before the Juvenile Justice Board. He affirmed that he did not know or recognize the remaining accused persons present in court. He deposed that the deceased, Ganesh Ram Patle, was his elder uncle. On 27.11.2022, he had come from Mungeli to Balodabazar along with his relatives as a barati to attend the marriage of Vijay Anand, who was his grandson, held at Nayandas Smriti Bhavan, Balodabazar. At about 10:30–11:00 p.m., while the wedding programme and dinner were ongoing and the DJ was playing, he was sitting on a red chair on the right side of the stage after having his meal. At that time, a scuffle broke out near the DJ area. Two to three young men from outside entered the venue carrying iron rods and sticks. Seeing the fight, people started running in panic. The witness, along with others, climbed to the roof of a nearby temple for safety. He stated that his elder uncle, Ganesh Ram Patle, was sitting near the stage when three to four persons came running and started beating him. The witness saw the assault from the rear side of the temple roof but did not come down due to fear. As a result of the assault, his uncle fell to the ground. After about 10–15 minutes, police arrived 13 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 at the spot and took the injured to the District Hospital, Balodabazar, in an ambulance. His nephew Priyanshu and another relative Tanish accompanied the injured in the ambulance. When the witness and his brother Pramod reached the hospital later, the doctor had already declared the victim dead. The witness further stated that he accompanied Priyanshu Patle to the City Kotwali police station, where Priyanshu lodged the FIR. The police then brought 8–10 suspects to the station, confined the witness and others in a room, and conducted an identification exercise. The witness identified the same persons he had recognized earlier during the incident. He further deposed that the police recorded his statement that night, and they stayed at the station until morning. The next day, he along with Harendra Patle, and Priyanshu were taken to the Smriti Bhavan by the police. In his presence, the police seized an iron pipe about 2–3 feet long, an iron angle, a bamboo stick, blood-stained soil, and a rubber slipper from the place where his uncle had fallen and bled. The witness identified the accused Pintu Banjare, Pankaj Banjare, and Karan Banjare when produced through video conferencing, and stated that these three were interrogated by the police in his presence. He added that one CCL was also interrogated earlier, but was not present in court. He stated that in his presence, the police seized an iron angle, bamboo stick, blood-stained soil, a pair of plastic slippers, and a blood-stained 14 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 gamcha from the accused persons. He further confirmed that the police seized an iron angle from Pankaj Banjare, an iron pipe from Pintu Banjare, and an iron rod from Karan Banjare in his presence. He signed on all seizure documents (Ex. P-14A to P- 27A) and stated that he saw the police collecting the articles from the scene. He denied having seen any furniture or items damaged at the spot. He identified his signature on the damage inspection report (Ex. P-29). At this stage, as the witness did not fully support the prosecution version, he was declared hostile. In cross-examination by the prosecution, the witness denied knowing or identifying several other accused, including Khileshwar Bandhe, Girish Tandon, Hitesh @ Ritesh Tandon, Somnath @ Radhe Tandon, Nikhil Chelak, Poonam Kaushal @ Lallu, Tiger Tandon, Nitesh Tandon, Manoj Banjare, and Vilas Chelak. He stated that no recovery or memorandum was made from these persons in his presence. He denied having told the police that these persons participated in the offence or that they were interrogated in his presence. He also denied knowledge of any DJ operator named Raja or that the accused were called to the venue by him. However, he affirmed that in his police statement, he had mentioned that Ganesh Ram Patle was assaulted by Pintu, Karan, Pankaj Banjare and their associates with sticks, iron rods, and stones, resulting in his death, and that others like Ayush Dahariya and Ajay Navrange had also 15 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 sustained injuries. He denied concealing the identity of any other assailants. He admitted that at the time they arrived from Mungeli, DJ music was already playing and some gharatis were dancing. He stated that he had heard that an earlier scuffle had occurred near the DJ but had subsided before his arrival. He did not know how the second quarrel started and admitted ignorance of its cause. He further admitted that Ganesh Ram Patle had no prior enmity with any of the accused. He admitted the suggestion that during the incident, a stampede-like situation arose, and it was difficult to discern who was hitting whom. He admitted that he did not know the accused persons prior to the incident and came to know their names later from the police. He also admitted that his police statement erroneously recorded Ganesh Ram Patle as his grandfather instead of elder uncle, which he had pointed out at the police station but was told it would make no difference. He stated that several additional names were inserted in his police statement without his knowledge. He admitted that he did not read the documents on which he signed, nor were they read over to him by the police. He confirmed that the seizure of iron rods and sticks took place at the temple area within the marriage venue and that those items were lying scattered when seized. He denied having told the police that he had witnessed the assault from the temple roof and stated that if such a statement appears in Ex. D-3, it was recorded by police on their own accord. He 16 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 denied the defence suggestion that he was deposing on hearsay, or that he had falsely named the three accused, or that he was not present at the spot during the occurrence. 15. Mohan Singh Gaikwad (PW- 4) stated that he did not know or recognize any of the accused persons present in the Court. He stated that he knew one Vijay Kumar Anant, who is his brother-in- law (husband of his sister). He also knew the deceased, Ganesh Ram Patle, who was his grandfather in relation. He further stated that he did not know how his grandfather, Ganesh Ram Patle, had died. He deposed that he had attended the marriage ceremony of his brother-in-law at Satnam Bhavan, Baloda Bazar. He further stated that he remained with the groom throughout the marriage function. The witness further deposed that during the marriage ceremony, songs were being played on the DJ, and guests were making song requests. Suddenly, a quarrel took place near the DJ setup, but he did not know how it started. He stated that the quarrel occurred over the issue of playing songs on the DJ. He further stated that he had not given any statement to the police, nor had the police interrogated him. He added that, on the day of the incident, while getting down from the wedding stage, he slipped and sustained injuries. The police officers present there asked him to accompany them to the hospital if he had sustained any injury. Accordingly, he went with the police to the District Hospital, Baloda Bazar, where he was medically 17 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 treated. The witness did not support the prosecution version and was declared hostile at this stage. During cross examination he denied the suggestion that during the scuffle, when he tried to intervene, the accused persons assaulted him, causing injuries to his back, chest, and hands, for which he was sent to the District Hospital, Baloda Bazar, for treatment. He denied the suggestion that his claim of slipping from the stage and sustaining injuries was false. He denied that the incident of assault had occurred in his presence inside Satnam Bhavan. He also denied the suggestion that he was deposing falsely before the Court under the pressure or influence of the accused persons. 16. Harendra Patle (PW-9) stated that he did not know or recognize the persons present in Court, namely Nitesh Tandon alias Nikku, Sagar Banjare, Tiger Tandon, Manoj Banjare, Girish Tandon, and Poonam Kaushal. However, upon being shown the arrest memos containing photographs of accused Karan Banjare, Pankaj Banjare, and Pintu Banjare, he identified and recognized them. When the remaining accused Nikhil Chelak, Somnath Tandon alias Radhe, Fuleshwar Bandhe alias Foulesh, Vikas Chelak alias Kanu, and Hitesh alias Ritesh were shown to him through video conferencing, the witness stated that he did not know or recognize them. He deposed that the deceased, Ganesh Ram 18 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 Patle, was his paternal uncle. The incident took place on 27.11.2022 during a marriage ceremony at Nain Das Smriti Bhavan, Baloda Bazar, where he had gone to attend the wedding procession (barat) of Vijay Anant from Mungeli. The witness stated that he reached the venue between 7:00–8:00 PM. He saw a scuffle during which Ganesh Ram Patle was beaten, resulting in his death. The witness claimed he was hiding near the Guru Ghasidas temple and saw Karan, Pankaj, and Pintu assaulting the deceased with iron rods and pipes. He saw blood oozing from the deceased’s head. He could not confirm whether other persons were also involved and also clarifies that he do not knew the name of the persons who caused the assault and came to know the name only after going to the police station. Shortly thereafter, the police arrived at the scene. He further stated that the injured persons were taken to the District Hospital, Baloda Bazar, where doctors declared Ganesh Ram dead. The witness confirmed that the police had seized one iron angle from Pankaj Banjare, one iron pipe from Pintu Banjare, and one iron rod from Karan Banjare in his presence. He identified his signatures on the seizure memos (Exhibits P/14A to P/27 and P/28). He further stated that he came to know that two other persons namely Ayush Dhariya and Ajay were also injured. This witness was declared hostile at this stage. During cross examination the witness stated that around 19 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 150–200 baratis and an equal number of gharatis attended the wedding, apart from other guests. The barat arrived at about 7:00 PM. The baratis and gharatis were dancing together with the DJ band. He stated that one portion of the building had the marriage mandap, another had the dining area, and another section had the DJ stage where people were dancing. Around 100 chairs were arranged for those not dancing. He estimated that about 250–300 persons were present in total. He admitted that the quarrel initially arose during the dance on the DJ floor, commonly referred to as a dispute over dancing. He stated that after the first dispute was resolved, the marriage ceremony resumed peacefully. During that earlier quarrel, he did not notice accused Karan, Pankaj, or Pintu at the spot. About 15–20 people were dancing at that time. He further stated that when the second quarrel and assault occurred, he could not tell whether those who fought were baratis or gharatis, since about 150 baratis were present. He said the fight lasted around 20–25 minutes, many people were recording videos and photos with mobile phones, and a drone camera was also flying overhead. The witness admitted that he did not know by name those who actually assaulted the deceased, though he recognized their faces later when the police showed him. He stated that the police brought several persons to the police station and asked him to identify the assailants; he had identified Karan, Pankaj, and Pintu among 20 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 them. He admitted that some papers were blank when he signed them and that he did not know what was later written on them. He confirmed that the deceased Ganesh Ram Patle was about 55– 60 years old and that there was no prior enmity between him and the accused. He denied the suggestion that the deceased died due to injuries sustained in a stampede rather than an assault. He admitted that around 30–40 persons from each side were involved in the scuffle. He stated that he hid near the temple during the attack and therefore sustained no injuries himself. The witness stated that he neither knew nor could identify the co- accused who were companions of the other accused persons. 17. Ayush Dahariya (PW-15) injured witness stated that he did not know or recognize any of the accused persons present in the dock or those appearing through video conferencing. He deposed that on 27.11.2022, he had come to Baloda Bazar to attend the marriage ceremony of his maternal uncle, Vijay Anant, which was held at Satnam Bhavan. Around 10:00 p.m., after having dinner, he was sitting near the DJ setup inside the building when a commotion broke out near the DJ area and a fight ensued. While he tried to move away from the spot, his foot got stuck in a chair, causing him to fall down. Due to the ensuing chaos and stampede, several people ran over him, and as a result, his leg was injured and fractured. He further stated that the police reached the spot and took him by ambulance to the District 21 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 Hospital, Baloda Bazar, where he was medically examined. He added that he had no further knowledge about the incident and that the police neither interrogated him nor recorded his statement. As the witness did not support the prosecution version, he was declared hostile. During cross-Examination the witness admitted that the dispute near the DJ had arisen over dancing and singing. He denied the suggestion that the DJ operator had called certain boys over the phone to the venue. He stated that about 10–15 boys did arrive at Satnam Bhavan after a phone call to the DJ operator, carrying sticks and rods in their hands. Those boys were abusing and shouting that the baratis should not be allowed to leave and began assaulting people with sticks, iron rods, angles, and bricks. He denied the suggestion that one of those boys, namely Radhe Tandon, had struck him with a stick, causing a fracture to his right leg. He, however, admitted that due to the assault, one of the baratis, Ganesh Ram, had died. He denied the suggestion that other local boys from Baloda Bazar — including Pintu Banjare, Karan Banjare, Lalla Tandon, Nikhil Chelak, Shivam Chauhan, and others had participated in the assault. The witness reiterated that the police had not recorded his statement at any stage and admitted that he was narrating details of the quarrel and assault for the first time before the Court. 22 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 18. Dr. Narendra Kumar Bhoi (PW-16) deposed that on 28-11-2022 the deceased, Ganesh Ram Patle (age 63), was produced before him at 10:30 a.m. for post mortem. He described the external condition of the body: the deceased was of ordinary build and elderly; both hands were flexed, both eyes were closed with peri- orbital swelling, blood was oozing from the nostrils, and there was an injury over the right wrist. The witness further stated that there was a lacerated, ragged wound on the right side of the head measuring about 5 cm × 3 cm × 2 cm. On exposing the skull he found intracranial haemorrhage a clot in the brain measuring approximately 3 cm × 1 cm. The right wrist bone was fractured; the fracture was intra-osseous and the distal part of the hand was hanging. On internal examination he stated that the heart chambers were clear, the lungs and liver appeared normal, food particles were present in the stomach, and the spleen and kidneys were normal. He recorded that he had found injuries on the right hand consistent with fracture and that there was bleeding into the cranial cavity. He gave his opinion that the head injury had produced intracranial haemorrhage sufficient to arrest cardiac activity and that the death may be homicidal in nature. He referred to his detailed post-mortem report, Exhibit P-06, and to the post-mortem application, Exhibit P-06A, and identified his signatures on those exhibits. The witness further stated that on 24-12-2022 he was called upon to examine certain seized articles 23 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 and to opine whether those articles could have caused the injuries and death. He recorded his opinion that the seized articles (logs/wooden stick, bamboo stick, triangular iron angle, iron pipe, and a brick) were capable of producing the injuries observed and could cause death; he recommended chemical testing to determine whether the stains on those articles were human blood. Under cross-examination by defence counsel, the witness accepted that if a person falls headfirst on a hard or blunt surface during a stampede or collapse, injuries similar to those observed on the deceased’s head could occur. He admitted that repeated blows with sticks or pipe-like instruments to an upper limb could produce fractures of the wrist. He accepted that from the morphology of injuries alone one could not always distinguish whether the injury had been caused by a fall or by an assault with a blunt instrument. 19. Yadumani Sidar (PW-20) I.O. Investigating Officer during cross- examination stated that the incident took place on 27.11.2023 at about 11:00 p.m., and the FIR was lodged on 28.11.2023 at 03:35 a.m. He admitted that, as per the FIR, around 35–36 persons were stated to be involved in the assault, though only 15 accused were ultimately charge-sheeted after investigation. He further admitted that one of the persons named in the FIR, Naveen 24 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 Manhare, was subsequently found not to be present at the spot and was therefore excluded from the charge-sheet. 20. Further, the other injured witnesses Lalita Patle (PW-14), Ajay Navrang (not examined), Chandraprakash Anant (PW-5) and Prem Prakash Anant (PW-7) have not stated anything against the appellants and have not supported the case of the prosecution and have declared hostile. 21. Upon a careful and comprehensive evaluation of the entire evidence available on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence itself reveals that the unfortunate incident occurred during a marriage function attended by more than 400–500 people, including baratis and gharatis, and the FIR initially mentioned the involvement of around 30–35 persons. However, only 15 persons were eventually charge-sheeted after investigation. This wide disparity between the number of persons named and those ultimately prosecuted creates a serious doubt regarding the accuracy and reliability of the identification of the actual assailants. 22. The primary witnesses, namely P.W.1, P.W.2, and P.W.3, were all related to the deceased and have given inconsistent and contradictory statements on crucial aspects of the case. Each of them admitted in cross-examination that they did not know the 25 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 accused persons earlier and had come to know their names only later when shown by the police. No Test Identification Parade (TIP) was conducted to establish their ability to correctly identify the culprits. The identification of the accused persons for the first time in court, long after the incident and allegedly at the instance of the police, is highly unsafe to rely upon, especially when the witnesses themselves concede that 30–40 persons were involved in the scuffle. Such identification cannot inspire confidence. 23. Further, it has come on record that during the incident, a stampede-like situation had arisen when several people began running in panic after a quarrel broke out near the DJ area. Many witnesses, including the injured ones, admitted that it was difficult to discern who was hitting whom in the commotion. This possibility of chaos and confusion seriously undermines the prosecution’s claim that the appellants alone were responsible for the assault. The injured witnesses, including Ayush Dahariya (PW-15) and Lalita Patle (PW-14), have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution version, which further weakens the case. The alleged recovery of iron rods, angle pipes, and sticks also fail` to connect the appellants with the crime. The seizure was made from an open area accessible to all, and no independent witness has corroborated that the seized articles were recovered from the possession or at the instance of the appellants. Importantly, none of the eyewitnesses specifically 26 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 mentioned in their deposition that the deceased was assaulted with the same iron rods or pipes allegedly seized later. There is also a serious doubt regarding the credibility of the eyewitness account. P.W.2 and P.W.3 stated that they saw the assault from the roof of a nearby temple, but it has been admitted during cross-examination that there were no stairs or access to reach the roof, making their claim improbable and unreliable. The overall testimony of these witnesses, riddled with contradictions, improbabilities, and improvements, cannot be safely relied upon to sustain a conviction for a charge of murder. 24. In view of these inconsistencies, doubtful identification, absence of motive, lack of credible recovery, and the hostile turn of key witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. The appellants are therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt. 25. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellants, warranting his acquittal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 26. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him under Sections 302 read with 34 IPC cannot be sustained and 27 CRA No.2151 of 2024 & 2083 of 2024 are liable to be set aside. 27. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge Balodabazar, District-Balodabazar Bhatapara (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 32/2023 is hereby set aside, and the appellants are acquitted of all the charges. Since the appellants are in custody, they be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. 28. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC, the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with two reliable sureties each in the like amount before the Court concerned 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 appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 29. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Jyoti/ Shoaib