1 2025:CGHC:58799-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 315 of 2021 Jeevan Majhwar S/o Biran Majhwar Aged About 32 Years Caste- Majhwar, R/o Village- Nanadmali (Junapara), Police Station- Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The District Magistrate, District Surguja Chhattisgarh, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 04.12.2025 1. Heard Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.12.05 11:23:03 +0530 2 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.02.2021 passed by the learned Sessions Judge Ambikapur, District- Sarguja (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 113/2019 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence as under:- Conviction under Section Sentence (Rigorous imprisonment) Fine In default of payment of fine add. imprisonment Section 449 of the IPC 10 years Rs. 500/- 03 months Section 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment Rs.1,000/- 06 months Section 307 of the IPC 10 years Rs. 500/- 03 months All sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 01.09.2019, Darima Police Station received information through a mobile call and Dial-112 that one Jeevan Majhwar, resident of village Nandamali, Junapara, had assaulted a neighbouring couple with a knife, resulting in the death of the woman and causing serious injuries to her husband. Acting upon the said intimation, Sub-Inspector Ramangina Yadav reached the spot along with the police staff, where the son of the deceased, Jayeshwar Kujur, made an oral report. He stated that at the time of the incident, he was present in his own house with his wife, while his parents were residing separately in their old house. It was further alleged that the accused was undergoing treatment for a throat ailment from his father 3 through a Dewari ritual, for which he had given chicken, liquor and money. However, when his ailment did not subside, the accused, in a fit of anger, entered his father’s house and inflicted knife injuries on his mother Phulari Bai on the abdomen, neck and other parts of the body, causing her death. He also attacked his father, Ramnath, with the same weapon, causing grievous injuries on his forehead, chest, hands and other parts, whereafter Ramnath was shifted to Ambikapur for treatment through Dial-112. On hearing their cries, Jayeshwar and his wife reached the spot and raised an alarm, upon which neighbouring villagers also arrived. 4. Based on the oral report lodged by Jayeshwar, Rural Inquest Intimation No. 0/19 (Ex. P-11) was registered, and Inquest Information concerning the unnatural death of Phulari Bai was recorded vide Ex. P- 11A. Consequently, an unnumbered rural FIR No. 0/19 was registered against the accused as per Ex. P-12. 5. During investigation, at the instance of the complainant Jayeshwar, the knife allegedly used in the offence was recovered from the accused, and a recovery panchnama (Ex.P-6) was prepared. The knife was seized under Ex.P-7. Blood-stained and plain soil samples were seized from the spot under Ex.P-8. Notice to witnesses for conducting the inquest panchnama of deceased Phulari Bai was issued as per Ex.P-1, and the inquest map was prepared as per Ex.P-2. The body was thereafter sent to the Primary Health Centre, Darima, for post- mortem along with a requisition, where Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-7), 4 Medical Officer conducted the postmortem of the deceased and deposed that on 01/09/2019 at 4.05 pm, when the dead body of deceased Phulari was brought before him for examination by constable Shivshankar No. 542 of Darima police station, he examined the said dead body on the same day in which, in the general examination of the dead body, it was found that both the pupils of the deceased were open, pupils were dilated and fixed, mouth was closed and there was post mortem stiffness on the entire body of the deceased and the following injuries were found on her body:- Injuries:- 1- The dead body had a cut wound on the left side of the neck, measuring 5.5 x 2.5 x 2 cm. 2-There were several stab wounds on the chest and abdomen of the dead body. The internal examination of the body revealed the skull to be normal upon opening, the spleen, ribs, tendons, and lungs to be congested, both lungs, perianal perforation, and large vessel collapse, the larynx and trachea to be 1 cm in size. Both chambers of the heart to be empty, with a 1 cm stab wound in the right chamber. The spleen, intestinal membranes, mouth, esophagus, and pharynx to be congested, the stomach to be fluid, digested food in the small intestine and fecal matter in the large intestine. A 1.5 cm stab wound on the right lobe of the liver and two 1 cm and 1 cm stab wounds on the left lobe were found, the spleen and kidney to be congested, the urinary bladder to be empty, 5 and the internal and external genitals to be normal. This witness stated that the injuries to the deceased were caused by a sharp object. 6. According to the further statement of Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW- 7), the deceased died due to failure of heart and respiratory system due to coma caused by excessive bleeding due to neck injury, stab wound in chest and abdomen. As a result, and stating that the nature of death was homicidal, the period of death of the deceased was stated to have been within 24 hours before the post-mortem. In this regard, this witness has certified Exhibit P0-9 as the postmortem report prepared by him. 7. Thereafter, a site map of the place of occurrence was prepared (Ex. P-13), and a separate map was prepared by the Patwari (Ex. P-5). On returning to the police station the same day, Sub-Inspector Ramangina Yadav registered a numbered Inquest Information No. 73/2019 on the basis of Ex.P-11, vide Ex.P-11A. The unnumbered rural FIR (Ex.P-12) was converted into numbered FIR No. 108/2019 for offences under Sections 302, 307 and 450 IPC at Darima Police Station (Ex.P-12A). During further investigation, a memorandum (Ex.P-16) was sent to the District Medical Officer seeking a medical report regarding the injuries of Ramnath. The clothes worn by the accused during the incident were seized under Ex. P-14. The accused was arrested as per the arrest memo Ex. P-15. A memorandum (Ex. P-5B) was issued to the Tehsildar, Ambikapur, for preparation of the site map. A requisition (Ex. P-10A) was forwarded to the PHC, Darima, for examination of the 6 seized knife. Further communications (Ex. P-17, Ex. P-18, and Ex. P- 19) were issued to the Medical College, Ambikapur, seeking medical opinion on the injuries sustained by Ramnath and the weapon used. Statements of witnesses were recorded. The seized articles were forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur, through the Superintendent of Police, Surguja, and the FSL report was received as Ex. P-22. 8. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet for offences under Sections 450, 302 and 307 of the IPC was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ambikapur, and the case was thereafter committed to the Sessions Court for trial. 9. After the charge was framed under Sections 449, 302 and 307 IPC and duly explained to the accused, he denied the same and claimed trial. In his examination under Section 313 CrPC, the accused pleaded innocence and alleged false implication. Though he expressed his intention to adduce defence evidence, no witness was examined on his behalf. 10. In order to establish the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents (Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-23). After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 11. Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant submits that 7 the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case. The learned trial court failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has wrongly convicted the appellant for offences under Sections 449, 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code, which is liable to be quashed and set aside. It is contended that the conviction has been based primarily on conjectures and assumptions rather than clear, cogent and reliable evidence establishing the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. It is argued that the statements of the material witnesses are not only contradictory but also unsupported by independent corroboration, and the recovery, seizure and medical evidence have not been proved in accordance with law. He further submits that the learned trial Court overlooked vital discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, ignored material omissions, and placed unwarranted reliance on inadmissible evidence. It is further urged that the chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution is incomplete, and the prosecution has failed to establish motive or any pre-existing enmity sufficient to attribute homicidal intent to the appellant. On these premises, it is contended that the impugned judgment is unsustainable in law and facts and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charges. Also, during the course of trial, the appellant, in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, clearly explained his false implication in the case. The defence taken by the appellant is supported by the material inconsistencies in the prosecution evidence. Yet, the learned trial Court ignored this explanation and erroneously 8 convicted the appellant. In absence of any cogent, credible and trustworthy evidence against the appellant, the conviction recorded by the learned trial court is bad in law and is liable to be quashed. The appellant is entitled to acquittal of all charges levelled against him. 12. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for respondent / State submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Sections 449, 302 and 307 of the IPC after recording cogent reasons. Further, there is direct eyewitness as well as injured witness, which undoubtedly proves the guilt of the appellant and excludes every possibility of innocence. The recovery of incriminating weapon, and scientific evidence including MLC and FSL reports fully corroborate the prosecution version. The medical and forensic evidence, including the postmortem reports of the deceased and the FSL findings, clearly establish that the deceased was assaulted and murdered by the appellant in a brutal manner. The scientific evidence matches with the recoveries made at the instance of the appellant, thereby confirming his involvement. Also, the testimony of prosecution witnesses including the injured witness and eye witnesses and other independent witnesses is consistent, trustworthy, and has not been shaken in cross-examination. Their evidence, coupled with the recoveries and forensic reports, proves the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Further, the appellant’s defence of false implication in 9 his statement under Section 313 CrPC is an afterthought, unsupported by any evidence. On the contrary, his conduct, the recoveries made at his instance, and his admission in the disclosure statement establish his culpability and the delay in arrest of the appellant or in recording of some statements does not vitiate the prosecution case, particularly when the scientific evidence and recoveries provide strong corroboration. The offences committed by the appellant are heinous in nature, involving the brutal murder of the deceased woman. The learned trial Court has rightly considered the gravity of the offence and imposed conviction under appropriate sections. The judgment of conviction is well-reasoned, legally sustainable, and based on settled principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions regarding conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence and FSL reports. Hence, the appeal preferred by the accused/appellant is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original record of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 14. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 15. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased to be homicidal in nature ? 10 16. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW- 7), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased, vide Ex.P/9, has clearly come to the conclusion that cause of death was due to failure of heart and respiratory system due to coma caused by excessive bleeding due to neck injury, stab wound in chest and abdomen and the nature of death is homicidal. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 17. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P/9) of Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW- 7), who conducted postmortem. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain. 18. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of eye 11 witness, injured witness and independent witnesses i.e. Ramnath (PW- 1), Jayeshwar Kujur (PW-10), Chunmuniya Kujur (PW-5), Khemraj Singh (PW-8), Raju Singh (PW-9), Sushila Kujur (PW-1), Arpit Keshari (PW-2) and Shivnath Tirkey (PW-3). 19. In this regard, the injured eyewitness Ramnath (PW-6) fully supported the prosecution case. In his examination-in-chief, he stated that the deceased Phulari was his wife and that on the date of the incident, both were present inside their house when the accused entered holding a knife, slit his wife’s throat and also stabbed her on other parts of the body, causing her death on the spot. When he shouted for help, the accused pushed him down and inflicted knife injuries on his chest, both hands, ribs and stomach. He further stated that upon hearing his cries, his son Jayeshwar (PW-10) reached the place of occurrence. This fact has also been supported by Chunmuniya Kujur (PW-5) in her deposition. 20. The statement of injured witness Ramnath (PW-6) that his son Jayeshwar Kujur (PW-10) reached the spot during the incident, intervened, rescued him from the accused, snatched the knife from the accused and restrained him, also finds support from both Jayeshwar Kujur (PW-10) and his wife Chunmuniya Kujur (PW-5), who had reached the spot immediately after the incident. Their statements in examination-in-chief have remained completely unshaken during cross- examination. 12 21. Ramnath (PW-6) further stated that Khemraj and others also reached the scene immediately after the incident. This statement is corroborated by Khemraj (PW-4), who deposed that on the date of occurrence, while returning home from the village settlement, he heard cries coming from Ramnath’s house and therefore stopped there. According to him, Ramnath’s son, Jayeshwar, brought the accused out to the road and informed him that the accused had killed his mother with a knife and had also assaulted his father, Ramnath, with the same weapon. He further stated that soon thereafter, the injured Ramnath also arrived there, and Jayeshwar asked him to inform the Darima police station. He went to the house of Vidyasagar Gupta and conveyed the information, following which Vidyasagar informed the Darima police. 22. Although in cross-examination he admitted that he had not personally seen the accused killing Phulari or stabbing Ramnath, he is an immediate post-occurrence witness who reached the spot right after the incident, and the information given to him by the eyewitness Jayeshwar (PW-10) who had already detained the accused, directly supports the version of injured witnesses Ramnath (PW-6) and Jayeshwar (PW-10). 23. The fact that Phulari was found lying dead with injuries inside Ramnath’s house and that Ramnath (PW-6) was also seen injured is supported by Sushila Kujur (PW-1), the daughter of Ramnath, as well as by Arpit Keshari (PW-2), Shivnath Tirkey (PW-3), and Raju Singh (PW- 9) in their depositions. Their statements corroborate the testimony of 13 injured witness Ramnath (PW-6) that on the date of the incident, the accused entered his house, killed his wife by stabbing her and also assaulted him when he attempted to intervene. 24. Thus, the analysis of the evidence clearly shows that on the date of the incident, the accused entered the house of injured witness Ramnath (PW-6) and caused the death of Phulari by inflicting knife injuries on her, and when Ramnath tried to intervene, the accused also attacked him with the knife and caused serious injuries. 25. With regard to the other evidence, Sub-Inspector Ramangina Yadav (PW-12) deposed that on 01.09.2019, Jayeshwar Kujur, the complainant, produced the knife used in the incident after snatching it from the accused. The knife was recovered as per recovery memo Ex.P-6, seized as per seizure memo Ex.P-7, and blood-stained and plain soil were seized from the spot under Ex.P-8. 26. The preparation of recovery memo Ex. P-6, seizure memo Ex.P-7, and seizure of blood-stained and plain soil Ex.P-8 has also been supported by Chunmuniya Kujur (PW-5), a witness to these proceedings, and her testimony remained wholly unchallenged in cross- examination. Thus, it stands clearly proved that the knife used in the incident was produced by Jayeshwar Kujur (PW-10), recovered and seized as per Exhibits P-6 and P-7, and the blood-stained and plain soil were seized from the spot as per Exhibit P-8. 27. The Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Ramangina Yadav (PW- 12) further stated that on 15.09.2019, he sent memorandum Ex. P-10A 14 to the Medical Officer, PHC Darima, for examination of the seized knife and for obtaining a query report regarding the injuries on the deceased. 28. Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-7) deposed that on 15.09.2019, constable Dinesh Yadav produced the sealed knife before him for examination. He examined the knife and, in response to the police queries, stated that: 1. the length of the knife was 20 cm and the injuries on the deceased could have been caused by it; 2. the knife bore bloodstains and he recommended sending it for chemical analysis; and 3. the knife was resealed and handed back to the constable for FSL examination. 29. He identified his query report as Ex. P-10. During cross- examination, he denied the defence suggestion that the injuries could have been caused by falling onto a sharp object or rocky surface. He also denied the suggestion that the seized knife could not have caused the injuries. Thus, the medical evidence conclusively supports the prosecution case and connects the recovered knife with the fatal injuries. 30. Accordingly, from the entire body of evidence, it stands clearly established that on the date of the incident, the accused entered the house of injured witness Ramnath (PW-6) and, with the intention of killing Phulari, inflicted fatal knife injuries on her, and when Ramnath intervened, he too was stabbed and sustained serious injuries. 15 31. Now, in this case, it is to be considered whether the killing of deceased Phulari by the accused falls within the ambit of “murder” or any other offence under law. 32. In the present case, eyewitness Ramnath (PW-6) has fully supported the prosecution version by stating that the accused entered their house on the date of the incident, stabbed deceased Phulari in the neck, and also stabbed him when he attempted to intervene. This testimony stands corroborated by witnesses Jayeshwar (PW-10) and Chunmuniya (PW-5), who reached the spot immediately after the occurrence. 33. Further, the deceased sustained a deep slash wound on the left side of her neck and multiple stab injuries on the chest and abdomen, resulting in laceration of the larynx and trachea, injury to the right chamber of the heart, a 1.5 cm wound on the right lobe of the liver, and two stab wounds on the left lobe. The nature and extent of these injuries, inflicted on vital organs with a knife, clearly demonstrate that the accused knew that such injuries were likely to cause death. Therefore, the offence of murder is proved against the accused beyond reasonable doubt. 34. Regarding motive, apart from the village inquest intimation (Ex.P- 11), the testimonies of prosecution witnesses Sushila Kujur (PW-1) and Raju Singh (PW-9) reveal that prior to the incident, the accused had paid Ramnath for exorcism, but when the ailment did not improve, the accused became enraged and assaulted both Ramnath and his wife 16 with a knife. Although Ramnath (PW-6) did not support this motive, the accused himself admitted in answer to Question No. 107 in his examination under Section 313 CrPC that he had taken exorcism treatment from Ramnath. Thus, in addition to Ex. P-11, the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses as well as the accused himself establish the motive behind the crime. 35. The next issue for consideration is whether the accused inflicted knife injuries on the injured Ramnath with the intention of causing his death. 36. Injured witness Ramnath (PW-6) stated that after the incident, Khemraj and other villagers reached the spot, and after Khemraj informed the police, he was taken to Ambikapur Hospital where he remained admitted for 15 days. His injuries and subsequent hospitalization are corroborated by witnesses Sushila (PW-1), Arpit Keshari (PW-2), Chunmuniya (PW-5) and Jayeshwar (PW-10). 37. Investigating Officer Ramangina Yadav (PW-12) stated that he sent a memorandum Ex. P-16 to the District Medical Officer, Ambikapur seeking a medical report regarding the injuries of Ramnath. 38. Dr. Deepak Chandravanshi (PW-13), Medical Officer, Government Medical College and District Hospital, Ambikapur, stated that on 01/09/2019, he examined injured Ramnath and found: 1. A stab wound 2 x 1 x 1 cm on the right hand. 2. A stab wound 2 x 0.5 x 0.5 cm on the right thigh. 3. Multiple stab wounds 1 x 0.5 cm on the chest and back. 17 4. Swelling on the right heel. 5. Lacerated wounds on the forehead, left forearm and left palm. 39. He advised CT scan of the head and chest, abdominal sonography and orthopaedic evaluation. He proved the medical slip (Ex. P-23) and the medical report (Ex. P-16). During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that such injuries could be caused by an accident or fall. 40. The Investigating Officer further stated that after examining the seized knife, he sent memorandum Ex. P-18 to the Medical Officer seeking a query report regarding the injuries caused to Ramnath. The recovery panchnama of the knife was prepared as Ex.P-6 and its seizure was recorded as Ex.P-7 on the production of Jayeshwar (PW- 10). 41. Dr. Deepak Chandravanshi (PW-13) further stated that the seized knife measured 20.5 cm in total length, with a 9 cm blade and 11.5 cm handle, and bore bloodstains. He recommended its chemical examination. 42. He further stated that in response to police queries, he opined: (i) The injuries described in the report dated 20/09/2019 could have been caused by the seized knife. (ii) The blood on the knife required chemical testing. (iii) The patient was not present during examination, so further findings could not be given. He certified the query report as Ex. P-18A. 18 43. Dr. Deepak Chandravanshi (PW-13) also stated that in response to memorandum Ex. P-19, he opined that: 1. CT scan of head and chest was advisable. 2. Whether the victim might have died without immediate treatment depended on the time gap before hospitalisation. 3. Injuries were noted on the right hand, thigh, chest, back, heel, forehead and left hand. 44. He certified Ex. P-19A. Although in cross-examination he admitted that such injuries could be caused by a sharp-edged weapon other than the seized knife, this suggestion has no merit because injured witness Ramnath clearly stated that the accused himself inflicted the injuries with a knife. 45. The bed-head ticket of Ramnath (Ex.P-17) shows that he remained admitted from 01/09/2019 to 14/09/2019. Ramnath (PW-6) also stated that the accused stabbed his wife in the neck causing her death and stabbed him on his chest, both arms, ribs and abdomen, and that had his son Jayeshwar (PW-10) not reached in time, the accused would have killed him as well. This clearly shows the accused’s intention to kill Ramnath. 46. Although the medical witness has not expressly stated that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, it is not necessary for an offence under Section 307 IPC that the injuries must be grievous or fatal. If the intention to kill is evident from the act, Section 307 IPC is attracted even if injuries are simple. 19 47. Further, credible eyewitness testimony prevails over medical opinion when there is minor inconsistency. Thus, the knife blows on the sensitive parts of Ramnath’s body clearly establish the accused’s intention to cause his death. 48. Investigating Officer Ramangina Yadav (PW-12) stated that he seized the blood-stained T-shirt of the injured Ramnath (Ex. P-3) and the blood-stained T-shirt of the accused (Ex. P-14), which are supported by witnesses Sushila (PW-1) and Jayeshwar (PW-10). The seized articles were sent to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur. 49. The FSL report (Ex. P-22) confirms the presence of blood on the soil collected from the place where the deceased fell, the soil from where Ramnath fell, the knife, the T-shirt of the accused and the T-shirt of Ramnath. Blood group “O” was found on the soil and the knife, matching the bloodstains from near the body of the deceased, thereby fully supporting the prosecution case. 50. On a careful consideration of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and the circumstances of the case, this Court finds that the trial court has meticulously examined the testimony of eyewitnesses, injured witnesses, and expert witnesses, and has recorded a reasoned conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused. The testimony of injured witness Ramnath (PW-6) and eyewitnesses Jayeshwar Kujur (PW-10) and Chunmuniya Kujur (PW-5) clearly establishes that on the date of the alleged incident, the accused entered the house of Ramnath and Phulari with a knife, assaulted Phulari by inflicting multiple stab and 20 slash injuries to her neck, chest, and abdomen, and caused her death. The conduct of the accused at the scene, including stabbing Ramnath when he attempted to intervene, demonstrates a deliberate intention to kill, which is further corroborated by the nature, number, and location of the injuries inflicted. 51. The submissions of learned counsel for the appellant that the alleged incident was committed without premeditation, and therefore cannot constitute murder under Section 302 IPC, are found to be wholly unsubstantiated. The injuries inflicted on the deceased Phulari were on vital parts of the body, including the neck, chest, and heart region, clearly indicating an intention to cause death. This is supported by the medical evidence provided by Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-7), Dr. Deepak Chandravanshi (PW-13), and the recovery and chemical examination of the knife used in the incident (Exhibits P-6, P-7, P-10, P-10A, P-18, P- 18A), which collectively confirm that the injuries were caused by the accused with the instrumentality of a sharp-edged weapon. 52. The appellant’s contention regarding the intention behind stabbing injured Ramnath is also untenable. The medical evidence, bedhead ticket (Exhibit P-17), and eyewitness testimony conclusively show that Ramnath sustained multiple knife injuries to the chest, abdomen, hand, thigh, forehead, and heel, and would have likely died had timely intervention not occurred. The evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the injuries were inflicted by the accused with the intention of causing death, rendering the argument under Section 304 Part 2 IPC 21 unsustainable. The Court also notes that the appellant’s attempt to discredit the eyewitnesses and rely upon hypothetical possibilities of alternative causes for injuries is wholly inconsistent with the credible, corroborated evidence on record. 53. Further, the seizure of blood-stained clothing, the knife, and blood- stained soil from the scene, all corroborated by the forensic report (Exhibit P0-22), leaves no room for doubt that the accused committed the crime as alleged. The site map prepared by Patwari Rampratap Singh (PW-11) and the undisputed nature of the incident location further corroborate the prosecution’s case. The accused’s conduct, the injuries inflicted, and the motive established through the statements of prosecution witnesses collectively substantiate the trial court’s conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused under Sections 449, 302, and 307 IPC. 54. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is satisfied that the trial court rightly appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective, and there exists no ground to interfere with the concurrent findings of guilt. The appeal filed by the appellant is therefore dismissed in limine, and the conviction and findings recorded by the trial court are affirmed in their entirety. The trial court judgment stands fully confirmed, and the appellant is liable to be sentenced in accordance with law. 55. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 22 56. 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. 57. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet