1 CRA No.282/2022 2025:CGHC:25591-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 282 of 2022 Phool Singh Netam Late Somanath Netam Aged About 29 Years R/o Villag Mageda Harrapara, Police Station Maakdi, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Petitioner(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Maakdi, District- Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Govind Ram Miri, Senior Advocate assisted by Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr Shakib Ahmad, Panel Lawyer. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 19.06.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07/01/2022, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kondagaon, District:Kondagaon (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 37/2020, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.20 17:51:26 +0530 2 CRA No.282/2022 Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC R.I. for Life & fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default, additional R.I. for 6 months. 1. Brief facts of the case is that on 01/04/2020 at about 11-12 o'clock morning, there was a dispute between complainant’s father Pilsai and his uncle (chacha) Phool Singh, brother of deceased regarding the domestic land dispute. During the altercation, accused Phool Singh assaulted his brother Pilsai on his head, forehead and other parts of body with a wooden stick, due to which, Pool Singh suffered grievous injuries and died. Thereafter, on the basis of information, merg was registered by the police vide Ex.P-1, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and FIR was registered vide Ex.P-24. After due investigation, police arrested the appellant vide Ex.P-9. On the basis of memorandum Ex.P-5 and P-6, seizure of clothes and wooden stick has been made vide Ex.P-8 and Ex.P-7 respectively and sent for chemical examination to FSL. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/17 & 18), Dr. Devesh Dharat (PW-10) opined that the cause of death is hemorrhagic shock, excessive bleeding, due to head injury and the nature of death is homicidal. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. Statement of the 3 CRA No.282/2022 appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the entire case of prosecution is based upon the statement of the interested witnesses and the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellant beyond all the reasonable doubts. It is submitted the eyewitness Samli (PW-2) being daughter-in-law of deceased is interested witness and there is no corroboration to her version and on the date of incident, she did not shout or raise any alarm for help. He further submits weapon used in the offence, is said to have been seized at the instance of appellant, but the recovery based on disclosure statement, does not inspire confidence because seizure witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned 4 CRA No.282/2022 judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/17 & 18) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Devesh Dharat (PW-10). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/17 & 18) and the statement of Dr. Devesh Dharat (PW-10) that the nature of death of deceased was homicidal in nature, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 5 CRA No.282/2022 8. Now the next question would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ? 9. PW-2, Samli, daughter-in-law of deceased, who is the eyewitness in the present case, stated in her evidence that she know the accused Phool Singh Netam and he is her uncle-in-law. Deceased Pilsai was her father-in-law. She stated that when she had gone with her children to collect Mahua and after coming back at around 11-12 O’clock in the day, and as soon as she entered the house, she saw from the garden that accused Phool Singh was assaulting her father-in-law/Pilsai by means of wooden stick. She stated that she was scared to see that the accused might beat her and her children too, so she did not go near the spot. She further stated that after killing her father-in-law Pilsai, the accused saw her at the door and ran away from the place of incident. Later, she told other people about the incident and in the evening, when her husband Ramlal came, she told him about the incident and also to her mother-in-law. 10. PW-1, Ramlal, son of deceased, stated in his evidence that he know the accused Phool Singh Netam, he is his uncle (chacha). Deceased Pilsai was his father. He stated that he had come to Maakdi for work. When he came home at around 7.00 p.m. in the evening, his wife told that his father(Pilsai) died because of assault made by the appellant Phool Singh. According to this witness, the 6 CRA No.282/2022 appellant assaulted the deceased by means of wooden stick, due to which he died. 11. Dr. Devesh Dharat (PW-10), who conducted the postmortem of deceased, in an external examination, he found that both the eyes were closed, mouth was open, body was stiff. There were torn wounds on both ears, the size of which was 1x1 cm. The skull was broken, the front parietal, temporal and occipital bones were broken. Both the hands of the deceased were also fractured. 12. On the basis of memorandum statement of appellant vide Ex.P-5 & P-6, weapon i.e. clothes and wooden stick have been seized vide Ex.P-8 and P-7, which was sent for chemical examination to FSL and in the FSL report (Ex.P-26), it is mentioned that the blood stains were found on the clothes of the appellant and deceased and also on the weapon used in the offence, i.e. wooden stick 13. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagdish Prasad Vs. State of M.P.1 held that as a general rule the Court can and may act on the testimony of a single witness provided he is wholly reliable. There is no legal impediment in convicting a person on the sole testimony of a single witness. The said view has been retrietated in the matter of Sunil Kumar Vs. State Govt. of NCT of Delhi2 14. Considering the statements of eye witness- Samli Netam (PW-2), 1 AIR 1994 SC 1251 2 (2003) 11 SCC 367 7 CRA No.282/2022 who was present on the spot when the appellant was assaulting the deceased by means of wooden stick and when the appellant saw the Samli, he fled away from the spot, we hereby accept the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellant-accused who assaulted Pilsai(deceased) by which he suffered grievous injuries and died. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant has caused the injuries upon the deceased is based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question. 15. In view of foregoing discussion, we are the of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 16. The appellant is stated to be in jail and he shall serve out the remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence 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. 8 CRA No.282/2022 17. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 18. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Judge Gowri/ Amardeep