1 2025:CGHC:37553-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 457 of 2024 1. Sukhram Poyami S/o Hunga Aged About 40 Years Caste- Madiya, R/o Vill. Bade Kakaloor, Hungapara, P.S. Kodenar, Dist. Bastar, C.G. 2. Masa Poyami S/o Hunga Aged About 42 Years Caste- Madiya, R/o Vill. Bade Kakaloor, Hungapara, P.S. Kodenar, Dist. Bastar, C.G. 3. Baman Poyami S/o Hunga Aged About 42 Years Caste- Madiya, R/o Vill. Bade Kakaloor, Hungapara, P.S. Kodenar, Dist. Bastar, C.G. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, P.S.-Kodenar, Dist.- Bastar, C.G. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31 .07.2025 1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Biswas, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Swajeet Ubeja, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.08.07 18:43:11 +0530 2 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellants/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 22.02.2024, passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in S.T. No. 13 of 2021, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 147 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for 01 year and of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 15 days R.I. more. Section 148 of the IPC R.I. for 02 years and fine of Rs.700/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more. Section 302/149 of the IPC R.I. for life and fine of Rs.2000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months R.I. more. Section 323/149 of the IPC R.I. for 03 months and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, 07 days R.I. more. All the sentences to be served concurrently. 3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that the Sukhram Poyami, Masa Poyami, Baman Poyami, Jilaram Poyam, and Situ Poyami frequently visited the residence of the deceased, Fagnu Poyam, and engaged in quarrels with him, accusing him and his family of practicing witchcraft 3 against them in connection with an ongoing land dispute. On 26.12.2019, the appellants allegedly went to Fagnu’s house, verbally abused and physically assaulted his family members, and forcibly took Fagnu to the front of his house. There, they reportedly beat him with rods and sticks, resulting in his death at the scene. 4. Following a complaint lodged by the complainant, Kosaram Poyam (PW-1), a criminal case was registered. During the course of investigation, the crime scene was examined, relevant seizures were made, and appellants Sukhram Poyami, Masa Poyami, and Baman Poyami were arrested and remanded to judicial custody. The remaining two accused, Jilaram Poyam and Situ Poyami, absconded, and a fugitive memo was issued against them. 5. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination to the Community Health Center, Bade Kilepal, District Bastar (C.G.). The autopsy was conducted by Dr. Pradip Baghel (PW-13), who prepared the postmortem report marked as Ex.P/10. Upon examination, Dr. Baghel opined that the cause of death was shock and coma resulting from a deep head injury, which caused excessive bleeding. He further noted that the time of death was approximately 14–15 hours prior to the postmortem. The doctor concluded that the nature of death was homicidal. 6. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellants before the jurisdictional criminal court. The case was then committed to the Court of Sessions for trial, from where it 4 was transferred to the Court of the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, District Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), for trial, hearing, and disposal in accordance with law. 7. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. The trial commenced thereafter. The appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be falsely implicated, denying any involvement in the alleged offences. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The appellants did not examine any witnesses in their defence nor did they produce any documentary evidence. 9. After conclusion of the trial and upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellants by the impugned judgment dated 22.02.2024, as detailed in paragraph two of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellants have preferred the present appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C., challenging the legality and correctness of the impugned judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellants vehemently argued that the conviction of the appellants rests substantially on the testimonies of Muye Poyam (PW-4) and Jhunko Poyam (PW-5), who are cited as eyewitnesses to the incident. However, it is contended that their evidence does not inspire confidence and is not worthy of reliance. Consequently, the conviction based on such evidence is unsustainable in law, inadmissible, and vitiated. It is further submitted that the overall evidence 5 led by the prosecution is tainted with suspicion and does not meet the standard required for convicting the appellants for the heinous offence of murder. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction deserves to be set aside, and the appellants are entitled to be acquitted/discharged of the charges leveled against them. 11. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. They submitted that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt by adducing cogent and clinching evidence. It was further contended that there is ample material on record to clearly connect the appellants with the commission of the offences in question. The learned trial Court, after due and proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellants. As such, no interference is warranted with the well-reasoned findings of the learned trial Court, and the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, carefully considered their rival submissions, and also perused the original record of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of both sides, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution in support of its case. 14. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature ? 6 15. The learned trial Court, while recording its findings, placed reliance upon the testimony of Dr. Pradip Baghel (PW-13), who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased, as per the report marked Ex. P/10. Dr. Baghel categorically opined that the cause of death was shock and coma resulting from a deep head injury, which led to excessive bleeding. He further concluded that the nature of death was homicidal. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard is duly supported by medical evidence on record and is neither perverse nor contrary to the material available. Moreover, the said finding has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We, therefore, find no reason to interfere with the said finding and accordingly affirm it. 16. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the appellants were the authors of the crime, based on the following circumstances: (i) The prosecution has successfully established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, as per the postmortem report (Ex.P/10) prepared by Dr. Pradip Baghel (PW-13), who conducted the postmortem examination. (ii) According to the case of the prosecution, the fact of the deceased’s death was within the knowledge of the appellants. However, in their statements recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellants failed to offer any explanation regarding this incriminating circumstance. In such a situation, the burden of explanation, which lay upon the appellants, has not been discharged by them. 17. In the present case, the fact that the deceased died a homicidal death due to shock and coma resulting from a deep head injury, leading to excessive bleeding, has not been substantially disputed by the appellants. 7 On the contrary, the homicidal nature of death stands clearly established through the testimonies of Muye Poyam (PW-4) and Jhunko Poyam (PW- 5), who are eyewitnesses to the incident, as well as through the medical evidence of Dr. Pradip Baghel (PW-13) and the postmortem report (Ex. P/10). 18. As regards the complicity of the appellants in the crime, their conviction is substantially based on the ocular testimony of Muye Poyam (PW-4) and Jhunko Poyam (PW-5), both of whom are eyewitnesses to the occurrence, and whose evidence finds corroboration from the medical testimony of Dr. Pradip Baghel (PW-13). Their statements are consistent, trustworthy, and duly corroborated by the medical and circumstantial evidence on record. 19. Muye Poyam (PW-4), who is an injured eyewitness to the incident, deposed before the Court that she recognized the appellants and identified the deceased, Fagnu, as her husband. She stated that the appellants committed the murder of her husband due to a land dispute. According to her testimony, while her husband was grazing cattle outside their house, the appellants attacked and killed him using rods, in her presence. She also testified that the accused persons assaulted her during the incident, and she continues to suffer from the pain of the injuries sustained. In her cross-examination, she affirmed that her husband had gone to graze oxen in the fields when the accused person, namely, Jilaram, Baman, Masa, Situ, Mangal, Sukhram, and Sameer armed with sticks and rods, apprehended him and brought him to their house. She reiterated that the accused persons assaulted her husband with rods and sticks and abused him over the land dispute. She further 8 stated that she and another woman, Jhumko (Jhunko) (PW-5), attempted to intervene, but were also assaulted and driven away. She witnessed the accused persons continuing to beat her husband until he succumbed to the injuries. After the accused persons left, she approached the body of her husband and found him dead. 20. Jhunko (Jhumko) Poyam (PW-5), another eyewitness to the incident, fully corroborated the testimony of Muye Poyam (PW-4) and clearly identified the appellants. In her examination-in-chief, she stated that on the date of the incident, i.e., 26.12.2019, at around 8–9 a.m., the accused persons, namely, Baman, Masa, Sukhram, Jila, Mangal Singh, and Sameer came to her house and enquired about her parents. When she responded that she did not know their whereabouts, the accused persons assaulted her with sticks, rods, and slaps. Thereafter, they went to Muye (PW-4), her elder mother, and similarly assaulted her. The accused persons then proceeded to the fields in search of her elder father, Fagnu Poyam, and forcibly brought him back to their house, beating him along the way. She further stated that the accused persons brutally beat her elder father with rods, sticks, and slaps in front of their house, resulting in his death. During cross-examination, she confirmed her previous statements and clearly deposed that she saw the accused persons severely beating her elder father. She stated that she and her elder mother were watching from a distance as the accused persons continued to assault him until he died. She reiterated that she had witnessed the entire incident. 21. Dr. Pradip Baghel (PW-13), who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and submitted the report marked as Ex. 9 P/10, opined that the cause of death was shock and coma resulting from a deep head injury, which led to excessive bleeding. He concluded that the nature of death was homicidal. 22. Dr. S.R. Singh (PW-8), who has been serving as a Medical Officer at the Community Health Centre, Badekilepal since 2017, deposed that on 27.12.2019, Constable Suresh Anchale (Badge No. 104) from Kodenar Police Station brought Muye Poyam, daughter of Fagnu, a 68- year-old woman and resident of Badekaklur, for medical examination. Upon clinical examination, he did not observe any visible external injuries; however, the patient complained of pain and appeared to be suffering from internal injuries. Consequently, he advised an X-ray examination for further assessment. The medical examination report has been marked as Ex.P/12. He further stated that on the same day, Constable Anchale also brought another injured person, Jhunko, daughter of Mugdu, aged 19 years and resident of Badekaklur, for medical examination. Similar to the previous case, no visible external injuries were found, but the patient complained of pain. Accordingly, an X-ray was advised to investigate possible internal injuries. The corresponding medical examination report has been marked as Ex.P/13. 23. Now, the question is, whether the prosecution has discharged its initial or general burden or primary duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 24. In this regard, the learned trial Court rightly observed that the testimony of Budhram Tati (PW-3) lends corroboration to the memorandum statement and seizure memo pertaining to the accused 10 Baman Poyam. In his examination-in-chief, Budharam (PW-3) stated that during the investigation, accused Baman was apprehended and, upon interrogation, disclosed the presence of a danda (stick), which he later handed over to the police. The witness identified his signatures on the memorandum statement (Ex.P/7) and the seizure memo (Ex.P/8). Although in his cross-examination, he denied that the seizure was made in his presence, he did not dispute the fact that the accused handed over a stick to the police as per Ex.P/8. His testimony, read conjointly with the deposition of Investigating Officer Dileshwar Chandravanshi (PW-12), sufficiently establishes the seizure of the stick from accused Baman Poyam in accordance with law. 25. Dr. Pradip Baghel (PW-13), the medical expert, deposed that on 02.01.2020, he received a rod and three sticks (Ex.P/18) from Constable Suresh Anchale (Badge No. 104) for examination. He was asked to opine whether the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been inflicted using those objects and whether such injuries could be fatal. He responded in the affirmative. Although he found no bloodstains on the rod or sticks, he refuted the suggestion in cross-examination that he had not examined the seized articles. His testimony supports the prosecution’s theory that the injuries suffered by the deceased could have been caused by the seized weapons. The cumulative effect of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, medical witnesses, and the recovery proceedings clearly indicates that the accused persons had a motive to kill the deceased, stemming from a land dispute and alleged witchcraft. They formed an unlawful assembly with the common object of killing the deceased and, in furtherance thereof, assaulted him with rods and sticks, causing his 11 death. 26. A careful perusal of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court reveals that the prosecution has successfully established: 1. That the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature; and 2. That the appellants murdered the deceased by assaulting him with rods and sticks. 27. Upon consideration of the statements of prosecution witnesses, the findings of the learned trial Court, the absence of any explanation by the appellants under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and particularly the consistent and credible testimonies of the eyewitnesses Muye Poyam (PW-4) and Jhunko Poyam (PW-5) who categorically deposed that the appellants assaulted the deceased with rods and sticks, it is evident that the appellants acted with a clear intention to cause death. Their act of repeatedly striking the deceased with deadly weapons reflects a deliberate and conscious intention to kill. In view of this, and in the absence of any credible defence from the appellants, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the offences punishable under Sections 147, 148, 302 read with Section 149, and 323 read with Section 149 of the IPC. We find no illegality or perversity in the findings so recorded. 28. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. 12 29. It is submitted at the Bar that the appellants are presently in judicial custody. They shall continue to serve out the sentence imposed upon them by the learned trial Court. 30. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing their sentence. The Superintendent shall serve the same upon the appellants and inform them that they are at liberty to challenge this judgment before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, if so advised. 31. Let a certified copy of this judgment, along with the original record, be transmitted to the learned trial Court forthwith for information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan