1 2026:CGHC:5410-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1300 of 2024 Sonpal Chauhan S/o Santosh Chauhan Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Dullipar, Out Post- Damapur, Police Station- Kunda, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Kunda, District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 31 .01.2026 1. Heard Mr. Chandrikaditya Pandey, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.02.02 16:21:26 +0530 2 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.05.2024, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 25 of 2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine, 02 months R.I. more. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Deep Singh (PW-1) lodged a report at Police Station Kunda to the effect that on 12.02.2020, at around 3:00 p.m., he had gone to his sister’s house in village Kolegaon. Thereafter, at about 6:00 p.m., when he returned to his village Dulipar, he saw a crowd gathered near the grocery shop of Ramkumar. Upon going there, he saw that his son Ashok Chauhan was lying dead on the ground near Ramkumar’s shop, soaked in blood, and an iron tangiya (sharp-edged axe) was embedded in his face. When he enquired from his wife Sushila Bai and the persons present there, namely Ramkumar, Mukhiram, Nohar, and other villagers, they informed him that Sonpal Chauhan, with the intention to kill, had attacked Ashok Chauhan with a sharp-edged tangiya, causing serious injuries to his face and cheek, resulting in his death, and thereafter fled from the spot. 3 4. On the basis of the information given by the complainant, Police Station Kunda registered Dehati Nalishi Merg Intimation No. 0/2020 (Ex.P/1) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/2), and thereafter registered First Information Report (Ex.P/21) as Crime No. 15/2020 against the accused Sonpal Chauhan for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and commenced investigation. During the course of investigation, inquest proceedings of the deceased were conducted (Ex.P/5), postmortem examination was carried out (Ex.P/17), a spot map was prepared (Ex.P/3), statements of witnesses were recorded, the accused was arrested, his memorandum statement was recorded (Ex.P/7), and seizure proceedings were conducted in accordance with seizure memos (Exs.P/9, P/10, P/14, and P/18). 5. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination to the Community Health Centre, Pandariya, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.). Dr. B.L. Rai (PW-15) conducted the postmortem examination vide Ex.P/17 and found the following injuries: 1. One incised wound caused by a sharp-edged weapon on the upper side of the right wrist of the deceased, measuring 4 × 1.5 cm. 2. One incised wound caused by a sharp-edged weapon on the left knee of the deceased, measuring 5 × 2 cm, running straight from right to left. 3. One incised wound caused by a sharp-edged weapon on the posterior part of the right shoulder of the deceased, towards the inner side of the scapular bone, measuring 2.5 × 0.5 cm. 4 4. One incised wound caused by a sharp-edged weapon on the right side of the back of the head of the deceased, measuring 3.5 × 3 cm. 5. One incised wound caused by a sharp-edged weapon below the left eye of the deceased, involving fracture of the bone, measuring 5 × 1 cm. 6. One deep incised wound caused by a sharp- edged weapon extending from near the left ear to the middle of the eye, and between the left jaw and chin, measuring 9 × 6 cm. 7. One forcefully inflicted incised wound caused by a sharp-edged weapon on the left cheek of the deceased, measuring 4 × 5 × 4 cm, from which the internal part of the brain was protruding. 8. One oblique incised wound caused by a sharp- edged weapon on the left side of the back of the deceased, measuring 10 × 4 × 3 cm. 9. One incised wound caused by a sharp-edged weapon on the left side of the upper lip of the deceased, measuring 2 × 1 cm, as a result of which four lower teeth were exposed. After examining the body, Dr. Rai opined in his report (Ex.P/17) that the death of the deceased appears to have been caused due to internal hemorrhage resulting from forceful blows and extrusion of the internal part of the brain, as a consequence of which the deceased went into a deep coma and died. The nature of death was homicidal, and the death appears to have occurred within 16 to 20 hours prior to the postmortem examination. 5 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 appellant before the competent jurisdictional criminal court. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Kawardha, District Kabirdham (C.G.), for trial, hearing, and disposal in accordance with law. 7. The learned trial Court framed a charge against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial thereafter commenced. The appellant pleaded not guilty, asserted false implication, and denied any involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. 8. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and produced 28 documents, which were duly exhibited. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence, nor did he produce any documentary evidence. 9. Upon conclusion of the trial and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by its impugned judgment dated 17.05.2024, convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed in paragraph 02 of this judgment. Aggrieved by the said conviction and sentence, the appellant has preferred the present appeal, challenging the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned judgment. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that there is no 6 eyewitness to the incident and that the entire prosecution case is based solely on circumstantial evidence. It is contended that all the prosecution witnesses, except interested witnesses, have turned hostile, and even those interested witnesses are not eyewitnesses to the occurrence. It is further submitted that the memorandum and seizure of articles could not be proved, as the witnesses thereto turned hostile before the learned trial Court. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the case against the appellant, and he is therefore entitled to acquittal. 11. Learned counsel further submits that Neha Chauhan (PW-11), the wife of the deceased and sister of the appellant, also did not support the prosecution case with regard to the alleged motive for the commission of the offence. She categorically stated in her testimony that she had entered into wedlock with the deceased in the presence of all family members and denied the suggestion that the marriage had taken place after elopement. Thus, it is argued that the prosecution has failed to prove any motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder. On these grounds, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 12. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and the order of sentence. It was submitted that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, credible, and convincing evidence. Learned 7 State counsel further contended that the material available on record clearly connects the appellant with the commission of the offence. Relying upon the ocular testimony of Soni Bhaskar (PW-18), Durgesh (PW-4), Mani Bhaskar (PW-5), Mukhiram (PW-6), and Prakash Sonkar (PW-9), as well as the postmortem report (Ex.P/17) and FSL report (Ex.P/28), it was submitted that it stands established that the accused/appellant assaulted the deceased on vital parts of the body, resulting in his death. 13. It was further urged that the learned trial Court, after due and proper appreciation of both oral and documentary evidence, has recorded well-reasoned findings culminating in the conviction and sentence of the appellant. In such circumstances, no interference is warranted with the impugned judgment, and the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed. 14. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, carefully considered their rival submissions, and perused the original record of the learned trial Court with due care and circumspection. 15. 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. 16. 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. 17. The learned trial Court, while recording its findings, placed 8 reliance on the testimony of Dr. B.L. Rai (PW-15), who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased and prepared the report marked as Ex.P/17. Dr. Rai unequivocally opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to internal hemorrhage resulting from forceful blows and the extrusion of the internal part of the brain, as a consequence of which the deceased went into a deep coma and died. He further opined that the nature of death was homicidal. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard is firmly supported by the medical evidence on record and is neither perverse nor contrary to the material available. Significantly, this finding has not been seriously challenged by learned counsel for the appellant. We, therefore, find no ground to interfere with the said finding and accordingly affirm it. 18. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in concluding that the appellant was the author of the crime, in light of the following circumstances: (i) The prosecution has successfully proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, as borne out from the postmortem report (Ex.P/17) prepared by Dr. B.L. Rai (PW-15), who conducted the autopsy. (ii) According to the prosecution, the fact of the deceased’s death was within the knowledge of the appellant. However, in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant failed to furnish any explanation with regard to this incriminating circumstance. In such a situation, the burden of offering a plausible explanation, which rested upon the 9 appellant, has remained undischarged. 19. In the present case, the fact that the deceased met a homicidal death—caused by internal hemorrhage resulting from forceful blows and the extrusion of the internal part of the brain, leading the deceased to go into a deep coma and ultimately die—has not been seriously disputed by the appellant. On the contrary, the homicidal nature of the death stands conclusively established through the ocular testimony of Soni Bhaskar (PW-18), Durgesh (PW-4), Mani Bhaskar (PW-5), Mukhiram (PW-6), and Prakash Sonkar (PW-9), as well as through the medical evidence of Dr. B.L. Rai (PW-15) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/17). 20. Deep Singh (PW-1), the father of the deceased, stated in his deposition that on the date of the incident he had gone to his sister’s house in village Kolegaon. At about 6:30 p.m., when he returned, he saw a crowd gathered near Rajkumar’s shop in the village, where his wife Sushila Bai was also present. He stated that his son Ashok was lying there in a dead condition, soaked in blood, and that a tangiya (sharp-edged axe) was embedded in his cheek. He further stated that the persons present informed him that Sonpal Chauhan had killed Ashok by assaulting him with a tangiya and had thereafter fled from the spot. When the police arrived in the village, he informed them about the incident. The witness stated that he lodged the Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/1) and Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/2). In his cross-examination, he admitted that he was not present at the place of occurrence at the time of the incident and had not witnessed it. 10 21. Sushila Bai (PW-3), the mother of the deceased, stated in her deposition that the incident occurred at about 6:00 p.m. On the date of the incident, the accused Sonpal assaulted her son Ashok with a tangiya, as a result of which her son died on the spot. She stated that when she came out of her house, she saw the accused abusing Ashok and attempting to remove the tangiya which was stuck between his neck and cheek. When the accused failed to remove it, he fled from the spot. Thereafter, she reached the place of occurrence and saw her son Ashok lying dead. 22. During cross-examination, the defence suggested that she had not stated these facts in her police statement (Ex.D/1), which suggestion she denied. Further, during the cross-examination of the Investigating Officer Kapil Dev Chandra (PW-22), no suggestion was put by the defence that these facts were not stated by Sushila Bai in her police statement. Therefore, it cannot be said that Sushila Bai (PW-3) made any exaggerated or improved statement before the trial Court. She further stated in her cross-examination that she reached the spot while the accused was attempting to remove the tangiya embedded in the cheek and jaw of the deceased. She denied the suggestion that she had not seen the incident and categorically stated that she saw the accused while he was attempting to remove the tangiya and while fleeing from the place of occurrence. She admitted that during the winter season it gets dark early and that the incident took place during winter; however, nothing emerged in cross-examination to show that she could not identify the accused. The incident occurred on 12.02.2020 11 at about 6:00 p.m., and in the month of February it does not become completely dark by that time. The witness has clearly stated that she saw the accused assaulting the deceased. 23. Soni Bhaskar (PW-18) is an important eyewitness to the incident. He stated that the incident took place near Ramkumar’s grocery shop and that at the relevant time about 10–11 persons were present there. According to him, the accused Sonpal assaulted Ashok with a tangiya. He stated that he was sitting with the deceased near the grocery shop and that both of them were using their mobile phones. The accused Sonpal came from his house carrying a tangiya, approached from behind, and struck Ashok on the neck. When Ashok tried to catch hold of the accused, the accused inflicted 5–6 blows with the tangiya on Ashok’s face. The accused continued to assault Ashok repeatedly. Ultimately, the tangiya got embedded near the cheekbone, and when the accused failed to remove it, he fled from the spot. 24. During cross-examination, when it was suggested that it had become dark at the time of the incident, the witness stated that it had become slightly dark. When further questioned as to why he neither attempted to flee nor tried to save the deceased despite seeing the accused coming with a tangiya, he stated that the accused struck the blows in rapid succession and that he did not know the accused had brought the tangiya for them, as they were looking at their mobile phones. Although he was subjected to detailed cross-examination, his testimony remained completely unshaken. His evidence fully 12 corroborates the testimony of the deceased’s mother, Sushila Devi (PW- 3), to the effect that the accused inflicted fatal injuries on the deceased with a tangiya. 25. Durgesh (PW-4), a shopkeeper in front of whose shop the incident occurred, stated that he was sitting in his shop selling goods. He stated that Soni, Maniram, Mukhiram, Omkar, and Ashok were present there purchasing items. Ashok was looking at his mobile phone and asking for goods. While attending to another customer, the witness turned back and noticed that the customers had fled. When he came out of the shop, he saw the accused Sonpal holding a tangiya. Out of fear, he ran away and did not witness anything further. Upon returning later, he found Ashok lying dead in front of his shop. On being put leading questions by the prosecution, he admitted that the tangiya was embedded in Ashok’s cheek. In cross-examination, he admitted that he did not see who assaulted Ashok. However, his testimony supports the prosecution to the extent that the accused arrived at the spot armed with a tangiya, that panic ensued, and that immediately thereafter Ashok was found dead with the tangiya embedded in his cheek. His statement also establishes the presence of Soni Bhaskar (PW-18) at the place of occurrence. 26. Mani Bhaskar (PW-5) stated that the incident occurred at about 6:00 p.m. He had gone to Durgesh’s shop to purchase goods and thereafter returned home. On reaching the lane, he learned that Ashok had been murdered and that villagers informed him that Sonpal had 13 assaulted Ashok. On being put leading questions by the prosecution, he admitted that he and others were sitting near the grocery shop playing cards while Ashok and others were sitting in front of the shop. The accused arrived carrying a tangiya and assaulted Ashok, causing panic. In cross-examination, he admitted that he fled upon seeing the accused holding the tangiya and did not witness the actual assault. His testimony nevertheless supports the prosecution to the extent of the accused’s presence, armed with a tangiya, and the immediate aftermath of Ashok’s death. 27. Mukhiram (PW-6) stated that upon hearing that a quarrel was taking place between Sonpal and Ashok, he went to the spot and saw Sonpal assaulting Ashok with a tangiya. Ashok was covered in blood. Sonpal then fled from the spot and Ashok died at the place of occurrence. On being put leading questions, he admitted that the tangiya got embedded in Ashok’s cheek and that the handle broke. In cross-examination, he admitted that it was slightly dark and that he reached the spot after hearing the commotion. Though he admitted he did not witness the entire assault, his testimony supports the prosecution regarding the accused’s presence with a tangiya and Ashok being found dead thereafter. 28. Prakash Sonkar (PW-9) stated that the incident occurred at about 6:00 p.m. near the grocery shop at Neem Chauraha. The accused Sonpal came carrying an axe and assaulted Ashok, upon which the witness fled out of fear. In cross-examination, he admitted that it was 14 slightly dark and that he witnessed the incident from a distance of about 100 meters, but denied that he could not identify the accused. 29. The testimonies of PW-4, PW-5, PW-6, and PW-9 are relevant under Sections 6 and 8 of the Indian Evidence Act as forming part of the same transaction and as evidence of conduct before and after the occurrence, thereby lending due support to the prosecution case. 30. From the above evidence, it clearly emerges that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased with an tangiya, causing injuries that resulted in his death. 31. Dr. B.L. Rai (PW-15), who conducted the postmortem examination as per Ex.P/16, found injuries consistent with the prosecution case. He opined that the death was caused due to internal hemorrhage resulting from forceful blows and extrusion of the internal part of the brain, leading to a deep coma and death. He further opined that the nature of death was homicidal. 32. In the present case, the FSL report (Ex.P/28) is available on record. The said report is duly signed by the Assistant Chemical Examiner and, in view of Section 293 of the Cr.P.C., is admissible in evidence without the necessity of examining the said expert in trial Court. As per the examination report, human blood was detected on the blood-stained soil seized from the place of occurrence (Article ‘A’), the slipper of the deceased seized from the spot (Article ‘C’), the broken wooden handle seized from the place of occurrence (Article ‘D’), the T- shirt (Article ‘E’) and jeans pant (Article ‘F’) worn by the accused Sonpal 15 at the time of the incident, the tangiya (axe) embedded in the body of the deceased (Article ‘G’), the jeans pant worn by the deceased (Article ‘H’), the full-sleeve shirt (Article ‘I-1’), and the vest (Article ‘I-2’). 33. Further, according to the FSL report (Ex.P/28), the human blood found on the broken wooden handle (Article ‘D’), the T-shirt (Article ‘E’) and jeans pant (Article ‘F’) worn by the accused, the tangiya embedded in the body of the deceased (Article ‘G’), the jeans pant worn by the deceased (Article ‘H’), and the full-sleeve shirt (Article ‘I-1’) was determined to be of blood group “O”. The forensic evidence thus provides strong corroboration to the ocular and medical evidence and firmly connects the accused with the commission of the offence. 34. So far as the question of motive is concerned, Deep Singh (PW- 1), the father of the deceased, stated that his son Ashok Chauhan had earlier eloped with the sister of the accused Sonpal. Thereafter, a village meeting was convened and, pursuant to a compromise, the marriage of the deceased with the sister of the accused was solemnized. He further stated that during the said meeting, the accused expressed his resentment and warned that after the marriage they should leave the village and never send the girl back to his house. According to PW-1, it was due to this enmity that the accused murdered his son. 35. The Investigating Officer, Kapil Dev Chandra (PW-22), clarified in his cross-examination that the deceased had earlier eloped with the sister of the accused and that, on this account, the father of the 16 deceased had expressed suspicion that the accused might have murdered the deceased due to the said motive. 36. Sushila Bai (PW-3), the mother of the deceased, also stated that the deceased had eloped with the sister of the accused and that their marriage was subsequently solemnized in a village social meeting. She accepted the prosecution suggestion that the accused Sonpal was not agreeable to the said marriage. 37. From the statements of the parents of the deceased, it clearly emerges that the deceased had entered into a love marriage with the sister of the accused, to which the accused was opposed. This circumstance furnishes a plausible motive for the commission of the offence. Even otherwise, it is well settled that motive is an internal or psychological fact and its proof is not always possible in every case. Where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the commission of murder by reliable direct evidence and corroborative circumstantial evidence, failure to conclusively prove motive does not render the prosecution case doubtful or infirm. 38. Upon a careful re-appreciation of the entire evidence on record, including the consistent and credible testimonies of the eyewitnesses, the medical and forensic evidence, and the absence of any plausible explanation from the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., this Court finds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who repeatedly assaulted the deceased with a tangiya, causing fatal injuries. The manner of assault 17 and the repeated blows clearly demonstrate the intention of the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. 39. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has recorded well-reasoned findings leading to the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. This Court finds no perversity, illegality, or infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference. 40. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The judgment of conviction and the sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned trial Court are affirmed. 41. The appellant, who is presently in judicial custody, shall continue to undergo the sentence imposed upon him. 42. The Registry is directed to forward a copy of this judgment to the Superintendent of the Jail concerned, who shall serve the same upon the appellant and inform him of his right to avail appropriate legal remedies before the Hon’ble Supreme Court of India, including legal aid through the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee, if so advised. 43. Let a certified copy of this judgment, along with the original record, be transmitted forthwith to the learned trial Court for information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan