1 2026:CGHC:5208-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1646 of 2021 Kanhaiyaram Rawate S/o Shri Chintaram Rawate Aged About 40 Years R/o Village Mandalpara Acholi, Police Chouwki Sanjari Thana Doundilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Officer In Charge Police Station Doundilohara, District Balod Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. B.P. Rao , Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 30.01.2026 1. The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2021 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.26/2019, whereby the trial Court has convicted ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.01.31 16:41:34 +0530 2 the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 30 days. 2. Brief facts of the case, in a nutshell, are that on 13.04.2019 at about 10:20 a.m., at village Achholi, the accused Kanhaiyaram Rawte, his father Chintaram Rawte, and his mother Hemimbai were engaged in a quarrel and were hurling abuses at each other. During the altercation, the accused questioned his father as to why he had kept his wife Kavita in the house and why he did not drive her out. Agitated by this issue, the accused threatened that he would not spare his father that day, went inside his house, brought a plastic container containing petrol along with a matchbox, poured petrol on his father and set him on fire by striking a match. 3. On seeing Chintaram burning, the villagers rushed to the spot and extinguished the fire. Chintaram, who had sustained severe burn injuries, was first taken to the Community Health Centre, Donde Lohara, and thereafter, on being referred, was shifted the same day to the District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. Upon receipt of information, the police outpost Sankra and Police Station Donde Lohara immediately reached the spot, conducted preliminary inquiry and registered a Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-1). A spot map (Ex. P-2) was prepared and from the place of occurrence, in the presence of 3 witnesses, one partially burnt piece of cloth, burnt ash, a burnt matchstick, a green plastic container containing about 100 ml of petrol, petrol-soaked soil and plain soil were seized vide seizure memo (Ex. P-6). 4. During investigation, the memorandum statement of the accused was recorded (Ex. P-5), pursuant to which a matchbox containing six unused matchsticks was seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo (Ex. P-7). On the basis of Dehati Nalishi, FIR (Ex. P-20) was registered under Section 307 of the IPC. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 Cr.P.C. were recorded and the accused was arrested on 13.04.2019. While undergoing treatment, on 13.04.2019 at about 2:10 p.m., Chintaram Rawte succumbed to his burn injuries at District Hospital, Rajnandgaon. Consequently, merg intimation was recorded and postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted on 14.04.2019. After completion of investigation, the seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for examination. 5. Upon finding that the accused had caused the death of his father, charge-sheet was filed against him under Section 302 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dondilohara, District Balod, who committed the case to the Court of Session. 6. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence 4 stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated in the crime in question. 7. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 15 witnesses as PW-1 to PW-15 and exhibited 23 documents vide Ex.P-1 to Ex.P-23, whereas the appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined any witness, but exhibited 3 documents vide Ex.D/1 to D/3. 8. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 28.10.2021, convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by him calling in question the impugned judgment. 9. Mr. B.P. Rao, learned counsel for the appellant, submits that the learned trial Court has gravely erred in framing the charge and ultimately convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. From the facts and evidence brought on record, it is evident that the prosecution has completely failed to place sufficient, cogent and reliable material to establish the ingredients of the said offence beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the Court below are thus based on surmises and conjectures, reflecting non- application of judicial mind, and consequently, the conviction of the appellant is erroneous and liable to be set aside. 5 10. It is further submitted that the so-called eye-witnesses examined by the prosecution have not fully supported the prosecution version and have failed to consistently depose that the appellant alone committed the alleged crime. Several prosecution witnesses introduced material improvements and new averments before the Court, which were never stated before the police authorities during investigation. Some of the witnesses even turned hostile. Despite such material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses, the Court below proceeded to convict the appellant, which vitiates the impugned judgment. 11. Learned counsel lastly submits that the prosecution evidence is neither cogent nor trustworthy and suffers from serious variances inter se the witnesses. The alleged intention of the appellant to commit the crime has not been established at all, and the entire case rests merely on weak and incomplete circumstantial evidence. The appellant has been in custody since 13.04.2019 and has preferred the present appeal through jail authorities in exercise of his statutory right. In these circumstances, the impugned judgment and order of conviction deserve to be quashed and set aside. 12. Per contra, Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading reliable oral and documentary 6 evidence. It is contended that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, when read as a whole, clearly establishes the guilt of the appellant and inspires confidence. 13. It is further submitted that the prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed regarding the role attributed to the appellant in commission of the offence and merely because some discrepancies or minor contradictions have appeared in their statements, the same cannot be a ground to discard the entire prosecution case. It is urged that such discrepancies do not go to the root of the matter and are natural in the testimony of witnesses. 14. It is lastly submitted that the medical and forensic evidence fully corroborates the ocular testimony and clearly establishes that the deceased died as a result of burn injuries intentionally caused by the appellant. Therefore, the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has not committed any illegality or infirmity in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, and as such, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 16. Unlike cases resting purely on circumstantial evidence, the present case is anchored on direct ocular testimony. The prosecution has examined two natural eye-witnesses, namely Tameshwar Sahu (PW-1) and Ekan Das (PW-2), who have witnessed the incident in 7 question. Their evidence, when read along with the corroborative medical, forensic and circumstantial evidence, forms a complete and convincing chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant. 17. The first and foremost question that falls for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the death of deceased – Chintaram Rawte was homicidal in nature? 18. The learned trial Court, upon careful analysis of the medical evidence, has unequivocally held that the deceased sustained extensive ante-mortem burn injuries and succumbed to shock resulting from burns. The post-mortem report coupled with the testimony of the medical expert leaves no manner of doubt that the injuries were not accidental or self-inflicted. The extent, pattern and nature of burn injuries unmistakably demonstrate application of an external accelerant, thereby establishing that the death was homicidal in nature. 19. This finding recorded by the trial Court is a pure finding of fact based on credible and unimpeached evidence. No material has been brought on record by the defence to even remotely suggest that the death was accidental or suicidal. Even before this Court, the homicidal nature of death has not been seriously disputed. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to interfere with the well- 8 reasoned finding of the learned trial Court and the same is hereby affirmed. 20. The next and most crucial question for determination is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant is the author of the crime? 21. To answer this question, it is necessary to analyse the credibility and probative value of the eye-witnesses. Tameshwar Sahu (PW-1) and Ekan Das (PW-2) have both categorically deposed that on 13.04.2019, a quarrel took place between the appellant and his father, Chintaram Rawte, regarding a domestic issue involving the appellant’s wife. They have further stated in clear and unequivocal terms that, during the course of the quarrel, the appellant went inside his house, brought a petrol container and a matchbox, poured petrol over the deceased and deliberately set him on fire. 22. Both the aforesaid witnesses have vividly narrated the sequence of events, including the immediate act of setting the deceased on fire and the subsequent attempt by villagers to extinguish the flames. Their testimony demonstrates spontaneity and coherence and does not suffer from any material contradiction or inconsistency affecting the core of the prosecution case. 23. The presence of PW-1 and PW-2 at the place of occurrence is wholly natural. They are residents of the same village and had no reason to concoct a false story. Their conduct in attempting to save the deceased by extinguishing the fire further lends assurance to 9 their testimony. Significantly, nothing has been elicited in their cross-examination to show any prior animosity with the appellant or any motive to falsely implicate him. 24. The ocular version given by PW-1 and PW-2 receives strong corroboration from the medical evidence. The medical expert has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were ante- mortem burn injuries and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The medical findings are in complete harmony with the prosecution version that petrol was poured on the deceased and he was set ablaze. 25. Further corroboration is available from the recovery of incriminating articles from the spot, namely the petrol container, burnt matchstick and petrol-soaked soil, which were seized in accordance with law. The forensic report confirming the presence of petroleum residue on the seized articles provides objective scientific corroboration to the ocular testimony and leaves no scope for doubt. 26. The motive for the offence also stands clearly established. The evidence reveals that the appellant was aggrieved by the fact that his father permitted his wife to stay in the matrimonial home. The quarrel immediately preceding the incident acted as the proximate cause, thereby supplying a strong and immediate motive for the appellant to commit the offence. 27. The conduct of the appellant subsequent to the incident is also of significance. After setting the deceased on fire, the appellant fled 10 from the spot, which is a relevant circumstance under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act and further strengthens the prosecution case. 28. The defence has attempted to highlight minor discrepancies in the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2. However, such discrepancies are trivial and do not touch the substratum of the prosecution case. It is well settled that minor inconsistencies, which are natural in human testimony, cannot be a ground to discard otherwise credible evidence. The testimony of the eye-witnesses remains intact on all material particulars. 29. It is also significant to note that in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant has failed to offer any plausible explanation for the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. His denial is bald and evasive and does not inspire confidence. 30. On a holistic appreciation of the entire evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that: • the death of deceased Chintaram Rawte was homicidal in nature; and • the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who poured petrol on the deceased and set him on fire, thereby causing his death. 31. Upon anxious consideration of the entire evidence available on record and after hearing learned counsel for the parties, this Court 11 is of the considered view that the medical evidence conclusively establishes that the death of deceased Chintaram Rawte was homicidal in nature and caused due to extensive burn injuries. The post-mortem report (Ex.P-19) and the testimony of Dr. Datta Sotre (PW-11) unequivocally prove that the deceased had sustained about 70% ante-mortem burn injuries and that death occurred due to shock resulting from burns. The medical opinion remained unchallenged in cross-examination and fully corroborates the prosecution case. 32. So far as the involvement of the appellant is concerned, the prosecution has examined natural and independent eyewitnesses namely Rameshwar Sahu (PW-1) and Sainand Sahu (PW-2), who have categorically deposed that on 13.04.2019 at about 10:00– 10:30 AM, the appellant poured petrol on his father Chintaram and set him on fire by lighting a matchstick. Both witnesses have consistently stated that immediately thereafter, they attempted to extinguish the fire by covering the deceased with bedsheets and sacks. Their presence at the spot is natural, their testimony inspires confidence, and no material contradiction affecting the core of the prosecution case could be elicited in cross-examination. 33. The version of the aforesaid eyewitnesses finds further corroboration from the testimony of other prosecution witnesses, including Hiradas Manipuri (PW-3) and Manoj Kumar Yadav (PW-4), who reached the spot immediately after the incident and noticed the 12 deceased in a burnt condition with smell of petrol emanating from his body. Their evidence also supports the conduct of the appellant, who fled from the spot immediately after the incident, which is a relevant circumstance under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act. 34. The investigation has further revealed recovery of burnt clothes of the deceased, a plastic container containing petrol residue, burnt soil and matchstick from the place of occurrence. The seizure witnesses have supported the prosecution case. The FSL report (Ex.P-20) conclusively proves presence of petrol residues on the seized articles, thereby lending strong forensic corroboration to the ocular version. 35. As regards motive, the evidence on record clearly establishes that there were persistent disputes between the appellant and his wife, and the appellant was aggrieved with his father for permitting his wife to stay in the matrimonial home. The testimony of prosecution witnesses brings on record that the appellant was frequently quarrelling with the deceased on this issue, providing a clear motive for commission of the offence. 36. The defence contention regarding alleged inconsistencies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses does not merit acceptance. The so-called discrepancies are minor, natural and do not go to the root of the matter. The core prosecution story has remained consistent and unshaken. Merely because some witnesses could not see the exact act of pouring petrol does not dilute the direct evidence 13 regarding setting the deceased on fire, which stands proved beyond reasonable doubt. 37. On cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence, such as oral, documentary and forensic, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has successfully proved that the appellant intentionally poured petrol on his father Chintaram Rawte and set him ablaze, resulting in his death. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence on record and has correctly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC. 38. Accordingly, this Court finds no illegality, infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balod. The appeal is devoid of merit and is hereby dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed thereunder are affirmed. 39. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 13.04.2019 as such, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 40. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his 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 14 with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 41. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu