1 2026:CGHC:5708-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 669 of 2025 Rameshwar Banjare S/o Shri Banshiram Banjare Aged About 31 Years R/o Dindolabhantha, Chowki Hardibazar, P.S. Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kusmunda, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr.Ravipal Maheshwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 02/02/2026 1. This criminal appeal under Section 415 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentence awarded i.e. imprisonment for life and fine of ₹2,000, in default of BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.02.03 17:43:01 +0530 2 payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for six months by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, vide impugned judgment dated 4.3.2025 in Sessions Trial No.29/2022. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 06.04.2022, complainant Dhanbai Banjare (PW-1) appeared at the police outpost and lodged Report No. 29/2022 (Ex.P-17), stating that on 06.04.2022 her husband, Firangi Ram Banjare, had gone to perform watchman duty at the bridge construction site over Lilagar River. He was resting near a tent erected in their Kosmahi Jhorki field adjacent to the site, when at about 7 P.M. her nephew-in-law Ramesh Banjare came there and, due to an old land dispute, abused her husband Firangi Ram Banjare with filthy language and threatened to kill him. The accused caught hold of his head and struck it against the iron pipe of a cot, causing injuries to the back of his head. During the scuffle, he also caused injuries to the left cheek and assaulted him on the chest with fists and blows, resulting in injuries. The injured informed her about the incident over the phone, after which she went to the spot along with her brother-in-law Ramsagar Banjare and son-in-law Leeladhar Sonwani, and took him to Primary Health Center, Hardibazar for treatment. 3. On receipt of the said information, Crime No. 135/2022 under Sections 294, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code was registered vide Ex. P-17 and investigation was initiated. The injured Firangi Ram Banjare was sent to PHC Hardibazar for 3 treatment, from where his medical examination report (Ex. P-10) was obtained. During treatment, on 07.04.2022 at 07:10 A.M., information regarding his death was given by complainant Dhanbai, upon which a merg intimation No. 0/2022 (Ex. P-19) was registered at Police Outpost Hardibazar. On its basis, a numbered merg was registered at Police Station Kusmunda vide Ex. P-16. Consequently, Section 302 of the IPC was added against accused Rameshwar. Proceedings of inquest over the dead body were conducted, notices to witnesses were issued vide Exs.P-02/20, and the spot map/inquest map (Ex. P-3) was prepared. Thereafter, on the opinion of the panch witnesses, an application (Ex.P-21) was sent to PHC Hardibazar for post-mortem examination. Based on the said application, Dr. A.N. Kanwar conducted the post-mortem of the body of Firangi Ram and found following injuries:- (i) Lacerated wound 2 ½ x cm ½ x bone deep on scalp over occipital bone. (ii) Lacerated wound 1 x ½ cm left side on face over mandible bone. (iii) Abrasion 2 ½ x 1 cm. Left side on chest. (iv) Contusion with lacerated wound 5 x 3 ½ cm left side on chest. (v) Abrasion 1 x ½ cm left palm near left thigh. The doctor has opined that the cause of death is shock due to injury to lung and vital organ. Death was homicidal in nature. During investigation, blood-stained soil, plain soil, and an iron-pipe 4 cot were seized from the spot as per seizure memo (Ex. P-5). The T-shirt worn by the accused / appellant at the time of the incident was seized as per seizure memo (Ex. P-6). The accused was arrested in the presence of witnesses and arrest memo (Ex. P-7) was prepared, and information thereof was given to his family members as per Ex. P-23. 4. During investigation, Investigating Officer Abhay Singh Bais recorded the statements of witnesses Dhanbai, Kanti, Kantaram alias Nanhi, Ramsagar Banjare, Leeladhar Sonwani, Anita, Malti, Radhelal, and Shivshankar as per their disclosures. A written request (Ex. P-24) was made to the Tehsildar to prepare and submit the Patwari site structure/map of the place of occurrence. A query (Ex. P-25) was sent to the Medical Officer, Hardibazar, regarding the presence of human blood on the seized T-shirt of the accused, and similar queries regarding other seized articles were also sent to PHC Hardibazar. In response, Dr. D.A.N. Kanwar submitted reports Exs. P-11, P-12, and P-13. The seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory through the Superintendent of Police, and the acknowledgment receipt thereof is Ex. P-27. The FSL report is Ex. P-28. According to the report, blood was found on the blood-stained soil seized from the spot (Article-A), the deceased’s khaki full pant (Article-C-1), vest (Article-C-2), underwear (Article-C-3), accused Rameshwar’s T-shirt (Article-D), and iron cot (Article-E). Human blood was found on the deceased’s full pant, vest, and underwear, whereas 5 due to degradation of stains on the remaining exhibits, the test for human origin yielded negative results. Upon completion of investigation, a final report was prepared and submitted against accused Rameshwar Banjare under Sections 302, 294, 506, and 323 of the Indian Penal Code. 5. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet No. 143/2022 was filed before the competent court on 04.07.2022. Thereafter, on 12.07.2022, the case was committed by order to the Court of the Hon’ble Principal District and Sessions Judge, Korba, and was received there on 25.07.2022. Subsequently, for lawful disposal, the case was transferred to the Court of the First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, on 28.07.2022. 6. The trial Court framed charges against the accused/appellant on 28.09.2022 under Sections 294, 506 (Part II), and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which were read over and explained to him. The accused/appellant denied committing the offence and claimed trial. After completion of evidence, during examination of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he stated that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated. In his defence, he examined one witness, Bhupendra Pal Ratre (DW-1), and submitted documents as per the list. 7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 4.3.2025, held the appellant guilty for offence under Section 302 of the IPC 6 and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, arbitrary, perverse, and contrary to the facts and evidence available on record, and therefore deserves to be set aside. It is contended that on the date and time of the alleged incident, the appellant was admittedly working with KCPL Company and had left for duty at about 8:30 A.M., returning home only around 8:00 P.M., whereas the place of work is approximately 20 kilometers away from his residence, clearly establishing that the appellant was not present at the place of occurrence at the relevant time. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate this vital defence of alibi. It is further submitted that due to an existing civil dispute between the complainant party and the appellant, a false and motivated FIR was lodged on mere suspicion, and the conviction has been recorded without any direct or cogent evidence. There is no eyewitness to the incident, despite the alleged place of occurrence being an open area situated merely 300 meters from the complainant’s house, making the prosecution story highly improbable. The possibility of involvement of some unknown person or third party has not been ruled out, especially when the incident allegedly occurred in an open place. The prosecution has also failed to explain why the deceased did not raise any alarm or call for help, which seriously dents the 7 credibility of the prosecution case. The learned trial Court gravely erred in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code when there is no evidence of intention or mens rea to commit murder, particularly considering that the appellant is the nephew of the deceased. It is submitted that no incriminating articles, documents, or blood-stained materials have been recovered from the possession of the appellant so as to connect him with the alleged crime, and the conviction is based purely on conjectures and surmises. The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is incomplete and does not form a continuous chain pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant. Moreover, there are material contradictions and omissions between the FIR and the statements of prosecution witnesses, which have not been properly scrutinized by the learned trial Court. Having already acquitted the appellant of offences under Sections 294 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC, the learned trial Court erred in law in convicting him under Section 302 IPC on the same set of evidence. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In view of the aforesaid facts and circumstances, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is unsustainable in the eye of law and is liable to be quashed, and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of all charges. 8 9. Learned State Counsel vehemently opposes the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellant and submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is legal, justified, and based on proper appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The defence of alibi taken by the appellant is an afterthought and has not been proved by any reliable or cogent evidence, as no documentary proof or independent witness from the alleged workplace has been produced to establish the appellant’s presence elsewhere at the time of the incident. The prosecution evidence clearly establishes the presence and involvement of the appellant at the place of occurrence, and the motive arising out of prior land dispute between the appellant and the deceased further strengthens the prosecution case. Though there is no direct eyewitness to the actual assault, the prosecution has established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, which conclusively points towards the guilt of the appellant and rules out any hypothesis of innocence. The medical evidence fully corroborates the prosecution version, and the post-mortem report clearly opines the cause of death to be homicidal due to injuries to vital organs. The recovery of incriminating articles, including the 9 blood-stained clothes of the appellant and the iron cot from the place of occurrence, along with the forensic report, further connects the appellant with the commission of the offence. Minor contradictions or omissions in the statements of prosecution witnesses are natural and do not go to the root of the case, and the learned trial Court has rightly discarded them. He further submits that merely because the appellant has been acquitted of offences under Sections 294 and 506 (Part-II) of the IPC does not ipso facto entitle him to acquittal under Section 302 IPC, as the offence of murder stands independently proved on the basis of evidence on record. The relationship between the appellant and the deceased does not dilute the gravity of the offence nor absolve the appellant of criminal liability. The conviction is not based on surmises or conjectures but on legally admissible, reliable, and trustworthy evidence. Hence, the appeal is devoid of merit and is liable to be dismissed, and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court deserves to be affirmed. 10. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Firangi Ram Banjare was homicidal in nature, which the trial Court has returned the finding in affirmative. 10 12. Dr.A.N.Kanwar (PW-12) has examined the dead body of the deceased and submitted his report Ex.P-8, in which he has clearly opined that the cause of death is shock due to injury to lung & vital organ and death was homicidal in nature. 13. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the records, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that death of Firangi Ram Banjare was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been substantially disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. Admittedly, in the present case, there is no eyewitness. 15. Now the circumstance that the trial Court has found proved and which has also been made basis for conviction of the appellant is the statement of Ravi Shankar Banjare (PW-7). In para 2 of his statement, he has stated that on 6.4.2022, he had gone to Jashpur to repair his vehicle. Around 6 P.M., his father, deceased Firangi Banjare, called him on his mobile number 7440898552 from his mobile number 6261424992. He informed him that he was staying in a tent near Lilagar river, guarding the construction site of a bridge, when accused Rameshwar Banjare arrived and assaulted him around 6:30 P.M. The accused hit his father's head against an iron bed and sat on his chest, causing his ribs to break and puncture his lungs. His father told him that the accused had 11 attacked him over a land dispute and was intoxicated at the time. After the assault, the accused fled the scene. His father had injuries on his head, chest, and back. In para 2 of his statement, he has stated that he immediately informed his wife, who then told their family members. They all went to the scene, and his sister called an ambulance. His father was taken to Hardibazar hospital, where he died about an hour and a half later due to the injuries inflicted by the accused. The police investigated the scene, took statements, and recorded the incident. 16. The next circumstance against the appellant is that blood was found on T-shirt (Article D) seized from the appellant as per FSL report (Ex.P-28). 17. At this stage, pertinent decision of the Supreme Court on this point in the matter of Balwan Singh (supra) may be noticed herein, in which the Supreme Court has summarized the law on this point after taking into the decision of the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) in the matter of Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P.1. In Raghav Prapanna Tripathi (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that in case the prosecution needed to prove that the bloodstains found on the earth or the weapons were of a human origin and were of the same blood group as that of the accused. 1 AIR 1963 SC 74 12 18. The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court i.e. Raghav Prapanna Tripathi (supra) was followed in Balwan Singh (supra) in which it was observed as under:- “23. From the aforementioned discussion, we can summarise that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood. The court will have to come to the conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove, that the blood groups match.” 19. Thereafter, the Supreme Court in Balwan Singh (supra) relying upon the fact that the prosecution has failed to prove that the blood was of human origin declined to rely upon the aspect of recovery of the weapons from the accused therein. It was observed as under:- “24. In the instant case, then, we could have placed some reliance on the recovery, had the prosecution at least proved that the blood was of human origin. As observed supra, while discussing the evidence of PWs 9 and 16, the prosecution has tried to concoct the case from stage to stage. Hence, in the absence of positive material indicating that the stained blood was of human origin and of the same blood group as that of the accused, it would be difficult for the Court to rely upon the aspect of 13 recovery of the weapons and tabbal, and such recovery does not help the case of the prosecution.” 20. Reverting to the facts of the present case as the prosecution has failed to prove that the blood found on T-shirt (Article 'D') was of human blood. These circumstances cannot be held to be found proved against the accused / appellant, whereas it has been taken as an adverse circumstance and incriminating evidence by the trial Court. 21. Furthermore, the trial Court has also held that since lacerated wounds have been found over the body of deceased Firangi Ram Banjare, which can be caused by the accused / appellant, we are of the considered opinion, unless it is proved that the appellant has caused injuries, it cannot be taken as adverse incriminating circumstance to convict the appellant / accused for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 22. Finally, reverting to the facts of the present case, since motive for the aforesaid offence has not been proved except there was some old land dispute between the appellant and the deceased and motive has not been established and blood found on T-shirt (Article 'D') was not further established to be human blood by Serologist report and that too of deceased Firangi Ram Banjare. As such, it would be unsafe to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the learned Additional Sessions Judge has committed legal error in convicting the appellant under 14 Section 302 of the IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence under Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt. 23. So far as the information given by deceased Firangi Ram Banjare to PW-7 Ravi Shankar Banjare over telephone is concerned, the trial Court has treated the said statement as a dying declaration and relied upon it as a substantive piece of evidence. It is well settled that a dying declaration need not necessarily be in writing nor recorded by a Magistrate, and even an oral dying declaration can be relied upon if it inspires confidence. However, in the present case, the alleged dying declaration was made over telephone, and there is no contemporaneous record of the conversation, no call detail record has been produced to corroborate the timing and duration of the call, and no independent witness has heard the deceased making such statement. Further, the statement of PW-7 shows that after receiving the alleged information, the deceased survived for a considerable period and was taken to hospital, but no effort was made by the prosecution to have his statement recorded either by a Magistrate or a doctor, despite availability of opportunity. Moreover, the contents of the alleged dying declaration are not corroborated by any other cogent circumstantial evidence on record. In the absence of corroboration and in view of the surrounding circumstances, it would be unsafe to place implicit reliance upon the oral telephonic statement made to PW-7 as a dying declaration so as to form the sole basis of conviction. 15 Therefore, the said circumstance does not conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the impugned judgment dated 4.3.2025 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, in Sessions Trial No.29/2022 convicting the accused/appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentencing him for life imprisonment and fine of ₹2,000/- cannot be sustained and the same is accordingly set aside. He is acquitted of the charge under Section 302 of the IPC. He is in custody. He be released forthwith, unless required in any other case. 25. The criminal appeal is allowed to the extent indicated herein- above. 26. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of the BNSS), the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 16 27. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu