1 2026:CGHC:10727-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 49 of 2018 1 – Botiram, S/o. Late Jagdeo, Aged About 32 Years, R/o. Village- Mahrapara, Karli, P.S. Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. 2 – Laxminath, S/o. Late Jagdeo, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Mahrapara, Karli, P.S. Geedam, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through District Magistrate, Dantewada, District Dantewada, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellants : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Anmol Sharma, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board (02.03.2026) ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.03.03 12:48:26 +0530 2 Sanjay K. Agrawal, J. 1. This criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2017 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) South Bastar, Dantewada in Sessions Trial No.205/2016, by which, the two appellants herein have been convicted under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- each, in default of payment of fine, one month’s additional rigorous imprisonment. 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 28.04.2016 at 10:00 A.M. at village Karli, Mahrapara, Police Station Geedam, the two appellants herein in furtherance of their common intention tress-passed into the house of Mangli Kunjam (now deceased) and assaulted the deceased by axe, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died. They have also caused simple injury to Maniram Kunjam (PW-1), husband of the deceased and thereby, committed the aforesaid offence. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P- 1, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-2, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body of deceased Mangli Kunjam was 3 subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. V.S.Thakur (PW-10), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-17, according to which, cause of death was stated to be subdural hemorrhage with hemorrhagic shock and cardio respiratory arrest and death was homicidal in nature. The weapon of offence i.e. axe was recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-7. After due investigation, the appellants were charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. 3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents and the accused/ appellants in support of their defence have neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellants herein for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment, against which the present appeal has been preferred. 4 5. Mrs. Indira Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that both the eye-witness Maniram Kunjam (PW-1) and Ramdei (PW-2) have turned hostile and have not supported the case of the prosecution and furthermore, on the question being raised by the Court, Ramdei (PW-2) answered against the appellant, but no further opportunity of cross-examination was given to the appellants, therefore, such evidence cannot be relied upon. As such, the appellants are entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed. 6. Mr. Anmol Sharma, learned State counsel, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants herein, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Mangli Kunjam was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the 5 post-mortem report (Ex.P-17) proved by Dr. V.S.Thakur (PW-10), according to which, cause of death was stated to be subdural hemorrhage with hemorrhagic shock and cardio respiratory arrest and death was homicidal in nature, which in our considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 9. Now, the case of the prosecution is based on the testimony of injured eye-witness Maniram Kunjam (PW-1), husband of the deceased and eye-witness Ramdei (PW-2). Though, Maniram (PW-1) in the examination in chief has supported the case of the prosecution, but in the cross-examination, he totally turned hostile and even in para 5 of his statement, he has stated that at the time of incident he was not in his house and he had not seen who has murdered his wife, he was informed by the villagers about the incident and commission of offence by the appellants. Even the question asked by the Court, he has stated that no maar-peet has been committed with him. As such, his statement is of no use to the prosecution. 6 10. So far as the eye-witness Ramdei (PW-2) is concerned, though she has supported the case of the prosecution in the examination in chief, but in the cross-examination, she has stated that she had gone for her labour work, she was not present in the house at the time incident and she had not seen who had murdered Mangli Kunjam. However, on the question being asked by the Court that which statement is correct, she had stated that assault by axe is correct. 11. The appellants were not allowed to cross-examine Ramdei (PW-2) pursuant to the answer given by the said witness. Though no leave was sought by the accused but in all fairness, the trial Court should have granted permission to the accused/ his counsel to cross-examine, as the answer given by PW-2 adversely affected the accused. However, this witness is not of sterling quality, as he has given both the version, firstly he said that he has witnessed the incident and thereafter, he said that he had not seen the incident and in the court’s query, he has answered that he had seen the incident. As such, he is not the sterling witness, therefore, it would not be appropriate to base the conviction as per the statement of PW-2. As such, both the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. 7 12. In view of the above, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.12.2017 is set aside. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellants stand acquitted giving them benefit of doubt from the charge framed against them for the offence under Section 302/34 of I.P.C. The appellants are already on bail, they need not surrender; however, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 13. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Ashok