1 2026:CGHC:21879-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1906 of 2024 1 - Doman @ Lalla Rajpoot S/o Bhagwanta Rajpoot Aged About 20 Years R/o Village Gangdwari, P.S. Pathariya, District Mungeli, C.G. 2 - Bhagwanta Rajpoot S/o Kriparam Aged About 53 Years R/o Village Gangdwari, P.S. Pathariya, District Mungeli, C.G. ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pathariya, District- Mungeli, C.G. --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1931 of 2024 Juvenile Conflict With Law (X) Nil ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pathriya, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Uttam Pandey and Ms. Pooja Sinha, Advocates For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Add. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.05.14 10:48:32 +0530 2 Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 11.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Uttam Pandey and Ms. Pooja Sinha, learned counsel for the appellants. Also heard Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General for respondent / State. 2. It is submitted that the present appeals preferred by the convicted appellants have been listed for hearing on this date along with connected Criminal Appeal Nos. 1679/2025 and 2202/2025, which have been instituted by the complainant/victim against the same common judgment arising out of Crime No. 220/2022 registered at Police Station Pathariya, assailing the conviction of the accused for the lesser offence under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC and seeking conviction for the graver offence under Section 302 IPC. It is further submitted that since all the appeals arise from the same incident, common evidence and identical trial proceedings, they were listed together for analogous consideration. The connected victim appeals having been taken up first were dismissed on the ground of delay, whereafter, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the present appeals filed by the accused persons are heard finally on merits. 3. These criminal appeals arise out of the common judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20.09.2024 passed by the 3 Court of learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 56/2022 and by the learned Juvenile Justice Board, Mungeli in Special Case (Juvenile Justice) No. 01/2023, whereby appellant/accused persons have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.100/- each, and in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for six months. 4. Since all the appeals arise out of the same crime number, involve common questions of fact and law, and challenge the same incident and common judgment, they are being heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 5. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Mrs. Rameshwari Rajput lodged a merg intimation alleging that on 21.08.2022, in the morning hours, she along with her husband Dhannu Lal Rajput had gone to the agricultural field for weeding work. At about 08:30 A.M., on account of a dispute relating to putting grass on the embankment of the field, accused Bhagwanta, Doman and the juvenile accused, acting in furtherance of their common intention, assaulted deceased Dhannu Lal Rajput by means of deadly weapons including sickle, stick, axe and knife, thereby causing grievous injuries resulting in his death. On the basis of the said information, merg intimation 4 Ex.P-01 was recorded and merg inquest proceedings Ex.P-02 were initiated. During investigation, the spot map Ex.P-03, spot panchnama Ex.P-04 and dead body panchnama Ex.P-11 were prepared. Thereafter, Police Station Patharia registered FIR bearing Crime No.220/2022 for the offence punishable under Sections 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and took up the investigation. 6. During the course of investigation, the articles allegedly used in the commission of offence were seized in presence of witnesses, the accused persons were arrested and sent to judicial remand and, after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. 7. The case being exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the same was committed by the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli to the Court of Sessions. After transfer of the matter by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, charges under Sections 302/34 IPC were framed against the accused persons, which were read over and explained to them. The accused persons abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. Their statements were also recorded. 8. In relation to the same incident, the documents and evidence collected during investigation were also considered in Special Case (Juvenile Justice) No.01/2023 concerning the juvenile accused. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of 5 the accused persons under Section 313 CrPC were recorded, wherein they denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and contended that they had been falsely implicated in the case. No defence evidence was adduced on behalf of the accused persons 9. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 09.02.2022, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, the present appeals have been preferred by the accused/appellants under Section 415(2) of the BNSS. 10. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants submits that the prosecution case is vitiated by material contradictions and failure to explain the injuries sustained by the accused persons, thereby rendering the genesis of the occurrence doubtful. Smt. Rameshwari (PW-1), in para-8 of her deposition, has stated that the deceased had not raised his hand during the incident, however, she has not offered any explanation with regard to the multiple injuries found on the persons of the appellants and co- accused. Bardanik Ram Rajpoot (PW-2), in para-13, has made inconsistent statements regarding the head injury of Bhagwanta Rajpoot, at one stage denying the same and at another expressing ignorance as to its cause. Poona Ram (PW-3) and Ramanuj (PW-5) have also either denied or expressed ignorance 6 regarding the injuries sustained by the appellants’ side, despite the same being borne out from medical evidence. 11. The medical evidence on record indicates that the appellants and co-accused had also sustained multiple injuries in the same occurrence. Dr. Aryan Pandey (PW-10) has proved that the juvenile offender sustained six injuries, Doman Rajpoot sustained seven injuries, and Bhagwanta Rajpoot sustained seven injuries, all caused by hard and blunt objects, and all of them were referred for specialised treatment including orthopaedic, radiological, CT scan and X-ray examination. The Investigating Officer has admitted the existence of these injuries but has not conducted a fair investigation in that regard nor taken steps to investigate the counter-version, despite medical indications requiring such course. The non-explanation of these injuries by the prosecution assumes significance and casts doubt on the prosecution version regarding the manner of occurrence. 12. It is further found that there exists inconsistency between the ocular version and the medical evidence. PW-1 has attributed the assault to weapons such as axe, sabbal, club and knife, whereas PW-10 has opined that the injuries could not have been caused by club and sabbal. The prosecution witnesses are closely related to the deceased and their testimony is further weakened by contradictions and absence of a coherent explanation regarding injuries on both sides. In view of the aforesaid 7 infirmities, the appeals deserves to be allowed. 13. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment and submit that the present appeals does not warrant interference in the well-reasoned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court. The prosecution case is clearly established through consistent ocular and medical evidence, wherein Rameshwari (PW-1) (wife of the deceased) has given a cogent account of the incident, supported by Bardanik Ram Rajpoot (PW-2), Poonaram (PW-3), and Ramanuj (PW-4), who reached the spot immediately after the occurrence. Their testimonies duly establish that the appellants, in furtherance of common intention, assaulted the deceased Dhannu Lal Rajput by means of Tangi, Lathi and Sabbal, resulting in his death on the spot at village Naulakha Khar, Gangdwari on 21.08.2022 at about 08:30 AM. The postmortem report (Ex. P-17), proved by Dr. Aryan Pandey (PW-10), corroborates the ocular version by recording multiple injuries caused by both sharp and blunt weapons and opining the cause of death as excessive haemorrhage with homicidal nature. The learned Trial Court, after proper appreciation of evidence, has rightly convicted the appellants under Section 304 Part I read with Section 34 IPC and has already taken a balanced view, hence no ground is made out either for acquittal or for interference with the conviction, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8 14. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 15. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration before this Court is whether the prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, that on 21.08.2022 at about 08:30 AM at village- Gangdwari, Naulakha Khar, within the jurisdiction of Police Station- Patharia, the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention along with a juvenile co- accused, committed the assault upon deceased Dhannu Lal Rajput and thereby caused his death by inflicting injuries with lathi and crowbar. 16. In order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to examine in detail the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution and the manner in which the learned trial Court has appreciated the same. 17. C.M. Malakar (PW-12), who was posted as Station House Officer, Patharia Police Station, has stated that on 21.08.2022, upon receiving telephonic information from Ramesh Rajput regarding the incident, he along with police staff immediately proceeded to village Gangdwari and reached the spot at about 10:00 A.M. He deposed that at the place of occurrence, complainant Rameshwari Rajput lodged the merg intimation, on the basis of 9 which rural merg intimation (Ex.P-01) and rural merg inquiry (Ex.P-02) were recorded. In cross-examination, he admitted that the merg intimation was recorded at about 10:30 A.M. after reaching the spot. His testimony also finds corroboration from PW-07, who stated that he had received a phone call from Bardanik Rajput informing him about the murder of Dhannu Rajput and thereafter he informed the police station. 18. The testimony of PW-12 further reveals that after recording merg, he issued notice to panch witnesses under Ex.P-10 and conducted inquest proceedings over the dead body vide Ex.P-11. He has specifically stated that seven visible injuries were noticed on the body of deceased during inquest proceedings. In cross- examination, although he admitted that on the first page of Ex.P- 11 four injuries were initially mentioned and the remaining were elaborated subsequently, such discrepancy appears to be procedural and not affecting the core prosecution case, inasmuch as the inquest report is only a preliminary document. The inquest proceedings were duly supported by Bardanik Rajput (PW-2) and Ramanuj Rajput (PW-5), who attested the proceedings. 19. The homicidal nature of death stands firmly established from the evidence of Dr. Aryan Pandey (PW-10), who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of deceased Dhannu Lal Rajput and proved the postmortem report (Ex.P-17). He found three penetrating stab wounds over the chest region and one 10 grievous chop wound on the right temporal-orbital area extending up to bone, causing fracture of skull bones and rupture of eye. He categorically opined that the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, caused by hard and sharp object, and the cause of death was shock due to excessive haemorrhage resulting from chest and head injuries. The doctor further opined that the death was homicidal and had occurred approximately 10 hours prior to autopsy. The medical findings fully corroborate the prosecution case that the deceased died as a result of violent assault. 20. The principal eyewitness to the incident is Rameshwari Rajput (PW-1). She has deposed that on the date of incident at about 08:30 A.M., she and her husband had gone to their agricultural field for weeding. The accused persons namely Bhagwanta, Doman and the juvenile co-accused came there armed with tangia, lathi, sabbal and knife. They objected to the placing of grass on the embankment adjoining the field, whereupon a verbal altercation ensued. According to her, accused Doman assaulted her husband with crowbar near the eye and accused Bhagwanta assaulted him on chest and body. When she raised alarm, nearby villagers started arriving, whereupon the accused fled from the spot. Her evidence clearly establishes presence of accused at the scene and direct participation in assault. 21. In cross-examination, PW-01 admitted that the dispute arose suddenly over placing of weeded grass on the common 11 embankment and there was no prior enmity between the parties. She also admitted that if the grass had been removed from that place, the dispute would not have occurred. She denied the defence suggestion that the deceased and she first assaulted the accused persons. Though she admitted that she herself did not sustain injuries, she consistently stated that she attempted to save her husband and raised cries for help. Merely because she did not sustain injury cannot render her testimony unreliable, particularly when her presence at the spot is natural and undisputed. 22. Bardanik Rajput (PW-2) has stated that at about 08:30 A.M., he received a telephone call from Rameshwari informing him that her husband was being assaulted. He immediately informed Ramanuj, father of the deceased, and both proceeded towards the field. Upon reaching there, they found the deceased lying dead and the accused running away from the scene. He along with villagers apprehended the accused while they were fleeing. He specifically stated that accused Bhagwanta was carrying a blood-stained lathi, Doman was carrying a crowbar, and the juvenile accused was carrying tangia and knife. His statement lends immediate corroboration to the testimony of PW-01 and establishes conduct of the accused immediately after the occurrence. 23. Though in cross-examination PW-02 admitted that he had not 12 actually seen the assault taking place and reached immediately thereafter, his testimony remains relevant as part of the same transaction under the doctrine of res-gestae, inasmuch as he received immediate telephonic information from the eyewitness and reached the scene without delay. His statement regarding apprehending the accused while fleeing and seeing weapons in their hands remained unshaken. 24. Puna Ram (PW-3) has deposed that he was working in a nearby field and heard cries for help from the field of the deceased. On reaching there, he saw the deceased lying injured and later dead, and along with others apprehended the accused while they were fleeing. He also stated that the wife of the deceased informed him that the accused had assaulted her husband over dispute regarding keeping grass on the embankment. Although he did not witness the assault itself, his testimony supports the immediate aftermath and the prosecution version regarding the genesis of occurrence. 25. Ishwari Bai (PW-4) was declared hostile to some extent, but she admitted that she heard Rameshwari shouting from the field and on hearing such cries, her husband and father-in-law rushed towards the place of occurrence. This part of her testimony supports the presence of PW-01 at the spot and the fact that she was raising alarm during the occurrence. 26. Ramanuj Rajput (PW-5), though not an eyewitness, has stated 13 that after receiving information from Bardanik, he rushed to the field and found his son lying dead with severe injuries on chest and eye. He also stated that the accused were fleeing and were apprehended by villagers. His testimony corroborates the sequence narrated by PW-02 and PW-03. 27. The spot investigation conducted by PW-12 assumes significance. He prepared spot map Ex.P-03 and spot panchnama Ex.P-04. Blood-stained and plain soil were seized from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P-05. The location shown in the map clearly indicates that the agricultural fields of deceased and accused were adjoining, and the dispute related to common boundary embankment. This circumstance supports the prosecution version that the quarrel arose suddenly at the field itself. 28. With regard to seizure, PW-12 has deposed that on the same day, on production by accused Bhagwanta, a blood-stained bamboo stick and blood-stained shirt were seized vide Ex.P-06. Similarly, on production by accused Doman, an iron crowbar and blood-stained shirt were seized vide Ex.P-07. PW-02 supported the seizure proceedings, though another witness PW-06 turned partly hostile. Merely because one seizure witness did not fully support the prosecution, the seizure does not become doubtful when supported by the investigating officer and another independent witness. 14 29. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. As per FSL report Ex.P-29, blood was found on the bamboo stick, crowbar and shirts seized from the accused. Human blood was detected on the shirts and crowbar. The accused in their statements under Section 313 CrPC failed to offer any explanation as to how human blood came on their clothes and weapon articles. This constitutes an incriminating circumstance against them. 30. The defence has strongly relied upon the injuries sustained by accused persons and contended that the prosecution failed to explain the same. In this regard, PW-10 has indeed proved that accused Bhagwanta and Doman had sustained multiple simple injuries caused by hard and blunt object, and they were advised for further examination. However, the nature of such injuries was simple and all were caused by blunt object, whereas the deceased suffered fatal incised and penetrating injuries caused by sharp weapon. Thus, the injuries on accused persons are qualitatively different and not sufficient to probabilise the defence plea that the deceased was aggressor. 31. PW-12 has explained in his cross-examination that during investigation he came to know that when villagers chased and apprehended the accused while they were fleeing from the scene, they fell down and sustained injuries. This explanation is supported by PW-02, PW-03 and PW-05 who all stated that 15 villagers caught hold of the accused immediately after the incident. Therefore, non-registration of a counter-case by itself does not demolish the prosecution case. 32. From a cumulative reading of the evidence of PW-01, PW-02, PW-03, PW-05, the medical evidence of PW-10, seizure memos, and FSL report, it stands proved that the appellants along with juvenile co-accused were present at the scene. A sudden quarrel arose over placing grass on the embankment. In course of said quarrel they assaulted deceased Dhannu Lal Rajput with sharp and blunt weapons and the injuries so caused resulted in his death. 33. The learned trial Court, upon meticulous appreciation of the aforesaid evidence, rightly came to the conclusion that although the assault was proved beyond reasonable doubt, the occurrence arose on account of sudden quarrel over a trivial agricultural dispute, without prior premeditation. Therefore, by extending benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC, the offence was held to fall under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC instead of Section 302 IPC. 34. This Court, upon independent reappreciation of the entire evidence, finds that the conclusions recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence and do not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference in appeal. The defence submissions regarding non- 16 explanation of injuries and contradictions are not of such nature as to discredit the otherwise reliable ocular testimony of PW-01, which is amply corroborated by medical and circumstantial evidence. 35. It is a settled principle of criminal law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt, and all such circumstances must form a chain so complete that it leaves no reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. If any link in the chain is found to be missing or doubtful, the benefit thereof must go to the accused. 36. In the present case, however, the prosecution has not only relied upon circumstantial evidence, but has also examined a natural eyewitness, namely, Rameshwari (PW-1), whose presence at the place of occurrence is wholly natural, being the wife of the deceased and accompanying him to the agricultural field at the relevant time. Her testimony inspires confidence and receives substantial corroboration from the medical evidence, seizure proceedings and the testimony of the witnesses who reached the spot immediately after the incident. Thus, the present matter cannot be treated as a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence. 37. The contention of learned counsel for the appellants that the prosecution has suppressed the genesis of the occurrence and 17 has failed to explain the injuries sustained by the appellants also does not merit acceptance. It is true that the medical evidence shows that the appellants sustained certain injuries in the same occurrence. However, the law is equally well settled that non- explanation of injuries on the accused is not always fatal to the prosecution case, particularly when the injuries are simple in nature and the prosecution evidence is otherwise trustworthy and cogent. In the present case, the injuries found on the appellants were simple blunt injuries, whereas the deceased suffered multiple grievous penetrating and chop injuries caused by sharp weapons, leading to his death. Therefore, the injuries on the appellants do not probabilise the plea of right of private defence. 38. The plea raised on behalf of the appellants that the deceased party was the aggressor and that the appellants acted in exercise of right of private defence also deserves rejection. The burden to establish such plea, though not as strict as that of prosecution, still lies upon the accused to show circumstances bringing the case within the ambit of Sections 96 to 106 of the Indian Penal Code. In the instant case, apart from suggestions given in cross- examination and certain defence documents regarding complaints submitted subsequently, no cogent evidence has been adduced to probabilise that the deceased or his wife initiated the assault. On the contrary, the evidence of PW-1 clearly shows that the dispute arose over keeping grass on the 18 field embankment and in the course thereof, the accused persons assaulted the deceased with dangerous weapons. 39. It is also significant to note that the appellants were apprehended immediately after the occurrence by villagers while fleeing from the place of incident, and blood-stained weapons were recovered from their possession. The FSL report confirms presence of blood and human blood on the seized articles as well as on the clothes of the appellants. The appellants have offered no plausible explanation for the said incriminating circumstance. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with innocence and strongly corroborates the prosecution case. 40. The argument that there are contradictions in the testimony of prosecution witnesses regarding the exact weapon used by each accused and the sequence of assault is of no avail to the appellants. Minor discrepancies regarding exact role, sequence or number of blows are bound to occur when witnesses depose after lapse of time and after witnessing a sudden violent incident. Such discrepancies, being natural, rather lend assurance to the truthfulness of testimony. The core prosecution story that the appellants along with the juvenile co-accused assaulted the deceased in the field due to sudden quarrel remains consistent and intact throughout. 41. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, it appears that the occurrence took place on account of a sudden quarrel arising 19 over a trivial issue relating to placing of grass on the common embankment between adjoining agricultural fields. There is nothing on record to indicate previous enmity, pre-planning or premeditation. The quarrel erupted at the spur of the moment and during such altercation the appellants assaulted the deceased with the weapons available with them. The learned trial Court has therefore rightly held that the case falls within Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, namely, culpable homicide committed without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon sudden quarrel. 42. This Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has already taken a balanced and lenient view by converting the offence from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC. Looking to the nature of injuries inflicted, particularly the fatal injuries on the chest and head of the deceased, no further reduction either in the nature of offence or in the sentence awarded can be justified. 43. The sentence of rigorous imprisonment for ten years with fine of Rs.100/- imposed upon each of the appellants for offence under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 IPC cannot be said to be excessive or disproportionate. Rather, it appears to be commensurate with the gravity of the act committed by them. 44. Consequently, this Court does not find any infirmity, perversity or illegality in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of 20 sentence dated 20.09.2024 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.56/2022 and the corresponding judgment passed in Special Case (Juvenile Justice) No.01/2023, warranting interference in exercise of appellate jurisdiction. 45. Accordingly, all the criminal appeals being devoid of merit are hereby dismissed. The conviction of the appellants under Section 304 Part-I read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentence awarded thereunder are affirmed. 46. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties discharged. They shall surrender within four weeks from today before the concerned trial Court for serving remaining sentence as awarded by this Court, failing which they shall be taken into custody by the Trial Court and sent to jail. 47. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellants are undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellants informing them that they are at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 21 48. Let a copy of this judgment and 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 Manpreet