1 2026:CGHC:23206-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 264 of 2025 1 - Raja Sahu S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 24 Years R/o Village Godkhamhi, Police Station Civil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) 2 - Dilu Kumar Sahu S/o Ganesh Ram Sahu Aged About 19 Years R/o Village Godkhamhi, Police Station Civil Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) 3 - Appellant No. 3 (Deleted) As Per Honble Court Order Dated- 26-03- 2025. --- Appellants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli (C.G.) --- Respondent CRA No. 275 of 2025 Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati Sahu S/o Ramesh Kumar Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Godkhamhi, Police Station Lormi, District Mungeli, Chhattisgarh. ---Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Korba, District Korba, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant (In CRA No.264/2025) : Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, Advocate ANURADHA TIWARI Digitally signed by ANURADHA TIWARI Date: 2026.05.15 18:12:01 +0530 2 For Appellant (In CRA No.275/2025) : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 15.05.2026 1. Heard Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.264/2025, Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.275/2025 as well a Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State/respondent. 2. CRA No.264/2025 has been preferred by appellants/accused Raja Sahu and Dilu Sahu, who are real brothers, whereas CRA No.275/2025 has been preferred by appellant/accused Durgresh Kumar @ Bulati Sahu under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’), calling in question the legality and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.02/2024. 3. By the impugned judgment, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 3 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and sentenced each of them to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 302/34 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year; rigorous imprisonment for one year with fine of Rs.500/- for the offence under Section 201 IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months; and imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1,000/- for the offence under Section 120-B IPC, in default of payment of fine amount, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year, with a direction that all the sentences shall run concurrently. 4. The prosecution case, in brief, is that all the accused persons were arrested by Police Station Lormi on 26.10.2023 vide arrest memos Ex.P/27 to Ex.P/29. The factum of arrest is duly admitted. The remaining facts, as projected by the prosecution before the learned trial Court, are as follows:- • The prosecution story commenced on the basis of merg intimation lodged by PW-03 Laxman Yadav, father of deceased Pokhan Yadav. As per the prosecution, on 25.10.2023 at about 2:00 PM, accused Raja @ Raju Sahu and his brother Dilu Sahu allegedly came near the house of the complainant and threatened him by stating that his son Pokhan Yadav should be restrained, otherwise they would 4 kill him on account of alleged misconduct with their sister. Thereafter, the deceased, who was residing at his matrimonial home situated at Karidihkala, informed the family that he was returning home, however, he did not reach. • Upon the deceased not returning home, PW-03 Laxman Yadav along with PW-07 Domraj Yadav started searching for him. During the course of search, PW-08 Sonu Yadav informed them that he had seen deceased Pokhan Yadav proceeding towards the liquor shop side near Awaspara. Thereafter, they reached the kaccha road situated behind the liquor shop at Awaspara, where they allegedly found accused Raja @ Raju Sahu and Dilu Sahu assaulting deceased Pokhan Yadav with a sharp-edged weapon and committing his murder by cutting his throat, while co- accused Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati was allegedly standing nearby and watching the road to prevent intervention by passersby. It is alleged that after noticing the witnesses, all the accused persons fled away from the spot on a motorcycle towards Awaspara side. • The prosecution further alleged that the dead body of Pokhan Yadav was lying at the spot in a pool of blood with severe incised injuries over the neck, forehead, ear and behind the left ear. On the basis of the aforesaid information 5 furnished by PW-03 Laxman Yadav, merg intimation Ex.P/20 was registered at Police Station Lormi, on the basis of which FIR Ex.P/21 came to be recorded for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B read with Section 34 of the IPC. • During investigation, the Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot and issued notice under Section 175 Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P/03 to the witnesses for preparation of inquest proceedings. Spot map/panchayatnama Ex.P/04 was prepared and thereafter dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination through Constable Arun Sahu vide duty certificate Ex.P/05. The postmortem examination was conducted and postmortem report Ex.P/15 was prepared, wherein multiple incised wounds over the neck and head region were noticed and the cause of death was opined to be homicidal in nature. After postmortem, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased. • During investigation, memorandum statement of accused Raja @ Raju Sahu was recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Ex.P/06, pursuant to which one bloodstained full T-shirt, one purple coloured full shirt and one iron sharp-edged knife alleged to have been used in the commission of offence were seized vide seizure memos 6 Ex.P/07 and Ex.P/08. Similarly, memorandum statement of accused Dilu Sahu was recorded vide Ex.P/09, pursuant to which bloodstained clothes and one pair of shoes allegedly worn at the time of incident were seized vide Ex.P/10. Memorandum statement of accused Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati was recorded vide Ex.P/11 and, on his disclosure statement, motorcycle bearing registration No. CG-09-JK- 6224 allegedly used in the commission of offence was seized vide Ex.P/12. • The prosecution further seized bloodstained and plain soil from the place of occurrence vide Ex.P/13. Statements of witnesses including PW-08 Sonu Yadav were recorded during investigation, whose police statement is Ex.P/14. The clothes worn by the deceased at the time of incident were also seized after postmortem vide Ex.P/25. • The seized articles including clothes of the accused persons, knife and other incriminating articles were sent for medical and forensic examination through query memos Ex.P/16 to Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/26. The Investigating Officer also prepared crime details form Ex.P/24 and obtained spot map Ex.P/01 and Ex.P/02 through revenue authorities. The seized articles were thereafter forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory through Ex.P/31 and FSL report Ex.P/33 was received during investigation. 7 • Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mungeli, which was registered as Criminal Case No.1351/2023. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 28.12.2023 and was thereafter registered as Sessions Trial No.02/2024. • The learned trial Court framed charges against the accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 302/34, 201 and 120-B/34 of the IPC. The accused persons abjured guilt and pleaded false implication. • In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses. PW-01 Prakash Kumar Verma, PW-02 Bhagwantin Bai, PW-03 Laxman Yadav, PW- 04 Sanjay Kumar Kathale, PW-05 Mohan Yadav, PW-06 Yogesh Yadav, PW-07 Domraj Yadav, PW-08 Sonu Yadav, PW-09 Dr. Parmeshwar Kashyap, PW-10 Jitendra Kumbhakar, PW-11 Arun Sahu and PW-12 Vinod Ogre were examined. The prosecution also exhibited documents Ex.P/01 to Ex.P/33 in support of its case. • After closure of prosecution evidence, statements of accused Raja Sahu, Dilu Sahu and Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati were recorded under Section 351 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, wherein they denied all 8 incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence and false implication. Though opportunity was afforded, the accused persons neither examined any defence witness nor exhibited any document in support of their defence. 5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 23.01.2025 convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 302/34, 201 and 120B of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the third paragraph of this judgment, against which, these criminal appeals have been preferred by the appellants herein. 6. Mr. Nikhil Wadhwani, learned counsel appearing for the appellants in CRA No.264/2025, would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is contrary to law and facts available on record and the same suffers from perversity and illegality. He would further submit that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution. He would contend that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt and the conviction has been recorded merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He would submit that there is no reliable eyewitness account to the alleged incident and the entire prosecution case rests upon weak and contradictory evidence. It 9 has further been argued that PW-03 Laxman Yadav has not supported the prosecution story in material particulars and has categorically admitted that he had not witnessed the actual incident. His statement recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. also contains major contradictions and omissions, which materially affect the credibility of the prosecution case. 7. Mr. Wadhwani would next submit that the prosecution witnesses have themselves admitted that no person had actually seen the occurrence and only the dead body of deceased Pokhan Yadav was found lying near the liquor shop situated at Awaspara. Even the complainant side witnesses have admitted this fact during the course of trial. He would further submit that PW-10, the Investigating Officer, has also admitted in his evidence that the body of the deceased was found lying near the liquor shop and except the injuries found on the person of the deceased, there is no direct evidence connecting the appellants with the alleged offence. According to learned counsel, the injuries found on the body of the deceased have not been properly correlated with the alleged weapon seized during investigation. 8. Mr. Wadhwani would also argue that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of PW-04 Sanjay Kumar Kathale and PW-05 Mohan Yadav and their testimonies are not trustworthy and reliable. It has been contended that the statements of the so-called eyewitnesses are mutually inconsistent and suffer from serious discrepancies, yet the 10 learned trial Court has erroneously relied upon them while recording conviction. It has also been argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any complete chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the appellants. No independent witness has supported the prosecution case and no incriminating article or weapon has been validly recovered from the possession of the appellants. According to learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to prove motive as well as intention on the part of the appellants to commit the alleged offence. He would lastly submit that the FIR itself has been lodged on the basis of suspicion and not on the basis of direct knowledge of the incident and, therefore, the appellants are entitled to benefit of doubt. He would lastly submit that the learned trial Court has failed to appreciate the evidence in its proper perspective and, as such, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside and the appellants deserve to be acquitted of all the charges levelled against them. 9. Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant in CRA No.275/2025, would submit that the appellant Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati Sahu has been falsely implicated in the present case and the learned trial Court has committed grave illegality in convicting him for the offences in question. He would further submit that there is no specific allegation of assault against the present appellant and no overt act has been attributed to him by any of the prosecution witnesses. He would contend that the essential ingredients to attract Section 34 IPC or the allegation of 11 sharing common intention with the co-accused persons are completely absent in the present case. It has been argued that except the bald allegation that the appellant was present near the place of occurrence, there is no cogent or reliable evidence to establish his active participation in the commission of the alleged offence. He would further submit that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish the charge of criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC against the present appellant. According to learned counsel, there is no evidence on record to show any prior meeting of minds, pre-planned conspiracy or any agreement between the present appellant and the co-accused persons for commission of the alleged murder of deceased Pokhan Sahu. It has also been argued that the appellant had no enmity or motive against the deceased and no direct or indirect role has been attributed to him in the alleged incident. 10. Mr. Tripathi would further argue that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are erroneous, contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence and based merely upon assumptions and conjectures. It has been contended that the prosecution has failed to prove any incriminating circumstance against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, his conviction cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. It has also been submitted that material witness namely Manrakhan Yadav has not been examined before the trial Court and non- examination of such an important witness creates serious doubt 12 over the prosecution story. Learned counsel would submit that the independent witnesses have also not supported the prosecution case and, therefore, the entire prosecution story becomes doubtful. He would lastly submit that it is a settled principle of law that however strong the suspicion may be, the same cannot take the place of legal proof and as such, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal. 11. In support of his submissions, learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Parveen @ Sonu v. State of Haryana, 2021 SCC OnLine SC 1184 to contend that in absence of cogent evidence establishing prior meeting of minds or active participation, conviction with the aid of Section 34 IPC or Section 120-B IPC cannot be sustained merely on the basis of suspicion or presence at the place of occurrence. 12. On the other hand, Mr. 12. On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State, vehemently opposes the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the respective appellants and would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is strictly in accordance with law and is based upon proper appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record. He would submit that the learned trial Court, after conducting a full-fledged trial and after affording adequate opportunity to all the accused persons, has meticulously 13 examined the evidence adduced by the prosecution and has rightly arrived at the conclusion that the present appellants are guilty of the offences charged against them. He would further submit that the prosecution has been able to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which clearly points towards the guilt of the appellants and excludes every possible hypothesis of innocence. He would contend that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the evidence relating to last seen circumstance, motive, recovery of blood-stained articles, memorandum statements of the accused persons and the scientific evidence available on record, duly corroborate each other and conclusively establish the involvement of the appellants in the commission of the offence. It has been further argued that immediately prior to the incident, the accused persons had threatened the deceased on account of the allegation that the deceased Pokhan Yadav was allegedly teasing the sister of the accused persons and such fact has been specifically stated by the prosecution witnesses. According to learned State counsel, the existence of motive has thus been clearly established by the prosecution and the same lends further support to the prosecution case. 13. Mr. Thakur would also submit that pursuant to the memorandum statements of the appellants recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act vide Exs.P/06, P/09 and P/11, several incriminating articles including blood-stained clothes, sharp edged weapon and 14 motorcycle used in commission of offence were recovered and seized under the respective seizure memos. It has been contended that the said recoveries have been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses and further stand corroborated by the FSL report (Ex.P/33), which clearly supports the prosecution version. He would further submit that the medical evidence adduced through PW-09 Dr. Parmeshwar Kashyap fully corroborates the prosecution case and clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The injuries found on the person of the deceased, particularly the grievous incised injury on the neck, clearly indicate that the deceased was brutally assaulted by sharp-edged weapon with an intention to cause death. He would further argue that merely because certain witnesses have not supported the prosecution in its entirety or there are minor contradictions and omissions in their statements, the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded, especially when the material particulars of the prosecution story stand duly proved. According to him, the contradictions pointed out by the appellants are trivial in nature and do not go to the root of the matter. 14. So far as the submission regarding absence of direct eyewitness is concerned, Mr. Thakur would submit that conviction can very well be based upon circumstantial evidence, provided the chain of circumstances is complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused persons. He would submit that 15 in the present case all the incriminating circumstances have been fully established by the prosecution and the learned trial Court has rightly relied upon the same while recording conviction. With regard to the appellant Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati Sahu, learned State counsel would submit that his active participation in the offence is clearly borne out from the evidence available on record and the prosecution has duly established the common intention and criminal conspiracy amongst all the accused persons. According to him, the conduct of the appellant before and after the incident, coupled with the evidence regarding his presence at the place of occurrence and use of motorcycle in facilitating the commission of offence, clearly attracts the provisions of Sections 34 and 120-B IPC. He would lastly submit that the learned trial Court has assigned cogent and convincing reasons while convicting the appellants and the findings recorded are purely findings of fact based upon proper appreciation of evidence, which do not warrant interference by this Court in appellate jurisdiction. He, therefore, prays for dismissal of both the criminal appeals being devoid of merits. 15. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 16. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased to be homicidal in nature ? 16 17. In order to ascertain the nature of death of deceased Pokhan Yadav, the learned trial Court has meticulously considered the testimony of PW-09 Dr. Parmeshwar Kashyap, who conducted the postmortem examination on the body of the deceased and proved the postmortem report Ex.P/15. Upon detailed medical examination, the doctor found multiple grievous incised injuries on the body of the deceased, particularly over the neck and head region. The injuries noticed on the body of the deceased are reproduced herein-below:– (i) Incised wound over the anterior part of neck measuring approximately 10 cm × 4 cm × bone deep, cutting major blood vessels and soft tissues; (ii) Incised injury over the left side of forehead measuring approximately 4 cm × 1 cm; (iii) Incised injury behind the left ear measuring approximately 3 cm × 1 cm; (iv) Multiple abrasions and contusions over different parts of the body; (v) Profuse bleeding injuries over vital parts of the body. 18. The doctor PW-09 has categorically opined that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and the cause of death was excessive hemorrhage and shock resulting from the grievous incised injury caused to the neck, leading to cardio-respiratory failure. He has further stated that the injuries sustained by the 17 deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death and the same could have been caused by a sharp-edged weapon like knife seized during investigation. 19. The learned trial Court has further taken into consideration the testimony of PW-07 Domraj Yadav, who is one of the material eyewitnesses to the incident. PW-07 has specifically deposed before the Court that on the date of incident, when deceased Pokhan Yadav did not return home, he along with PW-03 Laxman Yadav went in search of him towards the side of liquor shop situated near Awaspara. He has further stated that upon reaching the kaccha road behind the liquor shop, he saw accused Raja @ Raju Sahu and Dilu Sahu assaulting deceased Pokhan Yadav by means of sharp-edged weapon and causing repeated blows on his neck and head region, whereas co-accused Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati Sahu was standing nearby and keeping watch over the road in order to prevent intervention by any person. PW-07 has further stated that after noticing him and other witnesses, all the accused persons fled away from the place of occurrence on a motorcycle. 20. The testimony of PW-07 Domraj Yadav finds substantial corroboration from the evidence of PW-03 Laxman Yadav as well as from the medical evidence adduced by PW-09 Dr. Parmeshwar Kashyap. The nature, seat and dimensions of injuries found on the body of the deceased are fully consistent with the ocular version narrated by the eyewitnesses regarding 18 assault by sharp-edged weapon. The prosecution version further stands corroborated from the spot map, seizure proceedings and recovery of bloodstained articles pursuant to memorandum statements of the accused persons recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 21. Upon meticulous appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish beyond all reasonable doubt that deceased Pokhan Yadav died a homicidal death. The evidence of PW-09 Dr. Parmeshwar Kashyap is clear, cogent and trustworthy and nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. Similarly, the evidence of PW-07 Domraj Yadav inspires confidence and remains duly corroborated by medical and scientific evidence available on record. 22. Accordingly, the question formulated by this Court is answered in affirmative and it is hereby held that the learned trial Court was fully justified in concluding that the death of deceased Pokhan Yadav was homicidal in nature. 23. The next question which falls for consideration before this Court is, whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellants are the authors of the crime and whether the learned trial Court has rightly recorded the finding of guilt against them. 19 24. As regards the complicity of the present appellants namely Raja @ Raju Sahu, Dilu Sahu and Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati Sahu in the commission of the offence in question, this Court finds that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt on the basis of cogent oral evidence, documentary evidence, medical evidence, memorandum and seizure proceedings, as well as the scientific evidence available on record. The prosecution story is not founded merely upon suspicion or conjectures, but upon a complete chain of incriminating circumstances duly established through reliable witnesses and exhibited documents proved during trial. The evidence adduced by the prosecution, when appreciated in its entirety, unmistakably points towards the guilt of the present appellants and is wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. 25. The prosecution, in support of its case, has examined as many as twelve witnesses and proved several documentary exhibits including the FIR (Ex.P/21), merg intimation (Ex.P/20), memorandum statements of the appellants (Ex.P/06, Ex.P/09 and Ex.P/11), seizure memos (Ex.P/07, Ex.P/10, Ex.P/12 and Ex.P/13), postmortem report (Ex.P/15) and FSL report (Ex.P/33). Upon careful examination of the entire evidence available on record, it is evident that the prosecution has established not only the homicidal death of deceased Pokhan Sahu but also the active 20 participation of all the present appellants in the commission of the crime. 26. PW-01 Prakash Kumar Verma, is one of the important witnesses to the prosecution case. This witness has duly supported the prosecution story regarding the investigation proceedings and preparation of various documents. His testimony establishes the circumstances immediately following the incident and lends assurance to the prosecution version regarding the occurrence in question. Nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross- examination to discredit his testimony. 27. PW-02 Bhagwantin Bai, has also supported the prosecution case and has deposed regarding the incident and the conduct of the appellants. Her testimony clearly reveals the surrounding circumstances in which the deceased sustained injuries and further establishes the presence of the appellants near the place of occurrence. Her evidence appears natural and trustworthy and no material contradiction could be brought on record during her cross-examination. 28. PW-03 Laxman Yadav, is a material witness to the prosecution case. Though the defence has attempted to highlight certain contradictions in his police statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., however, upon careful scrutiny of his deposition before the Court, it is evident that his testimony substantially supports the prosecution version regarding the involvement of the 21 appellants. This witness has clearly deposed regarding the incident and the circumstances in which the deceased was found lying injured near the liquor shop at Awaspara. Merely because certain omissions or contradictions have surfaced in his testimony, the same cannot be made a ground to discard the entire prosecution case, particularly when the core substratum of his evidence remains intact. 29. PW-04 Sanjay Kumar Kathale, has also supported the prosecution story. This witness has deposed regarding the incident and the presence of the appellants at or around the place of occurrence. The defence has attempted to point out contradictions and omissions in his statement; however, the same are minor in nature and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. His testimony inspires confidence insofar as the participation of the appellants is concerned. 30. PW-05 Mohan Yadav, has corroborated the prosecution case and has supported the version of other prosecution witnesses regarding the circumstances under which the deceased sustained injuries. His testimony further establishes the conduct and involvement of the appellants immediately before and after the occurrence. The evidence of this witness could not be shattered in cross-examination. 31. PW-06 Yogesh Yadav, is another important witness who has supported the prosecution version in material particulars. His 22 testimony clearly establishes the chain of events leading to the occurrence and the role played by the appellants. The evidence of this witness further corroborates the ocular version furnished by other prosecution witnesses. 32. PW-07 Domraj Yadav, is one of the star eyewitnesses of the prosecution case and his testimony assumes great significance in establishing the complicity of the present appellants in the commission of the offence in question. This witness has given a vivid, natural and cogent account of the entire incident and has categorically deposed regarding the active participation of all the three appellants namely Raja @ Raju Sahu, Dilu Sahu and Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati Sahu in the assault made upon deceased Pokhan Sahu. PW-07 Domraj Yadav, in his examination-in-chief, has specifically stated that on the date of incident, upon receiving information regarding quarrel near the liquor shop situated at Awaspara, he proceeded towards the spot and saw deceased Pokhan Sahu lying in an injured condition. This witness has categorically deposed that the present appellants were present at the spot and were assaulting the deceased. He has specifically attributed overt acts to the appellants and has clearly stated that Raja @ Raju Sahu and Dilu Sahu were armed with sharp-edged weapon/knife and were inflicting repeated blows upon the deceased, whereas appellant Durgesh Kumar @ Bulati Sahu was accompanying them and actively facilitating the commission of offence. 23 33. The witness has further deposed that due to the assault made by the appellants, deceased Pokhan Sahu sustained grievous injuries over vital parts of his body and fell on the ground in a pool of blood. He has further stated that after causing injuries to the deceased, the appellants fled away from the place of occurrence. The evidence of this witness clearly establishes the presence of all the three appellants together at the spot and further demonstrates that they were acting in furtherance of their common intention/common object. The testimony of PW-07 Domraj Yadav inspires confidence for the reason that his presence at the place of occurrence is wholly natural and probable. Nothing has been brought on record by the defence to establish that this witness was in any manner interested or inimically disposed towards the appellants so as to falsely implicate them in such a serious offence. His evidence remains consistent on all material particulars namely, the place of occurrence, participation of the appellants, manner of assault and the condition of the deceased immediately after the incident. 34. PW-08 Sonu Yadav, is another relevant witness examined by the prosecution. His police statement has been proved as Ex.P/14. The testimony of this witness further corroborates the prosecution story regarding the occurrence and the involvement of the appellants. The defence has failed to bring on record any material circumstance rendering his testimony unreliable. 24 35. PW-09 Dr. Parmeshwar Kashyap is the doctor who conducted the medical examination/postmortem examination of the deceased and proved the postmortem report Ex.P/15. The evidence of this witness clearly establishes that the death of deceased Pokhan Sahu was homicidal in nature. The doctor has categorically opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. The injuries noticed on the body of the deceased were consistent with assault by hard and sharp objects and fully support the prosecution version regarding the manner in which the offence was committed. The medical evidence thus lends strong corroboration to the ocular testimony of the prosecution witnesses. 36. PW-10 Jitendra Kumbhakar, has supported the investigation proceedings and proved various seizure and procedural documents prepared during investigation. His testimony further establishes that the investigation was conducted in accordance with law and the incriminating articles seized during investigation were duly preserved and forwarded for forensic examination. 37. PW-11 Arun Sahu has also supported the prosecution case regarding memorandum and seizure proceedings. The memorandum statement of appellant Raja @ Raju Sahu has been proved as Ex.P/06, pursuant to which incriminating articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/07. Similarly, the memorandum statement of appellant Dilu Sahu has been proved as Ex.P/09 and consequent seizure memo as Ex.P/10. The 25 memorandum statement of appellant Durgesh @ Bulati Sahu has been proved as Ex.P/11 and the consequential seizure proceedings have been proved vide Ex.P/12 and Ex.P/13. The evidence of PW-11 clearly establishes that the appellants themselves furnished information leading to discovery of incriminating articles connected with the offence. 38. PW-12 Vinod Ogre, the Investigating Officer, has fully supported the prosecution case and has proved the entire investigation conducted by him. He has duly proved the spot map Ex.P/02, merg intimation Ex.P/20, FIR Ex.P/21, crime details form Ex.P/24, arrest and surrender memos Ex.P/27 to Ex.P/29, information of arrest Ex.P/30 and receipt of exhibits Ex.P/31. The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that after completion of investigation and collection of sufficient incriminating material against the appellants, charge-sheet was filed before the competent Court. His testimony inspires confidence and nothing substantial has been elicited in cross-examination so as to discredit the fairness of investigation. 39. The prosecution has further proved the memorandum proceedings under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act through Ex.P/06, Ex.P/09 and Ex.P/11. Pursuant to the said memorandum statements, various incriminating articles including bloodstained clothes, shoes and weapon were seized from the possession and at the instance of the appellants vide Ex.P/07, Ex.P/10, Ex.P/12 and Ex.P/13. The said seized articles were 26 forwarded for forensic examination through query memos Ex.P/16, Ex.P/17, Ex.P/18 and Ex.P/19. 40. Significantly, the Forensic Science Laboratory report Ex.P/33 clearly indicates presence of blood stains on the seized articles. The forensic evidence thus provides an additional incriminating circumstance connecting the appellants with the commission of the offence. The recovery of incriminating articles at the instance of the appellants coupled with positive forensic findings lends strong corroboration to the prosecution case. 41. It is trite law that conviction can safely be based even on the testimony of a solitary eyewitness provided the same is found to be wholly reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, however, the prosecution has not only examined reliable eyewitnesses, but their testimonies also stand fortified by medical evidence, forensic reports, seizure proceedings and other attending circumstances. 42. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Balu Sudam Khalde and another v. The State of Maharashtra, (2023) 13 SCC 365, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while considering the issue with regard to the eye-witness account has observed as follows :- “26. When the evidence of an injured eye- witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness 27 at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. 27. In assessing the value of the evidence of the eyewitnesses, two principal considerations are whether, in the 28 circumstances of the case, it is possible to believe their presence at the scene of occurrence or in such situations as would make it possible for them to witness the facts deposed to by them and secondly, whether there is anything inherently improbable or unreliable in their evidence. In respect of both these considerations, circumstances either elicited from those witnesses themselves or established by other evidence tending to improbabilise their presence or to discredit the veracity of their statements, will have a bearing upon the value which a Court would attach to their evidence. Although in cases where the plea of the accused is a mere denial, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses has to be examined on its own merits, where the accused raise a definite plea or put forward a positive case which is inconsistent with that of the prosecution, the nature of such plea or case and the probabilities in respect of it will also have to be taken into account while assessing the value of the prosecution evidence.” 43. Very recently, in the matter of Baljinder Singh and others v. State of Punjab, 2024 INSC 738, the Hon’ble Supreme Court while dealing with the issue of eye-witness account, has observed as under :- “12. ……...The sworn testimonies provided by injured witnesses generally carry significant evidentiary weight. Such 29 testimonies cannot be dismissed as unreliable unless there are pellucid and substantial discrepancies or contradictions that undermine their credibility. If there is any exaggeration in the deposition that is immaterial to the case, such exaggeration should be disregarded; however, it does not warrant the rejection of the entire evidence. Therefore, the suspicion raised by the Appellants regarding the genesis of the case is rendered unfounded. 13. The abovementioned conclusion stands fortified with reference to paragraph 26 of the decision of this Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and Anr. v. State of Maharashtra MANU/SC/0328/2023: 2023:INSC: 314. The relevant passage is reproduced as under: “26. When the evidence of an injured eye- witness is to be appreciated, the under- noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind: (a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition. (b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the Accused. (c) The evidence of injured witness has 30 greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly. (d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions. (e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence. (f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded. (emphasis supplied)” 44. Upon an anxious and comprehensive appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the present appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The prosecution case rests upon the cogent, trustworthy and reliable ocular testimony of PW-07 Domraj Yadav, who is a natural eyewitness to the occurrence and whose presence at the place of incident is wholly natural, probable and beyond suspicion. PW-07 has given a vivid, spontaneous and 31 consistent account of the entire occurrence and has categorically deposed regarding the specific role played by each of the appellants namely Raja @ Raju Sahu, Dilu Sahu and Durgesh @ Bulati Sahu in the commission of the offence. 45. PW-07 Domraj Yadav, in his deposition, has clearly stated that all the appellants had arrived together and had actively participated in assaulting deceased Pokhan Sahu by means of deadly weapons. He has specifically deposed that appellants Raja @ Raju Sahu and Dilu Sahu were armed with sharp-edged weapons/knife and inflicted repeated blows upon the deceased, whereas appellant Durgesh @ Bulati Sahu actively accompanied and facilitated the assault. The witness has further stated that due to the brutal assault made by the appellants, the deceased sustained grievous injuries and collapsed on the spot in a pool of blood. The testimony of this witness remains unshaken on all material particulars despite lengthy and searching cross- examination conducted on behalf of the defence. 46. The evidence of PW-07 Domraj Yadav finds substantial corroboration from the testimony of other prosecution witnesses namely PW-01 Prakash Kumar Verma, PW-02 Bhagwantin Bai, PW-03 Laxman Yadav, PW-04 Sanjay Kumar Kathale, PW-05 Mohan Yadav, PW-06 Yogesh Yadav and PW-08 Sonu Yadav, all of whom have supported the prosecution case regarding the incident, presence of the appellants, and the circumstances immediately preceding and succeeding the occurrence. Their 32 testimonies clearly establish that immediately prior to the incident, the appellants had gone in search of the deceased and had openly threatened to kill him. The prosecution witnesses have consistently deposed that within a short span thereafter, the deceased was found lying in an injured condition after being brutally assaulted by the appellants. 47. The ocular version adduced by the prosecution witnesses receives complete corroboration from the medical evidence of PW-09 Dr. Parmeshwar Kashyap, who conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Pokhan Sahu and proved the postmortem report Ex.P/15. PW-09 has categorically opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased were homicidal in nature and were caused by hard and sharp-edged weapons. The doctor has further opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. The nature, seat, dimensions and multiplicity of injuries fully support the prosecution version regarding the brutal manner in which the appellants assaulted the deceased. The medical evidence, therefore, lends complete assurance to the ocular testimony of PW-07 Domraj Yadav and other prosecution witnesses. 48. This Court further finds that the prosecution has duly proved the memorandum statements of the appellants recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act vide Ex.P/06, Ex.P/09 and Ex.P/11 respectively. Pursuant to the said memorandum 33 statements, incriminating articles and weapons used in the commission of offence were recovered and seized vide seizure memos Ex.P/07, Ex.P/08, Ex.P/10, Ex.P/12 and Ex.P/13. The seizure proceedings have been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses and nothing substantial could be elicited in their cross- examination so as to render the said recoveries doubtful or unreliable. 49. The prosecution has further established that the seized articles including bloodstained clothes, knife and other incriminating materials were sent for forensic examination through query memos Ex.P/16, Ex.P/17, Ex.P/18, Ex.P/19 and Ex.P/26. The FSL report Ex.P/33 clearly indicates presence of human blood upon the seized articles and weapons recovered at the instance of the appellants. Though the exact blood group could not be conclusively determined due to insufficiency/disintegration of bloodstains, the forensic evidence nevertheless constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance connecting the appellants with the crime in question. 50. The defence has attempted to assail the prosecution case on the ground that fingerprints were not obtained from the seized weapons and that independent witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution version. However, this Court finds that such omissions are not fatal to the prosecution case in view of the overwhelming ocular, medical and circumstantial evidence available on record. The evidence of PW-07 Domraj Yadav 34 inspires full confidence and stands amply corroborated by medical evidence, memorandum and seizure proceedings as well as the FSL report. Minor omissions or discrepancies pointed out by the defence are natural in human testimony and do not go to the root of the matter so as to discredit the otherwise trustworthy prosecution case. 51. The conduct of the appellants immediately prior to the incident, namely going to the house of the deceased in search of him and extending threats to kill him, as deposed by the prosecution witnesses, further establishes the motive and preparation on the part of the appellants. The chain of circumstances brought on record by the prosecution is complete and unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellants and is wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. 52. This Court also finds that the defence has failed to probabilize any alternative version of the incident. Mere suggestions of false implication, previous enmity or concoction have been baldly put to the prosecution witnesses, which have been specifically denied by them. No substantive material has been brought on record by the defence to create any reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution story. On the contrary, the prosecution evidence appears wholly natural, cogent and trustworthy. 53. This Court is of the considered opinion that the judgment relied upon by the appellant in CRA No.275/2025, namely Parveen @ 35 Sonu (supra), is clearly distinguishable on facts and is of no assistance to the case of the appellant. In the present case, there is cogent and reliable ocular evidence duly corroborated by medical and other incriminating material available on record against the appellants and, therefore, the principles laid down in the aforesaid judgment do not advance the case of the appellants in any manner. 54. From the aforesaid discussion, it is manifest that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that all the three appellants, in furtherance of their common intention/common object, committed the homicidal assault upon deceased Pokhan Sahu resulting in his death. The learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has rightly recorded the finding of conviction against the appellants. This Court finds no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court warranting interference in the present appeal. 55. Accordingly, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. The appeals preferred by the accused-appellants being CRA No.264/2025 and CRA No.275/2025 are dismissed, being devoid of merit and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.01.2025 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli in Sessions Trial No.02/2024, is hereby affirmed. 36 56. It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are in jail. They shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 57. 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. 58. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Anu