1 2026:CGHC:21964-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2049 of 2024 1 - Chaudhari Ram S/o Lt. Kabru Ram Aged About 65 Years R/o Gram Sundarpur, Junglepara, Chowki Manipur, Police Station Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. 2 - Shiv Bhajan S/o Chaudhari Ram Aged About 30 Years R/o Gram Sundarpur, Junglepara, Chowki Manipur, Police Station Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Chowki-Manipur, Police Station- Ambikapur, District- Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (cause title taken from CIS) For Appellants : Mr. Awadh Tripathi, Advocate For State : Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/05/2026 1. Heard Mr. Awadh Tripathi, learned counsel for the appellants and Mr. S. S. Baghel, learned Govt. Advocate for the State/ Respondent. SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Digitally signed by SAGRIKA AGRAWAL Date: 2026.05.19 17:52:47 +0530 2 2. The present criminal appeal has been filed under Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 by the appellants against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 08.10.2024 passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 09/2022, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with a fine of Rs.1,000/- each, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of two months each. 3. The brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2021, information was received at Chowki Manipur within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) that an unknown male person was lying dead near the road at village Sundarpur, Junglepara, in front of the house of the appellants. On the basis of the said information, merg intimation under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded and necessary proceedings were initiated. During the course of inquiry, the deceased was identified as Sonu Lal Yadav. The spot map and inquest proceedings were prepared in presence of witnesses and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. The Medical Officer opined that the death was homicidal in nature and caused due to hemorrhage and shock resulting from multiple injuries sustained on the head and neck. During investigation, witness Ramesh Nehra allegedly disclosed that the appellants had assaulted the deceased with a tangi and stick. On the basis of the memorandum statements of the appellants, one tangi and one bamboo stick were seized and thereafter First Information Report (Ex-P/25) bearing Crime 3 No.1269/2021 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the appellants. 4. During the course of investigation, the appellants were taken into custody on 27.11.2021 and were interrogated, wherein they allegedly made memorandum statements (Ex-P/11 and P/12) leading to discovery. Pursuant to the said memorandum statements, one tangi was seized from appellant Shiv Bhajan and one bamboo stick was seized from appellant Chaudhari Ram vide seizure memo (Ex-P/13 and P/14). The seized articles, along with the blood-stained soil, plain soil, clothes of the deceased and other seized materials, were sent for forensic examination to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Ambikapur, and the FSL report (Ex-P/22) was obtained. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded during investigation. After completion of investigation, charge- sheet was filed before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, which was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. 5. The case was committed to the Court of learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) for trial. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellants for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellants denied the charges, pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. 6. In order to bring home the charge against the appellants, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and adduced documentary 4 evidence in support of its case. The statements of the appellants under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure were recorded, wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them, pleaded innocence and stated that they have been falsely implicated in the present case due to enmity. 7. After appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court found the appellants guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and convicted and sentenced them as stated hereinabove. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred by the appellants. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the appellants would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the entire prosecution case is doubtful and the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants merely on the basis of weak and unreliable evidence. He would further submit that though the prosecution has projected PW-03 Ramesh Nehra as an eye-witness, his testimony is wholly unreliable, unnatural and suffers from material contradictions and omissions, and therefore cannot be safely relied upon for sustaining conviction. It is further argued that the alleged memorandum statements and consequent seizure of tangi and bamboo stick are doubtful and do not inspire confidence. Learned counsel would also submit that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellants with the alleged offence and no motive for commission of the offence has been proved. It is argued that mere recovery of articles allegedly stained with blood, without proper serological linkage with the deceased, is insufficient to establish guilt. It is further submitted that the findings 5 recorded by the learned trial Court are based on surmises and conjectures and are contrary to the settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. Hence, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the charges. 9. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposed the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellants and submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the prosecution evidence, including the testimony of PW-03 Ramesh Nehra, clearly establishes that the appellants had assaulted the deceased Sonu Lal Yadav with a tangi and bamboo stick, resulting in his death. It is further submitted that the medical evidence of PW-12 Dr. Naved Khan unequivocally establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, caused due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of multiple injuries on vital parts of the body. Learned counsel for the State would further submit that the memorandum statements of the appellants led to discovery of weapon of offence, i.e., tangi and bamboo stick, and the FSL report also confirmed the presence of human blood on the seized articles, thereby strengthening the prosecution case. It is also submitted that the conduct of the appellants and the recovery of incriminating articles from their possession constitute strong circumstances forming a complete chain pointing towards their guilt. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned State counsel would further submit that the memorandum statements of the appellants and the consequent seizure of the tangi and bamboo stick have been duly proved through reliable evidence of 6 the investigating officer as well as supporting witnesses, and the same lend strong corroboration to the prosecution case. It is submitted that the FSL report further strengthens the prosecution version as human blood was found on the seized weapons and other material objects recovered from the place of occurrence. It is further submitted that minor discrepancies or trivial inconsistencies in the statements of witnesses do not go to the root of the matter so as to discredit the prosecution case as a whole. It is also argued that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the entire evidence on record and has rightly recorded the conviction of the appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC. Hence, it is submitted that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence does not suffer from any illegality or perversity and does not call for any interference by this Court, and accordingly the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein above and also gone through the records of the trial court with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question for consideration would be, whether the death of the deceased Sonu Lal Yadav was homicidal in nature or not? 13. The learned trial Court, after appreciating the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, and particularly relying upon the testimony of PW-12 Dr. Naved Khan, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased Sonu Lal Yadav and proved the postmortem report (Ex-P/10), came to the conclusion that the cause of death was hemorrhage and shock due to multiple ante- mortem injuries on the head and vital parts of the body, and that the 7 death was homicidal in nature. He found the following injuries over the body of the deceased:- • A chop wound present in left frontal region above the forehead. • A chop wound present superiorly to left ear lying obliquely in left temporal region. • A chop wound present just above injury no. 2 lying obliquely in the left temporal and sphenoid area. • A chop wound present in the occipital region just below the occipital protuberance, lying in transverse plane. • A chop wound present just below injury No. 4 and parallel to it. • A chop wound present just below injury no. 5 in the neck and parallel to it. • Contusion present below injury no. 6 in the neck lying in transverse plane. • A chop wound present horizontally just below and lateral to left knee. • Abrasion runs along the ulna aspect of the left forearm multiple contusions present all over the body, particularly in right upper limb and right lower limb. The doctor has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased are sufficient enough to cause death in an ordinary course of nature and death was Due to hemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury. 14. Further, from the evidence of the witnesses to the inquest and spot proceedings, it is evident that the deceased was found lying dead near the road in front of the house of the appellants with bleeding injuries on his head and neck, and blood-stained articles were also recovered from the spot. As such, this Court is also of the considered opinion that 8 the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to the record, and the same is hereby affirmed. 15. The next question for consideration is whether the accused/appellants herein are the perpetrators of the crime in question. 16. PW-03 Ramesh Nehra, who is projected by the prosecution as the sole eye-witness to the incident, stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, he was accompanying the deceased Sonu Lal Yadav after consuming liquor, and they had gone towards Sundarpur Junglepara. He further stated that while the deceased was standing near a house and knocking at the door, two persons came out from the house, out of whom one was Shiv Bhajan having a tangi in his hand and the other was Chaudhari Ram carrying a bamboo stick. He stated that the said two persons started assaulting the deceased, and during the said assault, Shiv Bhajan gave a tangi blow on the head of the deceased, while the other accused also assaulted him with a stick. He further stated that due to fear he ran away from the spot and later came to know about the death of the deceased through news. In his cross- examination, he admitted that due to the darkness, the place of incident is not visible. He further admitted that when they came down from the motor cycle, where Sonu Yadav had gone he did not know. After seeing the marpeet he ran away from the place and could not see what transpires there. 17. PW-01 Pran Das stated in his evidence that he is the Kotwar of the village and on the date of the incident at about 7 AM, Shiv Bhajan 9 informed him that in front of his house a dead body was lying there. He went to the spot and saw the dead body and thereafter informed the Police Chowki, Manipur regarding the incident, on the basis of which merg intimation was recorded and further proceedings were initiated. Nothing material has come on record in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony. 18. PW/4 Taleshwar Yadav, who is the brother of the deceased, has stated in his evidence that on 26.11.2021, his maternal uncle informed him that his brother is being murdered. When he went to the spot, he saw the dead body of his brother Sonu Yadav and his motor cycle was also lying there. Injuries were found on the body of the deceased. Police was also reached there. On the next day, Ramesh Nehra informed him that both the accused persons assaulted the deceased by tangi and lathi. In his cross-examination, he stated that Ramesh had informed him while drinking liquor accused Chaudhari Ram came there, asked him not to talk through in mobile phone and therefore, the incident occurred. In further cross-examination, he stated that Ramesh Nehra had not informed him as to who were armed with lathi and who were armed with tangi. 19. PW/5, Smt. Meena Yadav is the wife of the deceased and she is the hearsay witness that she was being informed by her in-laws that Ramesh Nehra informed them that the accused persons Chaudhari Ram and Shiv Bhajan assaulted her husband by tangi and danda. 20. PW/7 Sanjay Yadav is the maternal uncle of the deceased Sonu Yadav. He stated in his evidence that when he received information about the incident, he too had gone to the place of the incident and saw the dead 10 body of the deceased Sonu Yadav in injured condition. His friend Ramesh Nehra informed him that they had gone to drink liquor to the house of Chaudhari Ram, where dispute arose between them and Chaudhari Ram and Shiv Bhajan assaulted Sonu Yadav by tangi and danda. In cross-examination, he stated that whatever he heard from the place of incident, he disclosed about the same. In cross- examination, he admitted that he has not seen any abrasion on the body of the deceased. 21. PW/8 Ram Naresh Yadav, is the witness of inquest, who stated about the injuries found on the body of the deceased and lying his dead body in the village. He also witness of memorandum statement of the accused persons (Ex-P/11 and P/12) and seizure of the weapon of offence which is (Ex-P/13 and P/14). In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased Sonu Yadav is his distant relative. When he reached on the spot, the Police persons and other villagers already present there. He too have heard about the incident on the place of incident and stated on the said basis. He is not an eye witness to the incident. He proved the seizure of tangi from the accused Shiv Bhajan that in Police custody, he was being taken to his house from where, he gave the tangi to the Police which has been seized in his presence. With respect to the seizure of danda, his evidence is not firm as he could not tell his length and dimeter. Except the seizure of tangi from the accused Shiv Bhajan, nothing substantive is found in his evidence to connect the appellants in the offence in question. 22. PW/15 Kunj Bihari Yadav, is the father of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that he was being informed about the incident by his brother in law Sanjay Yadav. When he inquired about the incident, he 11 came to know that Ramesh Nehra had informed that Sonu Yadav was being murdered by Chaudhari Ram and Shiv Bhajan by tangi and danda. He further stated that Ramesh Nehra was the witness to the incident and after seeing the assault, he ran away from the place and he informed that both the appellants assaulted the deceased. 23. PW/16 Dilip Yadav is also the witness to the inquest (Ex-P/4) and he stated in his evidence that the accused persons admitted the assault made by them to the deceased in his presence. He is also the witness of memorandum (Ex-P/11 and P/12) and seizure memo (Ex-P/13 and P/14). In his cross-examination, he stated that after 27.11.2021, the Police has not inquired anything of him. He is not the eye witness to the incident. Before the incident, he had never gone to village Sunderpur. 24. From all these evidences and looking to the injuries found on the body of the deceased which is caused by hard and sharp object which has been seized from the accused Shiv Bhajan. From the evidence of eye witness Ramesh Nehra (PW/3), the assault made by accused Shiv Bhajan by tangi to the deceased could not be diluted by the defence in his cross-examination and he remain firm in saying that the deceased was being assaulted by tangi by Shiv Bhajan and as and when Shiv Bhajan gave tangi blow, he ran away from the place due to fear. The seizure of tangi from the accused Shiv Bhajan has been proved by the evidence of PW/8 Ram Naresh Yadav and PW/16 Dilip Yadav. The blood has also been found on the tangi (Article-E) and Lathi (Article- F) as per the FSL report (Ex-P/22). 12 25. Considering the evidence cumulatively, postmortem report of the deceased and the evidence of eye witness, the involvement of the appellant No. 2 Shiv Bhajan in the offence in question has duly been proved by the prosecution that on the date of incident he assaulted the deceased by tangi by which he died. However, the appellant No. 1 Chaudhari Ram was alleged to be assaulted by Lathi to the deceased, but his involvement in the offence in question to commit murder of the deceased by lathi blow is not sufficiently proved by the prosecution by leading cogent evidence against him. 26. Law is settled that the court has to separate chaff from the grain and the reliable portion of the testimony of the witness can be looked into by the court. The entire testimony of a witness cannot be brushed aside merely because he has not supported on a particular aspect. “Maxim Falsus in Uno Falsus in Omnibus” cannot be applied mechanically as it is not applicable in India. The doctrine is dangerous one especially in India because if a testimony is to be rejected as a whole of a witness who is evidently speaking an untruth in some respect, it is to be feared that administration of criminal justice would come to a dead stop. Statement of witness cannot be discarded on the ground of exaggerations, omissions and contradictions. The court is required to separate the grains of acceptable truth from the chaff of exaggeration and improbabilities which cannot be safely or prudently accepted and acted upon. In Balaka Singh Vs. State of Punjab 1975 (4) SCC 511 Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that the court must make an attempt to separate grain from the Chaff, the truth from the falsehood, yet this can only be possible when the truth is separable from the falsehood. The principle that the Court is required to separate 13 the grain from the chaff as further considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of Balaram Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 980 and in para 11, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “11. It is well settled, as laid down in a locus classicus case of Vedivelu Thevar v. State of Madras, there are three types of witnesses, which are (i) wholly reliable, (ii) wholly unreliable, and (iii) neither wholly reliable nor wholly unereliable. The law laid down in Vedivelu Thevar (supra) is consistently followed by this Court in a catena of judgments. It can thus be seen that, there are three types of witnesses. If the witness is wholly reliable, there is no difficulty inasmuch as relying on even the solitary testimony of such a witness conviction could be based. Again, there is no difficulty in the case of wholly unreliable witnesses inasmuch as his/her testimony is to be totally discarded. It is only in the case of the third category of witnesses which is partly reliable and partly unreliable that the Court faces the difficulty. The Court is required to separate the chaff from the grain to find out the true genesis of the incident.” 27. In the present case (PW/3) Ramesh Nehra who is the eye witness to the incident has stated that as and when Shiv Bhajan gave tangi blow to the deceased, he ran away from the place and later on he came to know about the death of the deceased. There is no other eye witness to the incident. The injuries of tangi blow was found on the body of the deceased and therefore, applying the ratio of Balka Singh (supra) and Balaram (supra) case, we are of the considered opinion that the witness (PW/3) supported the allegation against the accused Shiv Bhajan and it can safely be hold that the deceased received injuries by 14 the assault made by Shiv Bhajan by tangi, however, the evidence with respect to the appellant No. 1 Choudhari Ram that he also assaulted the deceased by lathi is not supported by reliable and sufficient evidence to hold him guilty for the alleged offence. 28. In view of the aforesaid settled legal principles and upon careful evaluation of the evidence on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of appellant No.2, Shiv Bhajan, beyond reasonable doubt. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral and documentary evidence, including the testimony of eyewitnesses, the memorandum statement of the appellant, the recovery of incriminating articles, and the FSL report, which collectively form a complete and coherent chain of circumstances pointing to his guilt. There is no plausible explanation offered by the appellant for the homicidal death of the deceased, and his conduct after the incident further strengthens the prosecution case. 29. Accordingly, we are of the considered opinion that the the appellant no. 1 Shiv Bhajan committed murder of the deceased and the conviction of appellant No. 2 Shiv Bhajan under Section 302/34 of the IPC is found to be legal, proper and justified, warranting no interference by this Court. 30. However, so far as appellant No. 1 Chaudhari Ram is concerned, this Court finds that the evidence against him is not of the same quality and certainty. The alleged recovery of bamboo stick at his instance, by itself, does not conclusively establish his participation in the assault in the absence of clear and reliable direct evidence linking him to the fatal injuries, and the prosecution evidence fails to firmly establish his active 15 role in the commission of the offence beyond reasonable doubt. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt is required to be extended in favour of appellant No. 1 Chaudhari Ram. 31. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant No. 1 Chaudhari Ram is allowed. He has been acquitted from all the charges and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence against appellant No. 1 Chaudhari Ram is set aside. However, the appeal filed by the appellant No. 2 Shiv Bhajan is dismissed and his conviction for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is affirmed. 32. Appellant No. 1 Chaudhari Ram is reported to be in jail since 08.10.2024 and the appellant No. 2 Shiv Bhajan is reported to be in jail since 27.11.2021. The appellant No. 1 shall be released forthwith if not required in any other case and the appellant No. 2 shall serve the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 33.Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant No. 1- Chaudhari Ram is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety 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 appellant, on receipt of notice thereof, shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 34. Registry is directed to sent a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant No. 2 Shiv Bhajan are undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant No. 2 16 informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 35.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 sagrika