1 2026:CGHC:22845-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.717 of 2016 Nigar Alam @ Raju S/o Mohd Kalam Azad, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Navadihkala, Police Station Chando, Distt. Balrampur-Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant (In Jail) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Chando, District Balrampur Ramanujganj (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent For Appellant : Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, Advocate For Respondent/State : Shri Sachchidanand Yadav, Panel Lawyer For Objector : Shri Vijay Kumar Sahu, Advocate D.B.: Hon’ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal & Hon’ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas Judgment on Board Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J. 14/05/2026 1) This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12/05/2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.R.36/2013, whereby, the appellant-accused has been convicted for the commission of murder of his grandmother-Katkahiya, under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment SATISH TUMANE Digitally signed by SATISH TUMANE Date: 2026.05.15 13:18:19 +0530 2 for life and fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine amount, he has to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for a period of four months. 2) Briefly stated the facts of the case are that on 22/09/2013 at about 12.30 PM, the process of preparation of Voter Identity Card was going on at the Panchayat Bhawan, where, the appellant-Nigar Alam @ Raju came while searching his grandmother and thereafter, went towards the nearby school and after sometime, a noise of shouting was heard, owing to which, the informer-Santosh Ram and others, namely, Guddu Paikra, Toulan Khalkho, Sukhram, Jhirsai, Charku Miyan and Lakhpati went towards the spot, where, they have seen the injuries caused on her (deceased) head and blood was oozing and after sometime, she died. It is alleged by the prosecution that said-Katkahiya was died on account of assault made by the appellant with the aid of bamboo stick on her head, which was seen by him (Santosh Ram) and others, whose names are mentioned above that the appellant has assaulted his grandmother on her head with the aid of bamboo stick and was crushing her head. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered in connection with the Crime No.18/2013 against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and, during the course of investigation, the bamboo stick with bloodstained, alleged to have been used for the commission of the alleged crime, was seized from the appellant, vide Ex.P-10 on 23/09/2013, based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P-8) in presence of two witnesses, namely, Toulan Khalkho and Jansai, while blouse of the deceased was 3 seized vide Ex.P-13 on 04/10/2013 and the alleged articles, so recovered, were sent for chemical examination vide memo dated 12/10/2013, but, no FSL Report has been placed on record. Inquest (Ex.P-4) of the deceased was made on 22/09/2013 and was sent for autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. R. S. Markam (PW-13), who vide his report (Ex.P-18), opined the cause of death to be shock, due to haemorrhage on account of the injuries over the occipital region and (rib)chest and, was accordingly held to be homicidal in nature and after completion of usual investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Balrampur against the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and the matter was thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where, based upon the materials on record, he was charge-sheeted for the commission of offence mentioned herein- above, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried. 3) In order to bring home the guilt of the appellant-accused, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents, while none was examined by the appellant in his defence. 4) The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution, arrived at a conclusion that since the extra judicial confession was made by the appellant before Santosh Ram (PW-1) and Taulan Khalkho (PW-2) and, as he was seen near the spot, he was, therefore, held to be guilty for the commission of the murder of his grandmother-Katkahiya. In consequence, he has been convicted 4 under Section 302 of IPC and awarded him sentence as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the instant appeal has been preferred. 5) Shri Shakti Raj Sinha, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the finding recorded by the trial Court holding that the appellant has made extra judicial confession before Santosh Ram (PW-1) and Taulan Khalkho (PW-2) and, thereby held him guilty is apparently contrary to law, as the same was not voluntarily in nature and that by referring to para-14 of the statement of said Santosh Ram (PW-1), submits further that, in fact, it was made when he was in the lock-up, therefore, under such an eventuality, the trial Court ought not to have held him guilty based upon such a confession. It is contended further that the trial Court while placing reliance upon the statement of Santosh Ram (PW-1), Taulan Khalkho (PW-2) and Guddu Paikra (PW-3) has erred in holding that the appellant was present on the spot, even in absence of corroboration of their testimonies. In support, he placed his reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahadevan and Another vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in (2012) 6 SCC 403. 6) On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State, assisted by the counsel appearing for the Objector, has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence as passed by the trial Court. 7) We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties and perused the entire record carefully. 5 8) From perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant has been charge-sheeted with regard to the commission of murder of his grandmother-Katkahiya on the allegation that the appellant on the said fateful day, i.e. on 22/09/2013 has assaulted his grandmother with the aid of bamboo stick on her head and was crushing her head and the alleged incident was seen by Santosh Ram (PW-1) and others, namely, Guddu Paikra, Toulan Khalkho, Sukhram, Jhirsai, Charku Miyan and Lakhpati, but the said fact has, however, not found to be established by the prosecution that they have seen the alleged incident as such, as Santosh Ram (PW-1), who informed the occurrence of the alleged incident, has, however, denied the alleged fact, as revealed from para-3 of his testimony that the appellant has assaulted his grandmother with the aid of bamboo stick or was crushing her head. It reveals further from his testimony that when he asked the appellant as to why he killed his grandmother, it was, then replied by him that since she was not giving him money for the maintenance, therefore, he killed her. It, thus, appears that the alleged confession was not made by him (appellant) voluntarily and in fact, was found to be made when a question was put by him (PW-1) and, rather, appears to be made when he was in the lock-up, as revealed from para-14 of his testimony. Likewise is the statement of Taulan Khalkho (PW-2) to this effect that it was not made to him by the appellant voluntarily. In view thereof, no reliance, therefore, could be placed upon such an extra judicial confession for his involvement for the commission of alleged crime, as held by the trial Court. 6 9) It is to be seen at this juncture that while placing reliance upon the principles laid down by the Supreme Court in various matters, the following principles, pertaining to the extra judicial confession, have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sahadevan (supra) at para16, which reads as under :- “16. Upon a proper analysis of the above referred judgments of this Court, it will be appropriate to state the principles which would make an extra-judicial confession an admissible piece of evidence capable of forming the basis of conviction of an accused. These precepts would guide the judicial mind while dealing with the veracity of cases where the prosecution heavily relies upon an extra-judicial confession alleged to have been made by the accused: (i) The extra-judicial confession is a weak evidence by itself. It has to be examined by the court with greater care and caution. (ii) It should be made voluntarily and should be truthful. (iii) It should inspire confidence. (iv) An extra-judicial confession attains greater credibility and evidentiary value if it is supported by a chain of cogent circumstances and is further corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (v) For an extra-judicial confession to be the basis of conviction, it should not suffer from any material discrepancies and inherent improbabilities. (vi) Such statement essentially has to be proved like any other fact and in accordance with law." 10) In view of the aforesaid principles laid down by the Supreme Court, the extra judicial confession as made by the appellant before Santosh Ram (PW-1) and Taulan Khalkho (PW-2), which was not found to be voluntarily in nature and instead was made in the lock- up, as observed hereinabove, the appellant, therefore, cannot be held guilty based upon such an extra judicial confession. 11) It is now to be seen that though Santosh Ram (PW-1), Taulan Khalkho (PW-2) and Guddu Paikra (PW-3) have stated in their 7 testimonies that on the date of incident, they have seen the appellant running away from the spot while holding the stick, but the alleged of their version was, however, cannot be relied upon, in view of the recitals made in the report (Ex.P-2) lodged by Santosh Ram (PW-1) before the concerned Police Station, where they have shown to be the eye-witnesses of the occurrence of the alleged incident and have not stated so as such therein. In any case, merely on the basis of their evidence to this effect, which was not found to be corroborated by any cogent and reliable evidence, though may raise suspicion, but would not independently to be sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the commission of the alleged crime. 12) Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, dated 12/05/2016, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.R.36/2013 is hereby set aside. The appellant is, thus, acquitted from the alleged charge. The appellant is already on bail, therefore, his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months, as required under Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. SD/- (Sanjay S. Agrawal) Judge SD/- (Narendra Kumar Vyas) Judge Tumane