1 2026:CGHC:23666-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1488 of 2022 1 - Manoj @ Surendra Kumar Kewat S/o Late Gangaram Kewat, Aged About 23 Years, R/o Village Umreli Soni Mohalla P.S.Urga, District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer P.S. AJK District District Korba Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Krishna Tandon, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. Advocate General. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri R avindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ram esh Sinha, C.J. 15-06-2026 1. The present appeal under Section 14A(1) of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989 (in short’ the SC/ST Act’) has been filed by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.05.2022 passed by the Special Judge, under the SC/ST Act, Korba in Special Criminal Case No.23/2019 whereby the Digitally signed by MOHAMMED AADIL KHAN Date: 2026.06.17 12:08:05 +0530 2 appellant has been convicted and sentenced in the following manner with a direction to run all the jail sentences concurrently:- Sl. No. Conviction Sentence 1. U/s 302 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 2 months, 2. U/s 201 of the IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine further R.I. for 1 month. 2. The case of the prosecution is that, on 10.04.2019 complainant Santosh Singh Gond PW-2 lodged dehati Ex.-P/9 with the allegation deceased Firatram who is his elder brother, was having illicit relation with mother of the appellant and for that reason there was frequent quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. On 09.04.2019 at about 01:30 p.m. when his brother Firatram was returning to his house the appellant raised quarrel with him and after assaulting him by tiding strangulate his neck by gamchha and when his brother went unconscious he fled away from the place. The deceased was taken to Govt. B.D.M. Hospital Champa, however, he died on the way. The merg intimation Ex.- P/1 was sent by the doctor to the police and thereafter a merg intimation was recorded by police which is Ex.-P/2. Inquest Ex.- P/4 of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses and the dead body was sent for postmortem to Govt. B.D.M. Hospital, Champa where Doctor Sarita Nagarchi PW-5 conducted the postmortem of the deceased and after its postmortem she gave her report Ex.-P/6. While conducting the 3 postmortem the doctor noticed contusion on the neck, another contusion in triangular shape on the left side of chest. On internal examination, 2nd , 3rd and 4th ribs were found fractured, hematoma between 3rd and 4th ribs, neck muscles was found congested, hematoma was also found on lower part of lungs and opined that the mode of death is asphyxia due to injury in the internal part of viscera and nature of death is homicidal. In short postmortem report Ex.-P/15 she opined that the death of the deceased was due to strangulation and internal injuries to lungs, heart and liver and his death is homicidal in nature. Spot map Ex.- P/7 and Ex.-P/10 were prepared by police. The FIR Ex.-P/23 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was arrested on 10.04.2019 and his memorandum statement Ex.-P/111 was recorded and based on his memorandum statement one piece of concrete, one gamchha has been seized from the appellant vide seizure memo Ex.-P/12. With respect to the social status of the deceased, one social status certificate Ex.-P/17C has been seized vide seizure memo Ex.-P/13. The piece of cement concrete and gamchha was sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL, Bilaspur from where report Ex.-P/26 was received and according to the FSL report, no blood was found on the sent articles. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. have been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302, 201 of the IPC 4 and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act before the learned trial Court. 3. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 302, 201 of the IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act. The appellant denied the charge and claimed trial. 4. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 10 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appeared against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 5. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has acquitted accused from the offence under Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act and he has been convicted under Section 302, 201 of the IPC and sentenced by the learned trial Court as mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses which cannot be made basis to convict the appellant for the offence in question. There are material inconsistencies in the evidence of the witnesses. The alleged eye- 5 wtinesses, PW-4 Manisha Sidar and PW-9 Rakesh Kumar are children of the deceased and they are interested witnesses. PW-4 Manisha Sidar though in the initial evidence stated about the involvement of the appellant in the offence, however, in cross- examination she admitted that she has not seen the incident and alleged assault made by the appellant upon the deceased. No any traditional weapon has been used for commission of the offence and the piece of concrete allegedly seized from the appellant was not found stained with blood, even in gamchha no blood stains have been found. He would further submit that after alleged assault the deceased was taken to his house from where he was shifted to hospital, what transpires in the house the prosecution has failed to explain. In fact, there was a quarrel between the deceased and his brother by which he received injury and only on apprehension that the appellant assaulted the deceased, report has been lodged. He would lastly submit that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive to commit murder of the deceased. Therefore, there is lack sufficient and clinching evidence against the appellant and he is entitled for his acquittal. 7. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions and contradictions the evidence of the prosecution witnesses are reliable and sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for commission of murder of the 6 deceased. The motive has been proved by the witnesses that the deceased was having illicit relation with the mother of the appellant which were objected by the appellant and his other family members and for that reason the appellant has committed murder of the deceased. The incident has occurred on a broad day light and it has been witnessed by PW4 - Manisha Sidar, daughter of the deceased and PW-9 Rakesh Kumar, son of the deceased, who are natural witnesses and their presence on the spot is also quite natural. They categorically stated about the assault made by the appellant upon the deceased by which the deceased received injuries and ultimately died. The injuries found on the body of the deceased has duly been corroborated by the evidence of these eye-witnesses. Although no blood was found on the concrete piece or gamchha seized from the appellant, however, that itself cannot be a ground to acquit the appellant from the offence. The eye-witnesses have duly supported the prosecution’s case and their evidence are fully reliable for conviction of the appellant. The learned trial Court upon detailed consideration of the evidence convicted and sentenced the appellant which does not suffer from any perversity and the appeal filed by the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 7 9. The first and foremost question arises for consideration would be nature of death of the deceased as to whether his death is homicidal in nature or not. 10. To prove the fact of homicidal death of the deceased the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of the doctor as well as the evidence of witnesses of inquest. 11. PW-1 Pramod Kumar Yadav who has taken the merg intimation given by the doctor to the police, has stated that deceased Firatram was taken to hospital and he has taken the merg intimation to the police which is Ex.-P/2. 12. PW-2 Santosh Singh is a witness to the inquest, who stated that when the deceased was taken to the hospital the doctor informed that he has already died. The inquest of the dead body was prepared in his presence which is Ex.-P/4. 13. PW-3 Budhwar Singh is also a witness to the inquest Ex.-P/4, who has stated that deceased Firatram was assaulted by the appellant and he received injuries and ultimately died. He witnessed the inquest of the dead body of the deceased. 14. PW-5 Doctor Sarita Nagarchi who conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased, has stated in her evidence that on 10.04.2019 she conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and found contusion on his neck, contusion in triangular shape on the left side of chest and on internal examination, his 2nd, 3rd and 4th ribs were found fractured and 8 hematoma found on the lungs and neck muscles and she opined that mode of death is cardio respirant and cause of death is asphyxia due to injury in the internal part of viscera. She also proved the short postmortem report Ex.-P/15 in which she opined that death of the deceased was due to strangulation and injury to lungs, heart and liver which is homicidal in nature. In cross- examination of the doctor the suggestion was put by the defence that if a person forcefully felt on the rough surface, like injuries which was found on the body of the deceased could have been received by said person, which the doctor has admitted. Though, she admitted that due to excessive drunkenness lungs and liver might have damage, but in the present case there was injury in the lungs and liver of the deceased. The defence could not be able to abstract any material from the evidence of the doctor which makes her evidence doubtful. 15. Considering the evidence available on record particularly the evidence of the doctor PW-5 Doctor Sarita Nagarchi, the learned trial Court held that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature in which we do not find any infirmity or perversity and affirm the same. 16. So far as involvement of the appellant in the offence in question is concerned, the case of the prosecution is based on eye- witnesses, PW-4 Manisha Sidar and PW-9 Rakesh Kumar. 9 17. PW-4 Manisha Sidar has stated in her evidence that at about 01:30 p.m. on the date of incident when they heard the noise, she, her brother Rakesh and Mandeep had gone there and saw that the appellant was assaulting her father tiding gamchha on the neck of her father. After seeing them the appellant fled away from the place. Her father went unconscious and thereafter they took him to temple and thereafter to her house. After about 10 minutes her father has died. They called her uncle and informed about the incident. Her father was being taken to hospital. On the next day a report has been lodged by the police. At this stage, this witness has been declared hostile and when she was being cross- examined by the prosecution she stated that two months before the date of incident the appellant committed marpeet with her younger brother Rakesh on the issue that the deceased is having illicit relation with his mother. In cross-examination she stated that her father was not shouted, but two brothers of the appellant were shouted. When they reached on the place of incident, 8 to 10 other persons were also reached there. The report of earlier incident could not be lodged for the reason that her father convinced the appellant that if they repeated the incident they will lodge the report. She denied that her father was having illicit relation with 2-3 ladies in the village and other persons were also having enmity with him. Though in para 10 she admitted that she could not see the assault made by the appellant upon her father and on apprehension she made statement, however, except this 10 one line admission in cross-examination she supported the prosecution’s case that she saw the incident, motive to commit the murder and therefore, this part of her admission in para 10 does not dilute her entire evidence which is corroborative to other evidence available on record. 18. PW-9 Rakesh is son of the deceased and another eye-witness to the incident. He stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 01:30 p.m. he, his elder sister Manisha and younger brother Mandeep were about to sit for lunch, at that time, they heard the noise of quarrel and then they reached to the place of incident where they saw that the appellant assaulting his father by stone and tiding gamchha on his neck. The intervened in the incident and the appellant fled from the place. They took his father to his house, however, on the way he died. In cross-examination he denied the suggestion given by defence that his father was having illicit relation with other ladies who were working along with him. He also denied frequent quarrel in his house for the same reason. He denied from the earlier incident of marpeet committed by the appellant. He also denied the suggest ion that due to habitually drinking and having lose character they themselves have committed murder of the deceased on the way when he was being taken to hospital. From his cross-examination the defence could not be able to abstract any material which makes his evidence doubtful or it can be said that he has not seen the incident and falsely implicated the appellant in the offence. He 11 being son of the deceased and his presence is also natural and he cannot be said to be interested witness despite having relation with the deceased. He clearly supported the allegation against the appellant that when they reached on the spot they saw that the deceased was being assaulted by the appellant. The evidence which he has given, he can be put into quality of sterling witness. His evidence is completely reliable which is corroborated with the evidence of PW-4 Manisha Sidar who is another eye-witness to the incident and the evidence of the doctor, PW-5 Doctor Sarita Nagarchi who conducted the postmortem and found injury on the body of the deceased. 19. In Dharnidhar Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh and others, (2010) 7 SCC 759, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held as follows: “12. There is no hard-and-fast rule that family members can never be true witnesses to the occurrence and that they will always depose falsely before the Court. It will always depend upon the facts and circumstances of a given case. In Jayabalan v. UT of Pondicherry, (2010) 1 SCC 199, this Court had occasion to consider whether the evidence of interested witnesses can be relied upon. The Court took the view that a pedantic approach cannot be applied while dealing with the evidence of an interested witness. Such evidence cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from a person closely related to the victim. The Court held as under: (SCC p. 213, paras 23-24) “23. We are of the considered view that in cases where the court is called upon to deal with the evidence of the interested witnesses, the approach of the court, while appreciating the evidence of such witnesses must not be pedantic. The court must be cautious in appreciating and accepting the evidence given by the interested witnesses 12 but the court must not be suspicious of such evidence. The primary endeavour of the court must be to look for consistency. The evidence of a witness cannot be ignored or thrown out solely because it comes from the mouth of a person who is closely related to the victim.” 13. Similar view was taken by this Court in Ram Bharosey v. State of U.P., (2010) 1 SCC 722, where the Court stated the dictum of law that a close relative of the deceased does not, per se, become an interested witness. An interested witness is one who is interested in securing the conviction of a person out of vengeance or enmity or due to disputes and deposes before the court only with that intention and not to further the cause of justice. The law relating to appreciation of evidence of an interested witness is well settled, according to which, the version of an interested witness cannot be thrown overboard, but has to be examined carefully before accepting the same.” 20. Though piece of concrete and gamchha has been seized from the appellant which was sent for its chemical examination to FSL, but no blood stains were found on the sent articles, however, that itself is not sufficient to discredit the evidence of the eye- witnesses. 21. In the present case, the motive has been proved by the PW-4 Manisha Sidar, incident has been witnessed by PW-4 Manisha Sidar and PW-9 Rakesh Kumar, the nature of death has been proved by Doctor Sarita Nagarchi PW-5, thus the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt which the learned trial Court has rightly considered after appreciating the evidence available on record. 13 22. The learned trial Court after adverting the entire facts and circumstances of the case and evidence of the eye-witnesses came to conclusion that it is the appellant who committed murder of the deceased and has convicted and sentenced him for the offence under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC, in which we do not find any infirmity or perversity to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 23. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellant fails and is hereby dismissed. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 10.04.2019. He shall serve the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 24. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant 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. 25. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Aadil