1 2026:CGHC:24278-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 344 of 2025 Chandeshwar Gond S/o Shivbalak Gond Aged About 29 Years R/o. Village Bakna Khurd, P.S. Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ambikapur, District Surguja (CG) ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 17 .06.2026 1. Heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.06.19 12:09:05 +0530 2 2. Though the matter is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 2 of 2025, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, considering that the appellant has been in custody since 11.01.2022, and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing. 3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.08.2023 passed by the learned Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial Court”) in Sessions Trial No.31 of 2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more. Section 307 of the IPC R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month R.I. more. Both the sentences to run concurrently. 4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.12.2021, at about 7:30 a.m., the deceased, Saraswati alias Shashidas, had gone to the roadside to collect fodder (murra). At that time, the appellant, 3 Chandeshwar Gond, who was her neighbour, approached her carrying a tabbal (an axe-like sharp-edged weapon) and, saying that “because of you people, my family has been ruined,” became enraged and assaulted her with the tabbal on her neck and face, causing her death. When the deceased's father, Jaimangal Das (PW-2), intervened to save her, the appellant chased him up to the door of his house and struck him with the tabbal, causing injuries to his neck. Jaimangal Das was immediately taken to Bariyo Hospital for treatment. 5. Upon receiving information regarding the aforesaid incident from the complainant, Duryodhan (PW-1), at Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, a merg intimation (Ex.P/1) was registered. Thereafter, Sub- Inspector Surjan Kumar (PW-13) inspected the place of occurrence and prepared the spot map (Ex.P/2). Blood-stained soil and plain soil from the place of occurrence, blood-stained severed hair of the deceased, a plastic hair clip, and blood that had flowed from the body of the deceased, collected with cotton and sealed in a container, were seized under seizure memo (Ex.P/3). For the purpose of inquest proceedings, notices (Ex.P/10) were issued to the panch witnesses, and in their presence, the inquest report (Ex.P/11) was prepared. A postmortem requisition form (Ex.P/5) was completed, and the dead body was sent to the Government Hospital for postmortem examination through Constable No. 279, Sarla Toppo (PW-12), along with a duty certificate (Ex.P/15). After the postmortem examination, the dead body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased, and a handing-over memo (Ex.P/6) was prepared. During the postmortem examination, the 4 doctor handed over the blood-stained clothes of the deceased in a sealed packet, which were brought and deposited by the said constable, and a deposit memo (Ex.P/4) was prepared. 6. During the merg inquiry, Sub-Inspector Surjan Kumar (PW-13) found that offences punishable under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC had been committed. Consequently, FIR (Ex.P/18) was registered at Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur, in Crime No. 1309/2021. During the course of investigation, statements of witnesses were recorded. The appellant was interrogated, and his memorandum statement (Ex.P/13) was recorded. Pursuant thereto, the iron tabbal (balua) allegedly used in the commission of the offence was produced by the appellant and seized in the presence of witnesses under seizure memo (Ex.P/14). 7. After collecting evidence regarding the commission of the offence, the appellant was arrested and arrest memo (Ex.P/7) was prepared. Information regarding his arrest (Ex.P/19) was furnished to Ishwar Paikra (PW-3), the Sarpanch. The seized iron tabbal was examined by the Medical Officer, and opinion report (Ex.P/16) was obtained. The seized articles were also sent for forensic examination, and the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL) report (Ex.P/20) was received, wherein the presence of human blood was confirmed on the hair seized from the place of occurrence, the clothes of the deceased, and the tabbal recovered from the appellant. 8. The dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination to Government Medical College, Ambikapur, District 5 Surguja (C.G.). Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-11) deposed that on 10.12.2021, the dead body of Saraswati alias Shashi Das was brought for postmortem examination by Constable No. 279, Sarla Toppo, along with the postmortem requisition (Ex.P/5) and duty certificate (Ex.P/15). The postmortem commenced at 2:33 p.m., and the body was identified by Duryodhan Das, Raju Devangan, and Abij Kumar. 9. On examination, Dr. Bagh found multiple incised wounds on the left side of the head, resulting in fractures of the left temporal, occipital, and zygomatic bones. Incised injuries were also present on the fingers of the left hand, left elbow, and left axillary region. In his opinion, all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and had been caused by a hard and sharp-edged weapon. The injuries had been inflicted within twenty- four hours prior to death. He further opined that the head injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and that the deceased died due to excessive hemorrhage and shock resulting from the said injuries. According to him, the death was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report is Ex.P/5. 10. The statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Ambikapur. After committal proceedings, the case was committed to the Court of Session and, on transfer, was received by the learned trial Court for trial in accordance with law. 11. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant 6 under Sections 302 and 307 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to him, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 12. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 16 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents. The appellant neither examined any witness in defence nor adduced any documentary evidence. 13. Upon conclusion of the trial and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment dated 29.08.2023, convicted and sentenced the appellant as detailed in paragraph 3 of this judgment. Being aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal questioning the legality, propriety, and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 14. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence available on record and has erroneously convicted the appellant despite the prosecution having failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there are material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, which strike at the root of the prosecution case and render the conviction unsustainable in law. It is further argued that the prosecution has failed to establish any motive whatsoever for the appellant to commit the alleged offence. No cogent evidence has been 7 adduced to show any prior enmity, dispute or circumstance that could have prompted the appellant to cause the death of the deceased. According to the learned counsel, the absence of proof of motive assumes greater significance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is also contended that, even if the prosecution story is accepted in its entirety, the alleged act of the appellant would, at best, fall within the ambit of grave and sudden provocation and, therefore, his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC is not legally sustainable. He further contended that the learned trial Court has wrongly relied upon the seizure of articles, which has not been duly proved in accordance with law. It is argued that the prosecution has failed to establish that it was the appellant who caused the death of the deceased and no specific overt act attributable to the appellant has been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, it is prayed that the appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside. 15. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly concluded that the appellant was involved in the commission of the offences in question. It is contended that the prosecution has successfully established all the incriminating circumstances against the appellant and that the chain of evidence is complete, consistent and points unerringly towards his guilt. It is further submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned, just and proper, warranting no interference by this Court. He further submits that the testimonies of eyewitnesses 8 Duryodhan (PW-1), Jaimangal (PW-2), Tapeshwari (PW-4), Vikas Das (PW-5), Raju (PW-6) and Sangal Sai (PW-9) are natural, cogent, reliable and trustworthy, and inspire full confidence. According to him, their evidence has remained substantially unshaken during cross- examination and has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court. Accordingly, he prays for dismissal of the appeal. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions, and carefully perused the entire record of the learned trial Court. 17. In order to appreciate the rival submissions advanced on behalf of the parties, it is necessary to examine the evidence adduced by the prosecution in support of its case. 18. The first question that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 19. The learned trial Court placed reliance on the testimony of Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-11), who conducted the postmortem examination and proved the postmortem report (Ex.P/5). Dr. Bagh found multiple incised wounds on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased, resulting in fractures of the left temporal, occipital and zygomatic bones. He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature, caused by a hard and sharp-edged weapon, and that the head injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. According to him, the deceased died due to excessive hemorrhage and shock 9 resulting from the said injuries and the death was homicidal in nature. His opinion is duly corroborated by the postmortem report (Ex.P/5). Since the medical evidence remains unchallenged and the finding recorded by the learned trial Court is fully supported by the evidence on record, we affirm the conclusion that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 20. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in concluding that the appellant was the author of the crime, in light of the following circumstances: (i) The prosecution has successfully proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, as borne out from the postmortem report (Ex.P/5) prepared by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-11), who conducted the autopsy. (ii) According to the prosecution, the fact of the deceased’s death was within the knowledge of the appellant. However, in his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., the appellant failed to furnish any explanation with regard to this incriminating circumstance. In such a situation, the burden of offering a plausible explanation, which rested upon the appellant, has remained undischarged. 21. In the present case, the fact that the deceased died due to excessive hemorrhage and shock resulting from the injuries sustained by her, and that the death was homicidal in nature, has not been seriously disputed on behalf of the appellant. Rather, the homicidal nature of the death stands firmly established from the ocular testimonies 10 of the eyewitnesses, namely Duryodhan (PW-1), Jaimangal (PW-2), Tapeshwari (PW-4), Vikas Das (PW-5), Raju (PW-6) and Sangal Sai (PW-9), which find due corroboration from the postmortem report (Ex.P/5), the FSL report (Ex.P/20), and the medical evidence of Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-11). 22. Duryodhan (PW-1) deposed that the incident was also witnessed by Akash Das, Vikas Das and Tapeshwari. According to him, while assaulting Saraswati alias Shashi Das, the appellant was shouting that his family had been ruined because of them and that anyone who disclosed the incident would also be killed. Thereafter, he lodged the report at Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur. He proved the merg intimation (Ex.P/1), spot map (Ex.P/2), seizure memos (Exs.P/3 and P/4), postmortem report (Ex.P/5), and dead body handing-over memo (Ex.P/6), bearing his signatures. He also witnessed the arrest of the appellant under arrest memo (Ex.P/7). 23. In his cross-examination, it was suggested that he was not an eyewitness on the basis of certain admissions. However, a careful reading of his testimony shows that upon hearing loud cries from the lane, he immediately rushed to the spot and witnessed the occurrence. His evidence further indicates that the appellant had threatened the persons who attempted to intervene. Nothing substantial has been elicited in his cross-examination to discredit his testimony, and he has substantially supported the prosecution case. 24. Jaimangal (PW-2), the injured eyewitness and father of the 11 deceased, deposed that on the date of the incident, at about 7:00–7:30 a.m., while his daughter had gone to collect murra, the appellant followed her with a tabbal and repeatedly assaulted her on the head, face and neck. When he attempted to intervene, the appellant advanced towards him with the weapon. Having no means to defend himself, he ran towards his house. Near the entrance of his house, the appellant struck him on the neck with the tabbal. According to the witness, had the door not obstructed part of the blow, he too would have died. Thereafter, the police arrived and he was sent to the hospital for treatment. 25. In cross-examination, it was suggested that he had not witnessed the incident. However, a complete reading of his testimony makes it clear that he saw the appellant assaulting the deceased from near the fenced courtyard and that he himself sustained injuries when he attempted to intervene. His testimony inspires confidence and remains unshaken in material particulars. 26. Tapeshwari (PW-4), another eyewitness, stated that at about 7:30 a.m. on the date of the incident, she was preparing food in her house when she heard cries. On coming out, she saw the appellant assaulting her niece, Saraswati alias Shashi, with a balua/tabbal. Out of fear, she went back inside her house. The incident occurred on the road in front of her house. Later, when the police arrived, she saw the deceased lying dead at the spot. Though it was suggested during cross- examination that she had reached the spot only after the incident, her 12 categorical assertion that she had seen the appellant assaulting the deceased with the weapon remained unchallenged. Her testimony, therefore, lends support to the prosecution case. 27. Vikas Das (PW-5) deposed that at about 8:00 a.m. he was standing outside his house and preparing to leave for work when he saw the appellant coming from his house carrying an iron tabbal and assault Saraswati on her head, face and waist. He stated that the appellant struck her two or three times. Hearing her cries, Duryodhan, Jaimangal, Tapeshwari and Raju came out of their houses. However, none of them could approach the deceased as the appellant was brandishing the weapon and threatening everyone. He further stated that when Jaimangal attempted to rescue the deceased, the appellant chased him and struck him with the tabbal near the door of his house, causing injuries to his neck. Although certain suggestions were made in cross-examination that he reached the spot after the incident, he clarified that he had been standing barely ten metres away from the place of occurrence and had witnessed the assault. His evidence remained substantially unshaken. 28. Raju (PW-6), the husband of the deceased, stated that on the date of the incident his wife had gone to collect murra. On hearing commotion, he came out and saw the appellant assaulting his wife with a balua/tabbal, causing her to fall down. When the appellant turned towards him, he became frightened and ran away. He further saw the appellant chase his father-in-law, Jaimangal, and assault him near the 13 entrance of his house. He noticed injuries on Jaimangal's neck and marks of the assault near the doorway. Though he admitted in cross- examination that he reached the spot after hearing cries, he denied the suggestion that he had remained inside the house out of fear. His testimony substantially corroborates the evidence of the other eyewitnesses. 29. Sangal Sai (PW-9) deposed that at the time of the incident he had gone near a roadside water tap for bathing. He saw Saraswati alias Shashi Das come to purchase murra. At that time, the appellant arrived carrying an iron tabbal and struck her two or three times on and around her neck, causing her to fall to the ground. Thereafter, the appellant sat over her and continued the assault. He further stated that on hearing the cries, the husband of the deceased came out with a stick to rescue her, whereupon the appellant chased him away. The appellant also threatened and chased other persons present nearby. Out of fear, the witness returned to his house with his children. He further accepted that when Jaimangal attempted to intervene, the appellant chased and assaulted him near his house. Although the witness admitted that he had not personally seen the actual blow being inflicted on Jaimangal, the remaining part of his testimony remained unshaken in cross- examination and lends substantial support to the prosecution version. 30. Dr. Vijay Singh Pradhan (PW-14) deposed that on 20.01.2022 at about 3:30 p.m., injured witness Jaimangal (PW-2) was brought before him for medical examination by Constable No. 279, Sarla Toppo, of 14 Police Station Kotwali, Ambikapur. The identifying mark of the injured was a black mole on the upper portion of his left cheek. Upon examination, he found a sutured wound on the left side of the neck. The witness stated that the sutures had been applied on 10.12.2021 during the course of primary treatment at the Primary Health Centre, Bariyo. According to him, the injury could have been caused by a hard and blunt object and was simple in nature. He proved the medical examination report (Ex.P/21) and the treatment slip of Primary Health Centre, Bariyo (Ex.P/22). 31. The memorandum statement and seizure proceedings conducted by the Investigating Officer, Surjan Ram (PW-13), have been duly supported by the seizure witnesses, namely Abij Kumar (PW-8) and Vikram Das (PW-10). Their evidence establishes that the iron tabbal (balua) used in the commission of the offence was recovered at the instance of the appellant. Further, as per the FSL report (Ex.P/20), human blood was detected on the said iron tabbal recovered pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant. Significantly, during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant failed to furnish any explanation regarding the presence of human blood on the recovered weapon and merely stated that he had no knowledge thereof. No evidence has been adduced on behalf of the appellant to explain this incriminating circumstance. 32. From the evidence discussed hereinabove, it is apparent that the prosecution case rests upon the cogent and consistent testimonies of 15 eyewitnesses Duryodhan (PW-1), Jaimangal Das (PW-2), Tapeshwari (PW-4), Vikas Das (PW-5), Raju (PW-6) and Sangal Sai (PW-9). All these witnesses have consistently deposed that the appellant assaulted the deceased, Saraswati alias Shashi Das, with a tabbal (balua) on her head, face and neck. Their presence at or near the place of occurrence is natural and stands duly established. Despite lengthy cross- examination, no material contradiction, omission or inconsistency has been brought on record so as to render their evidence unreliable. More particularly, the testimony of injured eyewitness Jaimangal (PW-2) inspires confidence and lends substantial assurance to the prosecution case. 33. The ocular account furnished by the eyewitnesses finds complete corroboration from the medical evidence. Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-11), who conducted the postmortem examination, found multiple incised wounds on the head and other parts of the body of the deceased, resulting in fractures of the left temporal, occipital and zygomatic bones. He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature and had been caused by a hard and sharp-edged weapon. According to him, the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death and the deceased died due to excessive hemorrhage and shock resulting therefrom. The medical evidence, therefore, fully supports the prosecution version regarding the manner of assault and the weapon used in the commission of the offence. 34. The prosecution case is further strengthened by the recovery of 16 the iron tabbal (balua) at the instance of the appellant pursuant to his memorandum statement (Ex.P/13). The memorandum and seizure proceedings have been duly proved by the Investigating Officer, Surjan Ram (PW-13), and are corroborated by the independent seizure witnesses, Abij Kumar (PW-8) and Vikram Das (PW-10). Further, as per the FSL report (Ex.P/20), human blood was detected on the said weapon. Significantly, during his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant failed to furnish any plausible explanation regarding the presence of human blood on the recovered weapon. This circumstance provides an additional link in the chain of evidence against the appellant. 35. The submission advanced on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution witnesses are unreliable and that their evidence suffers from material contradictions does not merit acceptance. The discrepancies pointed out by the defence are minor and relate only to peripheral aspects of the matter. Such variations are natural in the testimonies of witnesses who depose after the lapse of time and, in fact, lend assurance to the truthfulness of their evidence. The core of the prosecution case, namely the identity of the assailant, the weapon used and the manner of assault, has remained consistent throughout. 36. Having carefully scrutinized the entire evidence on record, we find that the testimonies of the eyewitnesses are wholly reliable and inspire confidence. Their evidence is duly corroborated by the medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the 17 appellant, and the FSL report. The prosecution has, therefore, succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that it was the appellant who assaulted the deceased with the tabbal, resulting in her death, and who also caused injuries to Jaimangal (PW-2) when he attempted to intervene. 37. On a careful consideration of the entire material available on record, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are fully borne out from the evidence on record. We find no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the impugned judgment warranting interference in the present appeal. 38. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by judgment dated 29.08.2023 passed by the learned trial Court are affirmed. 39. In view of the dismissal of the appeal, I.A. No. 1 of 2025, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of. 40. It is reported that the appellant is in custody. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court. 18 41. The learned trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 42. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, 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 the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan