1 2026:CGHC:23960-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 346 of 2023 Prakashchand Dahariya S/o Late Firturam Dahariya Aged About 43 Years R/o Dongri ( Sarai Shringaar) P S Baloda, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Baloda, District : Janjgir- Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 16/06/2026 1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.12.2022, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District Janjgir- VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.06.23 15:24:26 +0530 2 Champa (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 65/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 25,000/-. in default of payment of fine, further R.I. for 25 days. 2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.08.2019, at about 1:00 p.m. the deceased Lata Dahariya, who was the wife of the appellant, was coming from Baloda and going towards Khisora by her scooty bearing No. CG 11 AS 9614. When she reached near the house of Futku Kenwat at Dongri main road, the appellant dashed her scooty from back side by his Maruti Van No. CG 11 AS 4076. When the deceased fell down on the road, the appellant started assaulting her by iron rod repeatedly. The complainant Firturam Yadav tried to intervene and then the appellant fled away in his Maruti Van. The deceased was being taken to CHC Baloda by dial 112 police and on the report of the complainant, the FIR (exhibit P-1) was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 307 of IPC. The police intimation (exhibit P-15) was also sent by the doctor to police station, Baloda. The deceased was medically examined at CHC, Baloda by Dr. S.S. Tomar (PW-7) and found injuries on the body of the deceased and she was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment. The deceased was further referred to Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur, where she was declared brought dead and the merg intimation (exhibit P-22) was sent from Apollo Hospital the the jurisdictional police station Sarkanda, Bilaspur. The unnumbered merg intimation (exhibit P-23) was recorded as Sarkanda police station, which was forwarded to the Baloda police station, where merg intimation (exhibit P-16) was recorded. Inquest 3 (exhibit P-5) of the dead body of the deceased was prepared by Sarkanda police in presence of the witnesses and the dead body was sent for its postmortem to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur, where the postmortem was conducted by a team of two doctors namely Dr. Smt. S. Mahajan and Dr. R.K. Markam (PW-8) who gave the postmortem report (exhibit P-6). 3. Spot map (exhibit P-2) and panchnama (exhibit P-3) was prepared by the Patwari and spot map (exhibit P-24) was prepared by the police in presence of the witnesses. Blood stained and plain soil was seized from the spot vide seizure memo (exhibit P-14) and the scooty of the deceased was also seized from the spot in damaged condition vide seizure memo (exhibit P-15). The appellant was arrested on 05.08.2019 and his memorandum statement (exhibit P-8) was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, iron rod has been seized on his instance vide seizure memo (exhibit P-9), Maruti Van has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-10). The clothes of the appellant has also been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-11). The iron rod and seized clothes were sent for its query report and the doctor has gave query report (exhibit P-20 and P-22) and opined that the deceased may be injured by the sent object, injury may be grievous and death may have occurred. For confirmation of blood on clothes, he referred it for chemical examination. The seized articles were sent to Regional FSL, Bilaspur, from where FSL report has been received and as per the FSL report, the clothes of the appellant (article A-1 and A-2), iron rod seized from him (article-B) and clothes of the 4 deceased (article B-1 and B-2) were found to be stained with human blood. 4. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of CRPC has been recorded and after completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for offences punishable under Sections 307, 302 of IPC before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Akaltara. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Court, Janjgir- Champa for its trial. 5. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt, denied the allegations levelled against him and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 18 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. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court came to the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully established the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the appellant and held him guilty for the offences punishable under Sections 302 of the IPC. Consequently, the appellant was convicted and sentenced as mentioned hereinabove. Hence, this appeal. 5 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of prosecution witnesses. The so called eyewitnesses Firturam (PW-1) is a planted witness on the instance of Manoj Kumar Agrawal (PW-5). The another witness who also claimed to be the eyewitness Jitendra Agrawal (PW-4) is the real brother of Manoj Kumar Agrawal (PW-5). He would also submit that the deceased was having strange relation with her husband and residing alone at a tenanted premises of the witness Manoj Kumar Agrawal (PW-5). Firturam (PW-1) is also an employee of Manoj Kumar Agrawal (PW-5). Presence of both these witnesses at a same time on the place of incident without having proper reason itself creates a doubt on the testimony of the witnesses and supported the defence that they are the planted witnesses. The witnesses have admitted that they are not having any property at the place of incident and therefore, their presence on the spot are doubtful. He would further submit that the deceased injuries by the accident with some other vehicle, but to eliminate the appellant, he has been falsely implicated in the offence on the instance of Manoj Kumar Agrawal (PW-5). She would also submit that, though the deceased was having strange relation with the appellant, but that itself cannot be considered to be a motive to commit her murder for the reason that she already living separately and there is no incident of any quarrel just before the incident. The vehicle of the appellant was not found damaged. If he dashed the scooty of the deceased, the vehicle must also be found damaged, but there is no evidence on record that his vehicle was also got damaged. The 6 alleged seizure of the articles are also doubtful. In absence of any clinching evidence about the memorandum and seizure, the same cannot be considered against the appellant. The evidence produced by the prosecution suffers from inconsistently and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt and he may be acquitted from the alleged offence. 9. Per contra, learned State counsel would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has successfully proved the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is submitted that the presence of eyewitness Firturam (PW-1) on the spot is quite natural, as he is a labourer and engaged in cutting of the trees on the place of incident and he intervened in the incident. A prompt and named report has been lodged by him within two hours of the incident and it cannot be said that in such short span of time, the witnesses have framed the story of false implication of the appellant. The witnesses have duly supported the prosecution case and despite their sufficient cross- examination, the defence could not be able to extract any material to disbelieve their evidence. The strange relation between the appellant and the deceased is the strong motive to commit her murder. Presence of human blood on the clothes of the appellant has not been explained by him. The weapon of offence i.e. iron rod has been seized on the instance of the appellant, in which also human blood was found and thus, the guilt of the appellant has been proved by the prosecution by corroborative evidence and there is no scope for any interference in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and the appeal of the appellant is liable to be dismissed. 7 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 11. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is whether the death of deceased Lata Dahariya was homicidal in nature or not. 12. To establish the homicidal death of the deceased, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of Firturam (PW-1) and Jitendra Agrawal (PW-4). The witnesses to the inquest Ashwani Kumar (PW-2) and the medical evidence of Dr. S.S. Tomar (PW-7), Dr. R.K. Markam (PW-8) and Dr. Ajitesh Rai (PW-11). Firturam (PW-1) and Jitendra Agrawal (PW-4) have stated in their evidence that on the date of incident, the appellant dashed the scooty of the deceased and when she fell down, the appellant assaulted her by iron rod repeatedly, by which she received injuries and the appellant fled away from the spot. The police was being informed. The witness to the inquest Ashwani Kumar (PW- 2) has proved the inquest (exhibit P-5) and stated that when he reached at Baloda hospital, he saw her sister in injured condition and she was being taken to Apollo Hospital, where she died. 13. PW-7, Dr. S.S. Tomar stated in his evidence that on 04.08.2019, Lata Bai was brought before him in injured condition and on her examination, he found various lacerated wound on both side of her face and her both eyes were damaged, chin was damaged and lacerated wound was also there. Her injuries were grievous in nature and she was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment and MLC report is exhibit P-18. In his cross-examination, he denied that he informed the police about accidental injury to the deceased, 8 and stated that he informed about assault upon the deceased. He denied that the injuries found on the body of the deceased would have been caused by motor accident. 14. PW-11, Dr. Ajitesh Rai, who was the medical officer at Apollo Hospital, Bilaspur has stated in his evidence that on 04.08.2019, the patient Lata Bai Dahariya, was brought to the hospital and on being examination, she was found dead. The person who brought her, informed that she was being assaulted by her husband by vehicle or any object. 15. PW-8, who is the Demonstrator, Forensic Medical Department, CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that while conducting the postmortem, he found the following injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- * abrasion in left knee, * abrasion in right knee, * abrasion on left foot, * abrasion on left lumber region. ******* After removal of dressing over the head and face, he found the following injuries:- * lacerated wound on left side of forehead. * lacerated wound on nose with fracture of nasal bone. * lacerated wound on right side of face. * lacerated wound on left eyebrow. * lacerated wound on left side of upper lip. 9 * lacerated wound on right side of lower lip. * lacerated wound on right eyebrow. * lacerated wound on left tempo-parietal region. * abrasion on right elbow and forearm. * contusion on right arm. * clotted blood present on skull and scalp on left temporal- region. * fracture of frontal bone. ******* The doctor has opined that the cause of death is due to head injury and multiple injuries and its complications. It seems to be homicidal in nature. In cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by road accident by dashing in a road divider. The abrasion could have been caused in accident, but the head injury could not be caused. On the basis of the injuries found on the body of the deceased, she opined that death of the deceased is homicidal in nature. The learned trial Court after considering the evidence of the doctor who treated the deceased and who conducted the postmortem and also the other evidences on record held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, in which this Court does not found any perversity or infirmity. 16. So far as the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question is concerned, the prosecution has proved its case by leading evidence of eyewitnesses PW-1/Firturam Yadav and PW-4/Jitendra Agrawal. PW- 1, Firturam Yadav stated in his evidence that on 08.04.2019, he was present on the spot and employed in cutting of the trees on the 10 instance of Jitendra Agrawal. At about 1:00 PM, he saw that the appellant dashed the scooty of Lata Dahariya from his Maruti Van from backside and when she fell down, the appellant started assaulting her by iron rod. He assaulted her 2-3 times and fled away by his van. Someone has informed the police and then, police came there and took the deceased to the hospital. He lodged the report to the police, which is exhibit P-1. In cross-examination, the defence tried to brought the evidence that he is a planted witness on the instance of Jitendra Agrawal and Manoj Agrawal, but he denied the same. He firmly answered about his employment for cutting trees on the spot. He also denied that he has not witnessed the incident and also denied that the deceased received injuries in a road accident. In his cross- examination, he stated that Jitendra was running a machine in the village and the electricity connection was being obstructed by the branches of the tree, therefore, he asked him to cut the branches for frequent flow of electricity. From his evidence, the defence could not extracted any material, so that his evidence could be disbelieved. He is the lodger of the FIR. From perusal of the FIR (exhibit P-1) it transpires that the alleged time of incident was 13:00 hrs. on 04.08.2019 and within 45 minutes the FIR has been lodged by this witness i.e. on 13:45 hrs. on 04.08.2019 itself. The defence of the accused is that this witness is planted by the PW-4/Jitendra Agrawal and PW-5/Manoj Agrawal, but in such short span of time, no one can frame any story against the appellant to implicate him falsely in the case. In the FIR also, the same incident has been disclosed by this witness. 11 17. The another eyewitness is PW-4/Jitendra Agrawal, who stated in his evidence that on the date of incident at about 12:00-1:00 PM, he was engaged in clearing the electricity lines by cutting the branches of the trees from Firturam Yadav. At that time, the deceased Lata Dahariya, who was coming by her scooty, dashed by Maruti Van of the appellant and when she fell down, the appellant started assaulting her by iron rod and gave 3-4 blows. When they tried to intervene, the appellant fled away by the said van. The police was being informed, who took the deceased to the hospital and they had gone to police station. He is the witness of the memorandum statement and seizure of articles made from the appellant. In cross-examination, he remained firm in saying that he was engaged in cutting the branches of the tree, through the witness Firturam Yadav and also witnessed the incident. He clearly deposed that the appellant dashed the scooty of the deceased, came out from his Maruti Van, took an iron rod from the van and assaulted the deceased. He also disclosed that he knew the deceased for the reason that she used to come to his shop to purchase grocery items. The defence could not elicited any discrepancies in his evidence also to disbelieve his testimony. 18. PW-2, Ashwani Kumar Lahare is the brother of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, at about 1:00 – 1:30 PM, Sarpanch Satruhan Rathore informed him by telephone that his si8ster was being assaulted by someone and when he reached to the spot, his sister was already taken to Baloda hospital. When he had gone to Baloda hospital, he saw the injuries on her body and when he took her to Apollos Hospital, she died. She further stated that there 12 was a dispute between his sister and the appellant and appellant threatened him that, as and when he get chance, he will kill him and his sister. On the spot, Firturam informed him about the incident that the appellant caused injuries to his sister. In cross-examination, he stated that the deceased was residing at a tenanted house at Bilaspur with her children. She has not lodged any report about threatening given by the appellant to him. From the evidence of this witness, it further transpires that, there was a matrimonial dispute between the appellant and the deceased and she was residing separately from her husband, which was the motive to commit her murder. This witness has also threatened by the appellant, which supported the intention of the appellant to commit the offence. 19. PW-15, Reena Dahariya is the daughter of the deceased as well as the appellant. She stated in her evidence that the incident was being informed by her maternal uncle Ashwani Lahare. Her mother and father were residing separately. She was residing with her father at village Saraisringar and her three other sisters were residing with their mother at village Khisora. There was a dispute between her mother and father and her father suspected upon her mother and they used to quarrel. Marpeet was also committed by her father to her mother in her presence. Through she admitted in her cross-examination that her mother has died in a road accident, but her evidence about accidental death is not supported by other evidence and also that she is residing with her father. Her attachment with the father is quite natural to save her father. Further, she is not an eyewitness to the incident, but a witness to the motive to commit murder of the deceased by the 13 appellant, as there was quarrel between the appellant and the deceased. 20. PW-16, Kareena Dahariya is another daughter of the deceased and appellant. She too has given the similar evidence as PW-15 has given about the dispute between her mother and father and quarrel between them. She was being informed by her maternal uncle about the incident. 21. PW-5, Manoj Kumar Agrawal, is the witness of seizure of scooty from the spot and blood stained and plain soil (exhibit P-15 and P-14, respectively). In cross-examination, he was given suggestion that, he kept the deceased at Bilaspur, in a rented house, but he denied. 22. PW-9, Janak Ram Khusro was the incharge of police vehicle 112. On the date of incident, at about 12:30 PM, he received the information through MDTT, C-4, Raipur about the incident and when he reached to the spot, he saw the deceased struggling for her life due to the injuries. He took her to Baloda hospital and informed her family members. In cross-examination, he stated that the persons, who were present on the spot, informed him that the person, who caused accident has fled away. The number plate of four-wheeler vehicle was broken and lying on the spot 23. PW-17, Mohammed Shahbaz Ahamad is the constable posted at police station Baloda. He stated that he received information about the incident from Dial 112 and he informed it to police station Baloda. After receiving information, he along with Rohit Sahu constable reached on 14 the spot and saw the deceased in injured condition. Considering her condition, she was being sent to Baloda hospital. When the leading question was asked, he disclosed that the person who present on the spot, informed him that the appellant firstly dashed the scooty and thereafter assaulted the deceased by iron rod. Though some discrepancies in his police statement is tried to brought by the defence, but looking to the other evidence available in the case. The discrepancy does not appears to be substantive. Further that, this witness had gone to the spot after the incident. 24. PW-13, S.N. Tandon and PW-14, Mahadeva Ram Chouhan are the investigating officer, who conducted the investigation and proved their part of investigation, which they conducted and various seizure made from the appellant including the iron rod, clothes and Maruti van of the appellant. They being the procedural witness of investigation duly supported the prosecution’s case. 25. From the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court held that it is the appellant and none other else who caused injuries to the deceased initially by dashing her scooty and then assaulting by iron rod. The incident was witnessed by PW-1 and PW-4. Motive is also there, which has been proved by PW-2, PW-15 and PW-16. The homicidal death of the deceased has been proved by PW-8, Dr. R.K. Markam. But for minor omissions and contradiction, which are trivial in nature, there are sufficient evidence against the appellant, which pointed towards his guilt. 15 26. The minor discrepancies in the evidence of prosecution witnesses can be ignored, when the substantive part of their evidence are reliable. In the case of “Mallikarjun and others v. State of Karnataka” 2019 (8) SCC 359, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “13. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be to assess whether the evidence of a witness read as a whole appears to be truthful. Once the impression is formed, it is necessary for the court to evaluate the evidence and the alleged discrepancies and then, to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the prosecution case. If the evidence of eye witness is found to be credible and trustworthy, minor discrepancies which do not affect the core of the prosecution case, cannot be made a ground to doubt the trustworthiness of the witness. 14. Observing that minor discrepancies and inconsistent version do not necessarily demolish the prosecution case if it is otherwise found to be creditworthy, in Bakhshish Singh v. State of Punjab, (2013) 12 SCC 187, it was held as under:- 32. In Sunil Kumar Sambhudayal Gupta v. State of Maharashtra, (2010) 13 SCC 657 this Court observed as follows: "30. While appreciating the evidence, the court has to take into consideration whether the contradictions/omissions had been of such magnitude that they may materially affect the trial. Minor contradictions, inconsistencies, embellishments or improvements on trivial matters without 16 effecting the core of the prosecution case should not be made a ground to reject the evidence in its entirety. The trial court, after going through the entire evidence, must form an opinion about the credibility of the witnesses and the appellate court in nor- mal course would not be justified in reviewing the same again without justifiable reasons. (Vide State v. Saravanan, (2008) 17 SCC 587.)" 33. ....... this Court in Raj Kumar Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2013) 5 SCC 722 has observed as under: "43.... It is a settled legal proposition that, while appreciating the evidence of a witness, minor discrepancies on trivial matters, which do not affect the core of the case of the prosecution, must not prompt the court to reject the evidence thus provided, in its entirety. The irrel-evant details which do not in any way corrode the credibility of a witness, cannot be labelled as omissions or contradictions. Therefore, the courts must be cautious and very particular in their exercise of appreciating evidence. The approach to be adopted is, if the evidence of a witness is read in its entirety, and the same appears to have in it, a ring of truth, then it may become necessary for the court to scruti-nise the evidence more particularly, keeping in mind the deficiencies, drawbacks and infirmities pointed out in the said evidence as a whole, and evaluate them separately, to 17 determine whether the same are completely against the nature of the evidence provided by the witnesses, and whether the validity of such evidence is shaken by virtue of such evaluation, rendering it unworthy of belief." (emphasis supplied)” 27. In the matter of “State of U.P. v. M.K. Anthony” 1985 (1) SCC 505 the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that:- “10. While appreciating the evidence of a witness, the approach must be whether the evidence of the witness read as a whole appears to have a ring of truth. Once that impression is formed, it is undoubtedly necessary for the court to scrutinise the evidence more particularly keeping in view the deficiencies, draw-backs and infirmities pointed out in the evidence as a whole and evaluate them to find out whether it is against the general tenor of the evidence given by the witness and whether the earlier evaluation of the evidence is shaken as to render it unworthy of belief. Minor discrepancies on trivial matters not touching the core of the case, hyper-technical approach by taking sentences torn out of context here or there from the evidence, attaching importance to some technical error committed by the investigating officer not going to the : root of the matter would not ordinarily permit rejection of the evidence as a whole. If the court before whom the witness gives evidence had the opportunity to form the opinion about the general tenor of evidence given by the witness, the appellate court which had not this benefit will have to attach due weight to the 18 appreciation of evidence by the trial court and unless there are reasons weighty and formidable it would not be proper to reject the evidence on the ground of minor variations or infirmities in the matter of trivial details. Even honest and truthful witnesses may differ in some details unrelated to the main incident because power of observation, retention and reproduction differ with individuals. Cross examination is an unequal duel between a rustic and refined lawyer. Having examined the evidence of this witness, a friend and well-wisher of the family carefully giving due weight to the comments made by the learned Counsel for the respondent and the reasons assigned to by the High Court for rejecting his evidence simultaneously keeping in view the appreciation of the evidence of this witness by the trial court, we have no hesitation in holding that the High Court was in error in rejecting the testimony of witness Nair whose evidence appears to us trustworthy and credible.” 28. Considering the entire evidence available on record, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for commission of the murder of the deceased Lata Dahariya and has rightly convicted and sentenced him for the alleged offence. There is no scope for any interference in the appeal and accordingly the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 29. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 05.08.2019. He shall undergo the remaining part of the sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 19 30. 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. 31. 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 ved