1 2026:CGHC:1015 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 358 of 2016 1 - Kartikdas And Others S/o Bisauhadas Aged About 60 Years R/o Village Chutchutiya, P.S. Simga, Distt. Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh 2 - Bhukhanlal S/o Kartikdas Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Chutchutiya, P.S. Simga, Distt. Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh 3 - Rameshwar S/o Kartikdas Satnami Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Chutchutiya, P.S. Simga, Distt. Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. , District : Balodabazar-Bhathapara, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Simga, Distt. Baloda Bazar Chhattisgarh. , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Adil Minhaj, Advocate For State : Ms. Supriya Upasane, Govt. Advocate along with Ms. Isha Jajodiya, Panel Lawyer SB- Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Order on Board 07.01.2026 1. Heard on I.A. No. 01 of 2025, which is an application for taking additional document on record. 2 2. On due consideration of the reasons mentioned in the application, the same is allowed. 3. Since appellant No. 1, Kartikdas has expired, the appeal in his respect already stands abated. 4. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 22.02.2016, passed in S.T. No. H-12/2014, whereby learned Additional Session Judge, Bhatapara, District – Baloda Bazar (C.G.) convicted each of appellants for offences as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 304 Part 2 of the I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of fine additional S. I. for three months to each of the appellants. U/s 323 of the I.P.C. (for injury to Santram) Simple imprisonment for 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of fine additional S. I. for one month to each of the appellants. U/s 323 of the I.P.C. (for injury to Hemant) Simple imprisonment for 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of fine additional S. I. for one month to each of the appellants. U/s 323 of the I.P.C. (for injury to Mohit) Simple imprisonment for 06 months and fine of Rs. 500/- each. In default of fine additional S. I. for one month to each of the appellants. Note : All the sentence shall run concurrently. 5. The prosecution case, in substance, is that on 10.02.2014, during road- widening work under the MNREGA scheme in village Churchutia within the jurisdiction of Police Station Simga, the deceased Rooplal had removed the boundary wall of his own house, which was an encroachment, at the request of villagers, and thereafter asked accused Kartik Satnami, who had also illegally encroached upon the road, to demolish a portion of his house for the same purpose. This led to a quarrel, whereupon accused Kartik Satnami, along with co- accused Rameshwar, Ashwini, Santosh, Bhukhan, Makhan, Motilal, Meena, Anjani, Sukhwantin, Kanti Bai and Amrit, acting in furtherance 3 of their common object, assaulted Rooplal with kalari and bamboo sticks and pelted stones, causing him to fall to the ground and sustain serious injuries. When the applicant Santram’s brother Mohit and others, including Mohar, Hemant and sister Sonkali, intervened, they were also beaten with sticks and threatened with death. Rooplal was taken in a critical condition to Simga Hospital and later referred to Raipur, where he succumbed to his injuries during treatment at Narayana Hospital. On the complaint of applicant Santram Markandey, FIR No. 50/14 was registered for offences under Sections 307, 294, 323, 506-B, 147, 148 and 149 IPC, which, after the death of Rooplal, was converted to an offence under Section 302 IPC. 6. During investigation, the accused were identified, their memorandum statements were recorded, weapons including kalari, bamboo-sticks and wooden sticks were seized, and blood-stained soil and stones were collected from the spot. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed, and charges were framed against the accused under Sections 147/148, 294, 506 Part-II, 302 read with 149 and 323 read with 149 IPC, to which the accused pleaded not guilty, claiming false implication, while the prosecution maintains that the fatal assault arose out of the dispute over removal of encroachment for road widening. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is contrary to law as well as the facts and circumstances of the case and has been passed without proper appreciation of the evidence on record. It is contended that the learned trial Court failed to consider that the prosecution story is per se unbelievable, illogical and inherently improbable, and therefore does not inspire confidence. 4 According to the appellants, the prosecution has utterly failed to place on record any reliable, cogent or credible evidence which could legally connect the appellants with the alleged offence. It is further argued that the learned trial Court gravely erred in overlooking the fact that the prosecution did not prove the post-mortem report in accordance with law, nor was the doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination examined before the Court. In the absence of such crucial medical evidence, the prosecution failed to establish even the homicidal nature of the death. The circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution is stated to be wholly insufficient and incapable of forming a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the appellants. Learned counsel further submits that the conviction recorded by the Court below is based on conjectures, surmises and presumptions rather than legally admissible evidence. It is contended that the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are mutually contradictory and materially inconsistent with the prosecution version, thereby rendering them unreliable. The allegations made in their statements are described as exaggerated, absurd and inherently improbable, and hence unworthy of reliance. 8. It is also contended by the learned counsel for appellants that the prosecution has failed to prove any recovery of incriminating material or any disclosure attributable to the appellants in accordance with law. In the absence of such proof, the conviction of the appellants is asserted to be improper, erroneous and unsustainable. Learned counsel emphasizes that there is absolutely no evidence on record to suggest that the appellants committed the alleged offence and that they have been falsely implicated due to previous animosity. Lastly, it 5 is argued that the prosecution has failed to produce any credible witness or legally admissible evidence to bring home the charge even under Section 304 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code. The impugned judgment, therefore, suffers from serious legal infirmities and material illegality and is liable to be set aside. Accordingly, learned counsel prays that this Court be pleased to quash the judgment dated 22.02.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. H-12/2014 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Baloda Bazar (C.G.), and to acquit the appellants of all the charges. 9. Learned State Counsel, opposing the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants, contends that the impugned judgment is well- reasoned, based on proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. It is submitted that the prosecution has successfully proved the involvement of the appellants through consistent and trustworthy eyewitness testimony, which clearly establishes the unlawful assembly, the overt acts of the accused, and the fatal assault on the deceased. The State further submits that minor discrepancies, if any, in the statements of prosecution witnesses are natural and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It is argued that the homicidal death of the deceased stands proved from the material on record and surrounding circumstances, and non-examination of the post-mortem doctor is not fatal to the prosecution case when other reliable evidence is available. The recoveries of weapons and other incriminating materials, coupled with medical and ocular evidence, sufficiently corroborate the prosecution version. Learned State Counsel therefore submits that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants 6 after due appreciation of evidence, and the appeal lacks merit. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal be dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court be affirmed. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeal with utmost circumspection. 11. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is whether the death of the deceased, Rooplal, has been proved by the prosecution to be homicidal in nature? In order to establish the same, the prosecution examined Dr. G.S. Som (P.W.-10), who medically examined the injured/deceased and found only one injury on the person of the deceased, described as a lacerated wound on the right side of the temporal bone measuring ½ x ½ inch, muscle deep and touching the bone. The said injury was opined to be grievous in nature. However, admittedly, no X-ray report has been brought on record by the prosecution to substantiate the extent or internal impact of the said injury. More importantly, the prosecution has failed to prove the postmortem report of the deceased. The doctor who conducted the postmortem examination has not been examined before the learned trial Court. In the absence of examination of the autopsy surgeon and formal proof of the postmortem report, the medical evidence regarding the exact cause of death remains unsubstantiated. There is no cogent medical opinion on record establishing that the injury found on the person of the deceased was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or that the death was the direct result of any homicidal act. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the 7 prosecution must establish beyond reasonable doubt not only the factum of death but also that such death was homicidal. In the present case, the foundational requirement of proving the homicidal nature of death has not been satisfactorily discharged. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove that the death of Rooplal was homicidal in nature. 12. The case revolves around a dispute regarding encroachment removal during a road-widening project under the MNREGA scheme. The deceased, Rooplal, was allegedly assaulted by the accused following a quarrel with Kartik Satnami, which ultimately led to his death. The appellants, along with other co-accused, were implicated in the crime, and the trial court convicted them based on circumstantial and testimonial evidence. 13. Kamal Kosle is examined as PW-1. He admitted knowing the deceased, accused and injured, but claimed no knowledge of the actual incident. He was declared hostile. Though he admitted that MNREGA road-widening work was underway and that both Rooplal and Kartik were asked to remove encroachments, he denied witnessing any assault and did not support the prosecution regarding seizure or participation of the accused. In cross-examination, he stated that several accused were elsewhere at the relevant time and admitted that he was working about one kilometer away. His evidence did not support the prosecution case on assault. 14. Tirith Kumar, examined as PW-2, initially stated that he had no knowledge of the incident and was also declared hostile. On leading questions, he accepted that there was a dispute between Rooplal and Kartik over encroachment and that Rooplal was beaten, resulting in his 8 death. However, his statement lacked clarity and certainty, and in cross-examination he admitted that MNREGA work was being carried out at a distance, thereby weakening his value as an eyewitness. Guru Prasad, examined as PW-3, stated that he had no knowledge of the incident and did not support the prosecution case. He was treated as a hostile witness and his evidence did not advance the prosecution version regarding the assault. 15. PW-4, Santram Markandey (son of deceased and complainant) is the principal eyewitness and informant. He deposed in detail about the MNREGA road-widening work, the removal of encroachment by his family, and the demand made to accused Kartik to remove his encroachment. He alleged that all accused assaulted Rooplal with kalari, sticks and stones, resulting in fatal head injuries, and that intervening family members were also beaten. He proved the FIR, spot map, seizure memos and inquest documents. In cross-examination, several omissions and contradictions vis-à-vis his police statement were highlighted, and suggestions of previous enmity and false implication were put, which he denied. Being a closely related and interested witness, his testimony required corroboration. 16. Krishna Lal, examined as PW-5, claimed to be present at the MNREGA work site and stated that a dispute arose between Rooplal and Jeevan, after which Kartik and others assaulted Rooplal with sticks. However, he admitted that the deceased was his uncle and made several inconsistent statements, including uncertainty about specific blows. His evidence partially supported the prosecution but lacked consistency. 17. PW-6 Mohit (son of deceased), supported the prosecution version and stated that accused persons assaulted his father with sticks, kalari and 9 stones after a dispute over encroachment. He also proved his signatures on inquest documents. In cross-examination, he denied that his father was quarrelsome or that the injuries were caused due to a fall, and denied the defence plea of alibi for several accused. His testimony, being that of an interested witness, was treated with caution. 18. PW-7 Mohardas (son of deceased) corroborated the prosecution case, stating that Kartik and other accused assaulted Rooplal, causing severe head injuries, and that he too was beaten when he intervened. He supported seizure proceedings and inquest documents. In cross- examination, he admitted that MNREGA work was going on and that some accused lived separately, but denied defence suggestions that Rooplal fell on stones or that all accused were falsely implicated. 19. PW-8, Ganga Bai (daughter-in-law of deceased) deposed that accused persons assaulted Rooplal with sticks and stones and also attacked intervening family members. She supported the prosecution narrative of encroachment-related dispute. In cross-examination, she denied defence suggestions that Rooplal caused the incident himself or that accused persons were absent. Her testimony, though supportive, was that of a related witness. PW-9, Bhushan did not support the prosecution case as an eyewitness and failed to corroborate the assault. His evidence was of little assistance to the prosecution. 20. PW-10 - Dr. G.S. Som examined injured Rooplal at CHC Simga and found a serious lacerated head injury extending to the bone, caused by a hard and blunt object. Rooplal was unconscious and referred to a higher centre. In cross-examination, he admitted that such injury could also occur due to a fall on a hard surface, and that he did not examine the entire body. His evidence established the seriousness of the head 10 injury but did not conclusively rule out accidental fall. PW-11 Chandrashekhar Markandey, stated that he heard about the fight and later learnt that Rooplal had died. He was declared hostile. On leading questions, he admitted seeing Kartik and others abusing Rooplal but conceded that the assault did not take place in his presence. His evidence only establishes a dispute, not the assault itself. 21. Pritam Markandey examined as PW-12 stated that he only heard about the fight and death of Rooplal and had no direct knowledge of the assault. He was declared hostile and admitted that he did not witness the incident. His testimony did not materially support the prosecution. PW-14 Sonkali (daughter of deceased) supported the prosecution case regarding assault with sticks and kalari resulting in fatal injuries to her father. However, in cross-examination she admitted that she could not clearly explain what exactly transpired, that many villagers were present, and that her father was quarrelsome. Her testimony was partly inconsistent and required corroboration. PW-15 Shivkali, stated that she was at home and had no knowledge of how Rooplal died. She was declared hostile and, in cross-examination, admitted that Rooplal was quarrelsome and had encroached land. She also admitted that several accused were not involved in MNREGA work. Her evidence weakened the prosecution version. PW-16, Naresh Banjare stated that he heard about a quarrel but did not witness the incident and was declared hostile. He denied that MNREGA work was going on that day. His testimony did not support the prosecution. PW-17 Ranjit Singh stated that he only read about Rooplal’s death in the newspaper and had no personal knowledge. He was declared hostile and provided no substantive evidence. PW-18 Mahendra Markandey & PW-19 Nirmala 11 Bai Both witnesses stated that they were unaware of the incident and did not support the prosecution case. 22. PW-20 Hemant Markandey (son of deceased) PW-20 corroborated the prosecution version of assault by Kartik, Rameshwar and others with sticks, kalari and stones, resulting in fatal head injury to Rooplal. He proved inquest documents. In cross-examination, several defence suggestions of fall and alibi were denied. His testimony was treated as that of an interested witness. PW-21 Tejram (Sarpanch) PW-21 stated that a quarrel took place between Rooplal and Kartik and that Kartik pelted stones causing Rooplal to fall. He did not clearly support a collective assault. In cross-examination, he admitted that several accused did not work under MNREGA and that Rooplal had encroached land. His evidence supported the occurrence of a dispute but not the full prosecution case. 23. PW-24 Dr. A. Sharma examined injured Santram, Mohit, Hemant, Mohar and Sonkali and found simple injuries of normal nature on Santram, Mohit and Hemant, while Mohar and Sonkali had either minor or no visible injuries. In cross-examination, he admitted that the injuries could be self-inflicted. His evidence proved presence of injured witnesses but not the manner of assault conclusively. PW-25 G.R. Patre (Investigating Officer) detailed the registration of FIR, seizure of weapons, preparation of spot map, arrest of accused and forwarding of exhibits to FSL. In cross-examination, he admitted several inconsistencies, including that MNREGA work was not going on when he reached the spot and that post-mortem doctor was not examined. His evidence established investigation steps but also exposed procedural gaps. 12 24. Where as Smt. Uttari Devi Miri, examined as the defence witness and employment assistant of village Churchutia, testified that the MNREGA road-widening and gravelling work in the village was carried out from 06.02.2014 to 09.02.2014, with only individuals over the age of 18 permitted to participate. She further stated that the accused, Kartikdas (deceased), Amrit Bai, Santosh, and Motilal, were not involved in any of the work under the MNREGA scheme, and on the date of the incident, 10.02.2014, no work was being done in the village. 25. The aforesaid evidence of witness (Smt. Uttari Devi Miri) contradicted the prosecution's assertion that the assault was connected to the ongoing road-widening project. However, the witness admitted that she did not produce the original master roll, which would have substantiated her claims. During cross-examination, she reaffirmed that no work was being conducted on the day of the incident, further supporting the defence's argument that the dispute could not have been related to the MNREGA project. Despite the lack of documentary evidence, her testimony undermined the prosecution's version by suggesting that the timing of the incident and the accused's non- involvement in the project cast doubt on the alleged link between the assault and the road-widening work. 26. From perusal of the above evidences of witnesses and after a thorough review, this court finds that the prosecution has failed to present convincing and reliable evidence to implicate the appellants. The appellants No. 2 and 3 are primarily implicated based on their presence at the scene of the incident. However, mere presence at the scene of the crime is insufficient to establish participation in the commission of the offence unless the prosecution proves active 13 involvement. There is no direct evidence, either oral or circumstantial, that shows that these appellants were directly involved in the assault or had any intention to cause the fatal injuries to Rooplal. The prosecution has failed to establish a direct link between the appellants and the assault. 27. One of the key witnesses in the case, who was supposed to support the seizure of weapons (kalari, bamboo sticks, etc.) and blood-stained soil, turned hostile. This raises serious doubts about the credibility of the evidence presented by the prosecution. The testimony of a hostile witness, unless corroborated by independent and reliable evidence, cannot be the sole basis of conviction. It is also noteworthy that the trial Court acquitted several other co-accused, including Santosh, Sukhmantibai, Meenabai, Amritbai, Kantibai, Jeevanlal, Makhanlal, Ashvinin, and Shrimati Anjali. These acquittals were based on similar evidence, and the fact that these individuals were acquitted undermines the prosecution’s case against the appellants. If the evidence was insufficient to convict the other accused, it raises questions about why the appellants should be convicted on the same set of evidence. 28. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, particularly those of family members of the deceased, were inconsistent and contradictory. While witnesses such as PW-4 (Santram Markandey), PW-6 (Mohit), and PW-7 (Mohardas) supported the narrative of a quarrel leading to an assault, their testimony lacked clarity and was often filled with contradictions. For instance, PW-4 (the complainant and son of the deceased) was unable to explain several inconsistencies in his version of events when cross-examined. Witnesses like PW-2 (Tirith Kumar) 14 and PW-3 (Guru Prasad) were declared hostile and did not support the prosecution case. Moreover, PW-5 (Krishna Lal), a key eyewitness, was uncertain about the specific acts of the assault, and PW-14 (Sonkali) admitted that she could not clearly explain what transpired. In fact, several witnesses were either hostile or did not support the prosecution version of events, further weakening the case. 29. The medical evidence, though pointing to serious injuries on Rooplal’s head, was inconclusive as to whether those injuries were caused by a fall or by an assault with a weapon. Dr. G.S. Som (PW-10) who examined the deceased only found the head injury and did not conclusively rule out the possibility of a fall leading to the fatal injury. This casts doubt on the prosecution's assertion that the injuries were caused by the accused with deliberate intent. There are significant gaps in the investigation, including procedural irregularities. The Investigating Officer (PW-25) admitted that the post-mortem report doctor was not examined, and that the MNREGA work was not taking place at the time of the incident, which contradicted the prosecution’s version. The failure to examine the doctor who conducted the post- mortem examination was a significant flaw, as the medical report could have provided crucial insights into the cause of death. 30. The prosecution has failed to produce corroborative evidence linking the appellants to the alleged crime. No weapons were conclusively recovered from the appellants, and there is no reliable testimony establishing the appellants' active participation in the fatal assault. Without such corroboration, the case against the appellants lacks substance. 15 31. After a detailed scrutiny of the evidence and testimonies presented, this Court finds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses are unreliable, inconsistent, and contradictory. The seizure witnesses turned hostile, and the medical evidence does not conclusively support the prosecution’s theory of assault. Further, it is significant to note that on the very same set of oral and documentary evidence, the learned trial Court has acquitted the other co-accused persons, namely Santosh, Sukhmantibai, Meenabai, Amritbai, Kantibai, Jeevanlal, Makhanlal, Ashvinin and Smt. Anjali, of the charge under Section 304 Part II of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence adduced by the prosecution being common and indivisible in nature, the distinction sought to be drawn by the trial Court in convicting the present appellants, while extending the benefit of doubt to the remaining accused, does not appear to be supported by any cogent or legally admissible material on record. It is also pertinent to observe that the appellants have been convicted simpliciter under Section 304 Part II IPC, without the aid of Section 34 IPC. In the absence of invocation or application of Section 34 IPC, the prosecution was under a clear obligation to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the specific overt act attributable to each of the appellants. However, there is no reliable or definite evidence on record demonstrating as to which of the appellants inflicted the fatal injury upon the deceased Rooplal. The record reveals that as many as twelve persons were arrayed as accused in the case. Yet, only three appellants have been convicted, without there being clear, consistent and corroborative evidence specifically implicating them. When, on the same evidentiary foundation, the co-accused have 16 been acquitted, and the prosecution has failed to establish distinct and individual roles of the present appellants, sustaining their conviction would be unsafe and contrary to settled principles of criminal jurisprudence. In view of the failure of the prosecution to produce credible, cogent and corroborative evidence against the appellants, this Court is of the considered opinion that their guilt has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the appellants cannot be held guilty of the offences punishable under Section 304 Part II IPC and Section 323 IPC. 32. In light of the above, the appeal is allowed, and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court is set aside. The appellants are acquitted of all charges. 33. The appellants No. 2 and 3 are reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of CRFurther considering the fact that on same sets of evidence, learned trial Court acquitted other co- accused including Santosh, Sukhmantibai, Meenabai, Amritbai, Kantibai, Jeevanlal, Makhanlal, Ashvinin, and Shrimati Anjali under Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC. It is also pertinent to mention here that without aid of Section 34 of the IPC, appellants have been convicted simplicitor under Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC. There is no absolute evidence on record as to which of the appellant caused injury to the deceased Rooplal. There were as many as 12 accused persons but three appellants have been convicted for the alleged offence by the learned trial Court without there being any legally admissible evidence against them and on the basis of same set of evidence, other co- accused persons have been acquitted, therefore, this Court is of the considered view that failure of prosecution to provide credible and 17 coroborative evidence against appellants leads this Court to conclude that the appellants cannot be held guilty for committing offence under Section 304 Part 2 of the IPC and Section 323 of the IPC..P.C., the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Cr.P.C. of sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the trial 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 transmit the lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) Arpan Judge