1 CGHC010153652023 2026:CGHC:37065-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1080 of 2023 Manharan Lal Chouhan S/o Hulas Ram Chouhan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village - Pidiya Dham Nagar, Awas Plot, Kartala, Police Station- Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kartala, District : Korba, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Add. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 19.08.2026 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.04.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.08.21 10:46:23 +0530 2 No.105/2019, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo R.I. for 5 days and under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine, to further under R.I. for 5 days. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 06.10.2019, between about 5.00 p.m. and 7.10 p.m., at Village Pidia, Dham Nagar Awas Plot, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Kartala, the appellant/accused Manharan Lal Chouhan assaulted his wife Devmati with a bamboo stick, causing injuries to her body, including a serious injury to her head. It is alleged that as a consequence of the assault, Devmati succumbed to the injuries. Thereafter, with the intention of screening himself from the offence, the appellant caused the dead body of his wife to be buried at the village cremation/burial ground. 3. On 07.10.2019, PW-1 Ghurao Ram Rathia, accompanied by the Sarpanch Shravan Kumar Rathia, Ward Panch Mange Lal Rathia and other villagers, approached Police Station Kartala and informed that on the previous evening he had seen the appellant assaulting his wife Devmati with a bamboo stick. He further informed that other villagers had also witnessed the assault and that, on the following day, the appellant informed the villagers that 3 his wife had died and that her body was required to be buried. On the basis of the said information, merg intimation was registered. 4. During the merg inquiry, permission was obtained from the competent Executive Magistrate for exhumation of the dead body. The dead body of Devmati was thereafter exhumed from the place of burial in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and witnesses, and the requisite panchnama proceedings were conducted. The dead body was subjected to postmortem examination by PW-9 Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh at the spot. In the postmortem examination, several ante-mortem injuries were found on the body of the deceased, including a serious head injury with intracranial haematoma. The doctor opined that the cause of death was shock due to head injury and that the nature of death was homicidal. 5. During investigation, the spot map was prepared and statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. On the basis of the memorandum statement of the appellant under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, a bamboo stick was recovered from his house and seized. The bamboo stick was thereafter examined by the doctor, who opined that the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by the said stick. The clothes worn by the deceased were also seized and sent for forensic examination, wherein human blood was detected on the blouse and petticoat. 4 6. After completion of investigation, the police filed a charge-sheet against the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session for trial. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral, medical and documentary evidence, convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him to imprisonment for life under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years under Section 201 of the Indian Penal Code, along with fine. Aggrieved thereby, the present appeal has been preferred. 7. Mr. Gagan Tiwari, Amicus Curiae submits that the impugned judgment dated 10.04.2023 is contrary to the facts, evidence and settled principles of law and is therefore liable to be set aside. It is contended that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has recorded the conviction on the basis of conjectures and surmises and the testimony of interested witnesses, despite material contradictions and omissions in their statements. It is further submitted that the incident occurred in a sudden and grave provocation and that the appellant had neither any intention nor motive to cause the death of the deceased. Learned counsel also submits that the medical evidence does not fully support the prosecution version, that the injuries found on the deceased were not consistent with the manner alleged by the prosecution and that the possibility of the deceased having died for want of timely medical treatment could 5 not be ruled out. It is argued that several material prosecution witnesses did not support the prosecution case and that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is neither cogent nor reliable enough to establish the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt. On these grounds, it is prayed that the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant be set aside and he be acquitted of the charges. 8. Per contra, learned Additional Advocate General appearing for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the entire evidence available on record. It is contended that the prosecution case is duly established by the consistent and trustworthy testimony of the eyewitnesses, which is corroborated by the medical evidence, the recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant and the other circumstances proved during investigation. The postmortem report clearly establishes that the deceased sustained ante-mortem injuries, particularly a serious head injury, and that the death was homicidal in nature. It is further submitted that the minor discrepancies or omissions pointed out by the defence do not affect the core of the prosecution case and cannot outweigh the cogent ocular and medical evidence available on record. Learned counsel therefore submits that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and that no perversity or illegality has been demonstrated in the findings recorded by the learned trial 6 Court. Accordingly, dismissal of the appeal and affirmation of the conviction and sentence are prayed for. 9. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased to be homicidal in nature ? 12. In this regard, the testimony of Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh (PW-9), who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased after her body was exhumed, assumes significance. The doctor found multiple ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased. Externally, there was an abrasion over the right knee, multiple contusions over the front of both thighs, bluish discoloration of the eyelids of the left eye, swelling measuring about 3 x 2 inches over the forehead above the right eyebrow and an abrasion over the right shoulder. On dissection, haematoma was found between the scalp and skull and blood was also found collected between the fascia and skull. On opening the skull, intracranial haematoma measuring about 3 x 2 cm was found in the right cerebral hemisphere in the region of the junction of the right parietal and 7 frontal bones. The doctor also noticed displacement of the lower jaw. 13. PW-9 has categorically stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased were ante-mortem. He has further opined that the cause of death was shock resulting from the head injury and that the nature of death was homicidal. Thus, the medical evidence does not indicate a natural or accidental death. On the contrary, the nature, location and severity of the injuries, particularly the intracranial haematoma, clearly establish that the deceased had suffered a serious bodily assault before her death. 14. The medical evidence further finds corroboration from the ocular evidence of PW-1 Ghurao Ram Rathia, PW-3 Kirti Singh and PW- 4 Sanat Ram. These witnesses have consistently stated that on 06.10.2019, in the evening, they saw the appellant assaulting his wife Devmati with a bamboo stick. PW-1 specifically stated that when he objected to the appellant assaulting his wife, the appellant chased him with the stick. PW-3 and PW-4 have substantially corroborated this version. Thus, the medical evidence establishing homicidal death is not standing in isolation but is supported by direct evidence regarding the assault immediately preceding the death. 15. The defence has attempted to suggest that the deceased had consumed liquor and might have fallen and sustained injuries. It is true that PW-11 has stated in his cross-examination that the 8 appellant and the deceased had consumed liquor. However, this circumstance by itself does not explain the serious injuries found during postmortem examination. In particular, the presence of intracranial haematoma, the significant head injury and the other ante-mortem injuries cannot be considered in isolation from the direct testimony of the eyewitnesses who saw the appellant assaulting the deceased. The medical expert, having examined the body, specifically opined that the death was homicidal. 16. The contention that the deceased died for want of timely medical treatment also does not create any reasonable doubt regarding the nature of death. There is no medical evidence on record suggesting that the deceased would otherwise have survived but for the alleged absence of treatment. The cause of death given by PW-9 is the head injury sustained by the deceased, and not any subsequent failure of medical treatment. Once the prosecution has established through medical evidence that the fatal injury was ante-mortem and that the death was homicidal, a mere suggestion regarding possible non-availability of treatment cannot displace that evidence. 17. It is also relevant that the body of the deceased was not immediately subjected to postmortem examination, as it had already been buried. Upon information being given to the police, the body was exhumed in the presence of the Executive Magistrate and thereafter examined by PW-9. The fact that the body had been buried does not weaken the medical evidence. On 9 the contrary, the exhumation and subsequent postmortem examination provided the prosecution with objective medical evidence regarding the actual cause and nature of death. 18. Thus, on a cumulative consideration of the postmortem report Ex.P-12, the testimony of PW-9 Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh, the ante- mortem injuries found on the body of the deceased, the opinion that the cause of death was shock due to head injury and that the death was homicidal, coupled with the ocular testimony regarding the assault immediately preceding the death, we are satisfied that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that Devmati died a homicidal death. 19. The next question for consideration is whether the appellant was the person who caused the death of deceased Devmati and, if so, whether the act committed by him amounts to culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 20. In this regard, the testimony of PW-1 Ghurao Ram Rathia, PW-3 Kirti Singh and PW-4 Sanat Ram assumes considerable significance. PW-1 has categorically deposed that on 06.10.2019, at about 5.00 to 6.00 p.m., he saw the appellant assaulting his wife Devmati with a bamboo stick near the Kosam tree. When PW-1 intervened and asked the appellant not to assault his wife, the appellant chased him with the same stick. PW-1 has further stated that the occurrence was witnessed by Kirti Singh, Sanat 10 Ram and other persons. His version regarding the assault is materially corroborated by PW-3 and PW-4, who have also stated that they saw the appellant beating Devmati with a bamboo stick. 21. The evidence of these witnesses is consistent on the material aspect of the occurrence. Their presence at or near the place of occurrence is also natural. No material contradiction has been brought out in their cross-examination which would render their presence doubtful. PW-3 and PW-4 have no apparent reason to falsely implicate the appellant. In particular, PW-4 is related to the appellant as his nephew, which makes the allegation of deliberate false implication even less probable in the absence of any cogent reason. 22. The testimony of the eyewitnesses receives substantial corroboration from the medical evidence. As noticed hereinabove, PW-9 Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh found several ante-mortem injuries on the body of the deceased, including a serious head injury and intracranial haematoma. He opined that the cause of death was shock resulting from the head injury and that the death was homicidal. Thus, the injuries found on the deceased are consistent with the prosecution version that she was assaulted with a hard and blunt object. 23. The prosecution has further relied upon the recovery of the bamboo stick. PW-14 Inspector Sunil Kumar Kurre has stated that the memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded and, 11 pursuant thereto, a bamboo stick was recovered from his house. PW-5 Shravan Kumar Rathia and PW-6 Mange Lal Rathia have supported the memorandum and seizure proceedings. PW-9, on examination of the bamboo stick pursuant to the medical query, opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the said stick. Although learned counsel for the appellant has pointed out some variation in the measurements of the stick mentioned in the seizure memo and the query report, such variation is not sufficient to discard the recovery, particularly when the presence of four knots and the approximate girth of the stick remain substantially consistent. In any event, the recovery is corroborative in nature and is not the sole basis for the conviction. 24. The defence has contended that the deceased had consumed liquor and could have sustained the injuries by falling. The said contention cannot be accepted in view of the direct ocular evidence. PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4 have specifically witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased with a stick. Their evidence is further corroborated by the medical opinion regarding the nature of injuries and cause of death. Merely because the deceased had consumed liquor, the possibility of an accidental fall cannot be accepted when there is reliable direct evidence establishing an assault immediately preceding her death. 25. The plea of alibi raised by the appellant also does not inspire confidence. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant stated that he had gone to 12 another village for work and had returned at about 5.00 p.m. However, DW-1 Jaylal Manjhi stated that the appellant had worked at his house from 8.30 a.m. till 5.30 p.m. Thus, even the defence evidence does not establish a consistent account regarding the appellant’s whereabouts. More importantly, the alleged alibi has not been established so as to displace the direct testimony of the eyewitnesses. 26. The argument that the prosecution failed to establish any motive to commit the offence also does not merit acceptance. The absence of proof of a specific motive is not fatal where the prosecution case is supported by direct and reliable eyewitness evidence. In the present case, the assault itself has been proved by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4, and their testimony is corroborated by the medical evidence. 27. The contention regarding grave and sudden provocation is equally without substance. No evidence has been brought on record to establish any particular act or circumstance on the part of the deceased which could constitute grave and sudden provocation so as to bring the case within any exception to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Mere consumption of liquor or an ordinary quarrel between spouses cannot, in the absence of further material, be treated as sufficient proof of grave and sudden provocation. 13 28. The manner of assault is also relevant. The appellant did not merely cause a single inadvertent injury. The evidence indicates that he assaulted his wife with a bamboo stick and continued to do so even when PW-1 intervened and asked him to stop. A serious injury was caused to the head, resulting in intracranial haematoma and ultimately death. The nature of the injury, the weapon used and the manner of its use establish that the appellant had, at the very least, knowledge that such an assault was likely to cause death. 29. The evidence, therefore, establishes a direct nexus between the act of the appellant and the death of Devmati. The fatal head injury was sustained during the assault witnessed by PW-1, PW-3 and PW-4, and the medical evidence establishes that the same resulted in her death. 30. In the totality of the circumstances, we find that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant caused the death of his wife Devmati by assaulting her with a bamboo stick and that the culpable homicide committed by him falls within the ambit of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The finding of the learned trial Court on this count, therefore, calls for no interference. 31. The next question is whether the appellant committed an offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC. In this regard, PW-1 Ghurao Ram Rathia, PW-2 Babulal Manjhwar and PW-11 Navdha 14 Ram Chouhan have deposed that on the following day, the appellant informed the villagers that his wife Devmati had died and that her dead body was required to be buried. Pursuant thereto, the dead body was taken to the village burial ground and buried. 32. Subsequently, on receiving information, the police initiated merg proceedings, obtained permission for exhumation and the dead body was exhumed in the presence of the Executive Magistrate. The postmortem examination thereafter revealed ante-mortem injuries and established that the death was homicidal in nature. 33. The appellant, being the husband of the deceased and having knowledge of the circumstances in which she had died, caused the dead body to be buried without reporting the matter to the police, thereby concealing the material evidence of the offence. The subsequent exhumation itself demonstrates that the burial had prevented immediate examination of the body and detection of the homicidal injuries. 34. Thus, the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant, with the intention of screening himself from legal punishment, caused disappearance of the evidence of the offence by causing the dead body of Devmati to be buried. The conviction under Section 201 IPC is, therefore, justified. 35. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the learned Trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that: 15 A). The death of deceased Devmati was homicidal in nature. B). On 06.10.2019, the appellant was seen assaulting his wife Devmati with a bamboo stick. C). PW-1 Ghurao Ram Rathia, PW-3 Kirti Singh and PW- D). Sanat Ram are the eyewitnesses to the assault committed by the appellant. E). The testimony of the aforesaid eyewitnesses is duly corroborated by the medical evidence of PW-9 Dr. Vivek Pratap Singh, who opined that the cause of death was shock due to head injury and that the death was homicidal in nature. F). Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, a bamboo stick was recovered from his house, which, as per the medical opinion, could have caused the injuries sustained by the deceased. 36. On the basis of the testimony of the eyewitnesses, the medical evidence and the other incriminating circumstances available on record, we are of the considered view that the learned Trial Court has rightly held the appellant guilty for causing the death of his wife Devmati. The defence taken by the appellant regarding accidental fall, consumption of liquor by the deceased and the alleged alibi does not create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. Further, the evidence of PW-1, PW-2 and PW- 16 11 establishes that after the death of Devmati, her dead body was buried, which was subsequently exhumed and subjected to postmortem examination. Thus, the conviction of the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC is based on proper appreciation of the evidence on record. We do not find any perversity or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court warranting interference by this Court. 37. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. 38. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. 39. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the 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 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 17 40. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet