IMPORTANT POINT
Murder and rioting – Merely because witness is an interested or related witness, his/her deposition cannot be discarded – Deposition of such witnesses is required to be scrutinized closely.

JUDGMENT :

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and order dated 17.02.2021 rendered by the Chhattisgarh High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 904 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal No. 931 of 2012. The present Criminal Appeal No. 3647 of 2025 has been filed by original accused no. 2 and accused no. 3, whereas the Criminal Appeal No. 3648 of 2025 has been filed by original accused no. 6, accused no. 7 and accused no. 5.

2. In both these appeals, the appellants-accused persons have challenged the judgment and order rendered by the High Court by which the appeals preferred by the appellants came to be dismissed. The High Court has thereby affirmed the order of conviction and sentence dated 01.09.2012 passed by IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.

3. Factual Matrix of the present case is as under:

i. It is a case of the prosecution that on 14.07.2010, the informant, i.e. Parasbai, was cooking the food inside her house. Her son, Goreylal, had gone to take bath in the pond. At about 09:00 A.M. granddaughter of the informant, Indu Bai, came and informed the informant that persons belonging to caste-Teli were assaulting her father. On hearing the same, the informant came out of her house and went near the pond. At that time, she saw that in front one Maya Ram Sahu’s house, the accused persons, namely, Sonaibai, Punimati, Punibai, Shyambai, Dayalu, Gajadhar and Dayanidhi Sahu, were assaulting her son with lathi/stick and even stones were pelted at him. It is also stated that they tied the hands of her son at the back side. Thereafter, she went back to her house and came out of it after some time, and she found that her son had died.

ii. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged before the concerned Police Station for commission of the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 of INDIAN PENAL CODE , 1980, (hereinafter to be referred as “the IPC”) against the accused persons.

iii. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the chargesheet against the accused persons.

iv. Charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section 148 and 149 of the IPC against the accused persons. Additional charge was framed against accused no. 5 for committing offence under Section 506 B of the IPC for giving threat to Parasbai, PW-4.

v. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined ten witnesses and produced documentary evidence. Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came to be recorded.

vi. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the accused persons for committing the offences punishable under Section 302 read with Section 149 , and 148 of the IPC.

vii. Accordingly, under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC, accused persons were sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs. 1,000/- and in default, further imprisonment for 6 months was awarded. And under Section 148 of the IPC, accused persons were sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 200/- was also imposed, and in default, further imprisonment of 6 months was awarded.

viii. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered by the Trial Court, the accused persons preferred separate criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal Nos. 904 of 2012 and 931 of 2012, before the High Court.

ix. The High Court vide impugned judgment and order d