Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , JJ
Sunher Pudo S/o Late Shri Ramsingh Pudo - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through District North Bastar, Kanker - Respondent
CRA No. 354, 309, 425, 1333 of 2024
Decided on : 26-03-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 148, 120B, and 302/149 - Conviction of appellants for murder and conspiracy - The trial court found that the appellants conspired to murder the deceased, Dadusingh Koratia, as part of an unlawful assembly, and committed the act with deadly weapons. The evidence included eyewitness testimony and postmortem findings confirming the homicidal nature of the death. (Paras 4, 10, 41, 42)
(B) Criminal Conspiracy - Definition and proof - The court reiterated that conspiracy can be established through circumstantial evidence and the presence of the accused in an unlawful assembly suffices for liability under Section 149 IPC. (Paras 25, 30, 39)
(C) Eyewitness Testimony - The court emphasized the reliability of eyewitness accounts, particularly from injured witnesses, and the evidentiary value of their statements despite minor contradictions. (Paras 22, 23, 24)
(D) Legal Standards - The court affirmed that the prosecution must prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's findings were upheld as neither perverse nor contrary to the evidence. (Paras 10, 41, 42) (E)
Result: Appeals dismissed.
Judgment :
(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)
1. Heard Mr. Rajat Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.354/2024, Ms. Savita Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.309/2024, Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.425/2024 and Mr. Sanjay Pathak, learned counsel for the appellant in CRA No.1333/2024. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State.
2. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved being arising out of a common crime vide impugned judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Special Judge under NIA Act and First Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh in Special Case No.22/2021, these appeals have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.
3. Appellant-Sunher Pando (A-1) has preferred CRA No.354/2024, appellants-Jailal Pudo (A-2) and Dalsu Ram Pudo (A-4) have preferred CRA No.309/2024, appellant-Jadguram Korram (A-3) has preferred CRA No.425/2024 and appellant-Sukal @ Mansingh Yadav (A-5) has preferred CRA No.1333/2024 under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, “Cr.P.C.”) questioning the impugned judgment dated 16.01.2024 passed by the Special Judge under NIA Act and First Additional Sessions Judge, North Bastar, Kanker, Chhattisgarh in Special Case No.22/2021, by which, all the appellants/accused, namely Sunher Pando (A-1), Jailal Pudo (A-2), Jadguram Korram (A-3), Dalsu Ram Pudo (A-4) and appellant-Sukal @ Mansingh Yadav (A-5) have been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Appellant – Sunher Pando
| Conviction | Sentence | |
| Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. |
| Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. |
| Under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. |
| All the sentences were directed to run concurrently | ||
Appellant – Jailal Markam
| Conviction | Sentence | |
| Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. |
| Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. |
| Under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. |
| All the sentences were directed to run concurrently | ||
Appellant – Jagduram Korram
| Conviction | Sentence | |
| Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. |
| Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. |
| Under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. |
| All the sentences were directed to run concurrently | ||
Appellant – Dalsu Ram Pudo
| Conviction | Sentence | |
| Under Section 148 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 2 months. |
| Under Section 120B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months. |
| Under Section 302/149 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 | : | Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, a |
AI
The court upheld the conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the evidentiary value of eyewitness testimony and the applicability of vicarious liability under Section 149 I....
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence can suffice for conviction in cases involving organized crime, particularly when direct evidence is scarce due to the nature of the crime.
The court affirmed that involvement in an unlawful assembly and conspiracy to commit murder can establish liability, requiring only shared intent, not active participation in the crime.
In cases of unlawful assembly leading to murder, all involved members can be held vicariously liable, and eyewitness testimonies must be credible even if witnesses are related to the victim.
Murder conviction upheld on eye-witness testimony of coordinated sharp weapon and firearm assault, corroborated by medical/ballistic evidence and circumstances; weapon recovery under Evidence Act Sec....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
