Back
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, SHRI JUSTICE SANJAY KUMAR JAISWA, JJ.
Imran Khan, S/o Dara Khan, - Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through: Station House Officer - Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1762 OF 2017
Decided on : 11-3-2025
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 307, and 460 - Conviction for multiple murders and attempt to murder - Appellant convicted for murdering three individuals and attempting to murder an eyewitness - Sentences include life imprisonment and fines - All sentences to run concurrently. (Paras 1-2, 9)
(B) Evidence - Testimony of injured eyewitness - Court emphasized the reliability of the sole eyewitness despite some contradictions in earlier statements, highlighting the necessity of corroborative evidence. (Paras 10-12, 18-20)
(C) Motive - Establishment of motive for robbery linked to the crime, supported by witness testimonies and recovery of stolen amounts. (Paras 29-31)
(D)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the trial court's findings as justified based on evidence, including post-mortem reports and eyewitness accounts. (Paras 15, 32) (E)
Issues: The main issues included the reliability of the eyewitness testimony, the establishment of motive, and the sufficiency of evidence for conviction. (Paras 10, 30) (F)
Ratio Decidendi: The court found the death of the victims to be homicidal and held that the testimony of the injured eyewitness was credible, despite some delays and contradictions. (Paras 15, 32) (G)
Result: Criminal appeal dismissed.
Judgment :
(Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.)
1. Assail in the present Criminal Appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (CrPC) is to the Judgment dated 22.12.2016 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.12/2015.
2. By impugned judgment, the Trial Court has convicted and sentenced the sole appellant herein for offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC to three counts for committing murder of Vinay Kannouje (D-1), Sameer Khan (D-2) and Shravan Chouhan (D-3) and for offence under Section 307 for committing attempt to murder of PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu and also for offence under Section 460 of IPC for committing lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night, in the manner as shown in chart given below:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. Under Section 302 of IPC [for committing murder of D-1 Vinay Kannouje] | 1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.5000/-. 3. Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, in default of payment of fine. |
| 2. Under Section 302 of IPC [for committing murder of D-2 Sameer Khan] | 1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.5000/-. 3. Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, in default of payment of fine. |
| 3. Under Section 302 of IPC [for committing murder of D-3 Shrawan Chouhan] | 1. Life Imprisonment. 2. Fine of Rs.5000/-. 3. Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, in default of payment of fine. |
| 4. Under Section 307 of IPC | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. |
| 5. Under Section 460 of IPC | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 10 years. |
| All sentences have been directed to run concurrently. | |
Prosecution’s case, in brief:-
3. On 27.11.2014, the appellant committed lurking house-trespass or house-breaking by night and assaulted D-1 Vinay Kannouje, D-2 Sameer Khan and D-3 Shrawan Chouhan with iron-pipe on account of which they suffered grievous injuries and died and he also with the intention to kill the injured eye-witness, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu, assaulted him with the said iron-pipe causing serious injuries to him.
4. On 28.11.2014, PW-1 Raju Yadav, the Manager of Indian Broiler Farm, Gidhouri, lodged Merg Intimations (Exbts. P-1, P-2 & P-3) followed by F.I.R. (Ex. P-4) stating that in the morning around 8:30 a.m., PW-4 Nikhlesh kumar Sahu, a worker of the said Farm, informed him on phone that the Farm is not open, on which he came to Gidhouri and along with PW-3 Nikhlesh Kumar Sahu and one Hemant Patel he went inside the Farm where he saw that D-1 Vinay Kannouje, D-2 Sameer Khan and D-3 Shrawan Chouhan were lying dead and Rajesh Kumar Sahu was writhing in pain and injuries suffered on his head, who was then taken to Government Hospital, Barpali for his treatment.
5. On the basis of the said report, wheels of investigation started running during which Crime Details Form (Ex. P-5) was prepared by the Investigating Officer, PW-30 K.R. Kosle. Inquest reports (Exbts. P-8, P-11 & P-13) in respect of D-1 Vinay Kannouje, D-3 Shrawan Chouhan and D-2 Sameer Khan were prepared respectively in presence of panch-witnesses and their dead-bodies were subjected to post-mortem. PW-26 Dr. Lokesh Sahu conducted the post-mortem of D-1, D-2 & D-3 vide Exbts. P-31, P-32 & P-33, though he reserved his opinion on the cause and nature of their death to be given after the FSL report is received. By property seizure memos (Exbts. P-14, P-15 & P-16), seizure of bloodstained and control soil was made from the spot where dead-bodies of D-1, D-2 & D-3 were found. Similarly, a threatening note vide Ex. P-17, mobiles phones vide Ex. P-18 and one Almirah and three empty bottles of liquor vide Ex. P-29 were seized from the spot. MLC of the injured eye-witness, PW-3 Rajesh Kumar Sahu, was conducted by PW-29 Dr. B.P. Baghel vide Ex. P-38, who referred the injured (PW-3) to higher center for CT Scan looking to the serious nature of injuries caused to him.
6. During
The court upheld the conviction based on the sole testimony of an injured eyewitness, affirming that such testimony can be sufficient if reliable and corroborated by circumstantial evidence.
The main legal point established in the judgment is that the reliability of eye-witness testimonies, minor discrepancies in evidence, and delay in recording statements of eye-witnesses should be cons....
The court held that the appellant's act of killing the deceased by slashing his neck with a knife fell squarely under Section 300 of the IPC and not under Section 304. This is because Section 300 dea....
The main legal point established in the judgment is the application of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC, which requires the fulfillment of specific requirements to invoke the exception, such as ....
Section 162 of the CrPC states as Explanation. - An omission to state a fact or circumstance in the statement referred to in sub-section (1) may amount to contradiction if the same appears to be sign....
The prosecution must prove intent and circumstances for a conviction under Section 307 IPC; otherwise, the accused benefit from reasonable doubt.
The acquittal of the accused was based on the prosecution's failure to prove the case beyond a reasonable doubt amidst significant inconsistencies in eyewitness testimonies.
The prosecution failed to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to contradictions in eyewitness testimonies, unreliable recovery of the weapon, and a defective investigation.
The court upheld convictions for murder against the appellants, affirming that eyewitness testimony, supported by corroborative evidence, was reliable, and distinctions made in witnesses did not affe....
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
