SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 366

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Rajani Dubey, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.
Bhagwan Lal And Ors. S/o Jagiram Dahariya - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Pamgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 201 of 2015, CRA No. 324 of 2015
Decided On : 07-10-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Kishore Bhaduri, Mr. G.R. Miri, Senior Advocates, appear along with Mr. Pawan Kesharwani, Ms. Aditi Diwan, Mr. Abhishek Banjare, Mrs. Meena Sahstri, Mr. Leekesh Kumar, Mr. Rahil Arun Kochar, Mr. U.R. Koshaley, Mr. D.D. Mahant & Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocates
For the Respondent:Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas & Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General.

A mere presence in a mob does not equate to liability for criminal acts unless it is proven that the individual contributed to or shared the common object of the unlawful assembly.

Headnote:(A) IPC - Sections 147, 148, 149, 302, 307, 323, 325, 427, 395 - Criminal appeals against conviction for murder and associated violent acts - Prosecution failed to establish the presence and involvement of the accused in causing the death of the deceased or their complicity in the mob violence. Evidence presented was fraught with inconsistencies, contradictions, and lacked specific identification of the accused as members of the unlawful assembly committing the offences - Mere presence in a mob cannot amount to culpability without demonstration of shared common object - Appeals allowed and convictions set aside. (Paras 47, 48, 49)

Table of Content
1. common judgment for appeals arising from the same case (Para 1 , 2)
2. summary of prosecution case and events leading to the judgment (Para 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
3. defense arguments challenging the conviction (Para 8 , 9)
4. court's consideration of evidence and findings of fact (Para 10 , 11 , 12)
5. assessing victim's attack and details on mob behavior (Para 28 , 29 , 31 , 32 , 33)
6. importance of forensic evidence and its implication in conviction (Para 34 , 35 , 36 , 37)
7. conclusion on benefit of doubt and acquittal of accused (Para 46 , 47)

JUDGMENT :

Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise from the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2015, they are being heard together and decided by this common judgment.

2. Both these criminal appeals preferred by the respective appellants herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.40/2006 by the Special Sessions Judge, Jajgir-Champa, by which the appellants stand convicted & sentenced as under:-

(All sentences were directed to run concurrently)

3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 09.12.2004, a local fair (Raut Madai Bazaar) was being held at Chandipara, Pamgarh. On that night, Mahesh Khare (Guruji), along with Tulsi and Surendra Singh (a liquor distillery employee), went to the distillery to consume liquor. The next day, 10.12.2004, Mahesh Khare (Guruji) went missing, which caused considerable concern among his relatives and the local community. As a result, a large number of people gathered at Pamgarh Police Station. Police started investigating by questioning Tulsi, Surendra Singh, and other distillery employees. During this process, Mahesh Khare’s torch and cap were recovered from Paswan, the helper of the distillery. Subsequently, a rumour spread that a dead body was found in a nearby pond. Upon inspection, the dead body was identified as that of Mahesh Khare (Guruji). On 10.12.2004, at about 4:00 PM, while the manager of the Pamgarh liquor distillery Santosh Singh along with Vijay Prasad Soni, Vishnu Tiwari, Changur Yadav and driver Bhim Singh, were in the distillery office, a large mob arrived in an enraged state. The mob, led by accused- Kamala Khunte, was shouting slogans such as “beat them up” and “set them on fire.” People from the crowd began pelting stones and several accused, including Rakesh Khunte, Manoj Bharti, Bhaskar Bharti, Radheshyam, Amar Jangde, Bhagwanlal, and others, armed with sticks, forcefully entered the distillery premises. The mob vandalized the distillery office, destroyed jeeps and motorcycles parked outside, broke oil tanks, and deliberately set them on fire. Accused- Manoj Bharti wetted a cloth with oil and placed it on the rear part of a jeep, which was then set on fire by accused- Rakesh Khunte. The fire spread to other vehicles, engulfing them in flames. Several accused, including Bhagwanlal’s son Devkumar and Dr. Ram Sagar, attempted to set fire to the distillery office itself. Upon breaking the office’s front door, the manager of the liquor shop, Bhola Gupta, was recognized by the accused. He was chased and brutally assaulted by accused persons namely Manoj Bharti, Bhaskar Bharti, Bhagwanlal, Radheshyam, Dr. Ram Sagar, Amit, and others, using sticks, and was left for dead. Thereafter, the police arrived shortly and rescued the victims by breaking open the back door of the office. The accused persons namely Kamala Khunte, Rakesh Khunte, Manoj Bharti, Bhaskar Bharti, Radheshyam, Santosh, Amit, Amar, Devkumar, Baliram Patwari, Chhotu, Dr. Ramsagar, Vijay, Mahesh, Umesh Dileram, Bhuru Driver, Sonu, Sanat, Brijbhushan, Ratan, Bhagwanlal, and approximately 25-30 others collectively participated in the attack. They caused extensive damage to the distillery office, brutally assaulted Sanoj Kumar Paswan (helper) and other individuals namely, Manoj

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top