2025:CGHC:18287-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Judgment reserved on : 24-03-2025 Judgment delivered on : 23-04-2025 CRA No. 1587 of 2019 Suna Ram Uikey S/o Late Mansai Uikey Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Doddekadar, Shikaripara, Police Station Badgaon, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Badgaon, District North Bastar Kanker, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Savita Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Ms. M. Asha, Panel Lawyer.

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, &

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey, J The appellant in this appeal is challenging the legality and validity of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

8.10.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, Distt. North Bastar Kanker in ST No.74/2016 whereby the appellant stands convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life, pay a fine of Rs.500/- and in default thereof to suffer additional RI for six months.

02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Jalluram Uike lodged a report the effect that on 31.8.2016 he had gone to Pankhajur in connection with his personal work and at around 4 pm he was informed by his family members over phone that Somari is dead in the house of accused Sunaram. Immediately thereafter he reached the house of the accused where 15-20 persons had gathered and accused Sunaram was also there. On being asked, Sunaram disclosed that as he did not want to marry her, he throttled her to death while she was asleep in the field at around 11 am. During this disclosure many villagers were present. On this report, FIR (Ex.P/13) under Section 302 of IPC was registered against the accused.

03. During the course of investigation, merg intimation Ex.P/14 was registered, inquest over the dead body was performed vide Ex.P/3; spot map and Patwari map were prepared vide Ex.P/17 and P/09 respectively; and dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-4 Dr. Piyush Kumar Singh vide Ex.P/07 wherein he opined that cause of death is respiratory failure due to asphyxia caused by throttling and nature of death is homicidal.

Confessional statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex.P/1. As per seizure memos Ex.P/4 & P/8 certain articles were seized and sent to FSL for examination. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet under Section 302 of IPC was filed against the accused followed by framing of charge accordingly by learned trial Court which was abjured by him and he prayed for trial.

04. In order to substantiate its case the prosecution examined 15 witnesses. Statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of CrPC wherein he denied all the incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution case, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no witness was examined by him in his defence.

05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence this appeal.

06. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned judgment is bad in law, perverse, erroneous and liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court passed the impugned judgment merely on conjectures and surmises on the ground that the deceased was having love affair with the appellant. Though some witnesses have been examined by the prosecution but they are not eyewitnesses to the incident. The evidence adduced by the prosecution is not of such quality which could made basis of conviction of the appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserves to be acquitted of the charge u/s 302 of IPC by giving him benefit of doubt.

Reliance has been placed on the de