2026:CGHC:5668-DB ASHOK SAHU NAFR Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

2026.02.02

17:20:03 +0530 CRA No. 1003 of 2015 {Arising out of judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.93/2014 by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja}

Manoranjan, S/o. Dewaru Uraon, Aged About 23 Years, R/o. Village - Keraju, Thana - Seetapur, Civil & Revenue District –

Surguja- Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The District Magistrate, Ambikapur, District – Surguja, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Arvind Kumar Verma Judgment on Board (02.02.2026)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C.

is directed against the impugned judgment dated 30.06.2015 passed by learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, in Sessions Trial No.93/2014, by which the sole appellant herein has been convicted for the offence under Section 450 & 302 of I.P.C. and sentenced as under :

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that in the intervening

night of 5/6.7.2014, the appellant herein tress-passed into the

house of his maternal grand-mother Bandhni (now deceased)

and assaulted her by iron axe & iron rod, by which she suffered grievous injuries and died; thereby the offence has been committed. The matter was reported to the police, pursuant to which, Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-5, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-14, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-3 and dead body of deceased Bandhni was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. M.Nikunj (PW-15), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-16, according to which, cause of death was stated to be asphyxia caused by strangulation due to respiratory failure and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-8, on iron axe and one iron rod were seized vide Ex.P-9 & Ex.P-10, which were sent for chemical examination along-with other seized articles to FSL and as per the FSL report (Ex.P-25), blood was not found on the seized weapons. After due investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offence to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents and the appellant/accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the aforesaid offences and sentenced him as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Mr. Vidya Bhushan Soni, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the move of offence is not established; the memorandum witnesses Riman Ram (PW-8) and Sant Ram (PW-9) have turned hostile and even on the weapon of offence, no blood was found and only on the basis of statement of the Investigating Officer- R.C.Nishad (PW-16), the appellant has been convicted, which is unsustainable and bad in law. Therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Mr. Siddhant Tiwari, learned State counsel, would support the

impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has

been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable

doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant

herein for the aforesaid offences and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned c