2025:CGHC:61155-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.313 of 2016 The date when The date when the The date when the judgment the judgment is judgment is is uploaded on the website reserved pronounced Operative Full

23.09.2025 16.12.2025 -- 16.12.2025 Digitally signed

1 - Pardeshi Yadav S/o Parasram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Tulsi by R NIRALA Baradera, Police Station Mandir Hasod, Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s)

versus

1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir Hasod, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr.

R. K. Pali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey J.

1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2016 passed by the learned 7^th Additional Session Judge, Raipur in ST No.71/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, with default stipulations. Both sentences shall run concurrently.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.10.2013 Mahesh Kumar Banjare intimated the police station concerned that one body is floating in canal, upon which a merg was registered and the police went to spot and found the dead body and during investigation the said dead body was found to be of deceased Kamal Sonkar and multiple injuries were found on his body. During investigation the appellant was found to be murderer of him, upon which a case was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There is no eye witness in the present case and only on the basis of conjectures and surmises the appellant has been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offence. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not proved against the appellant. The prosecution had only recovered one stick (danda) from the place of occurrence but no blood was found on the same. The memorandum and seizure is also not proved against the appellant, but the learned Trial Court has not considered the said aspects of the matter. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed.

4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed.

5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

7. With respect to the homicidal death of deceased, the prosecution has examined Dr. S. K. Bagh (PW-11) who conducted postmortem of deceased and gave his report (Ex-P/14) and opined that the death was due to multiple injuries to body and injuries were caused with hard and sharp object and few injuries were caused with hard and blunt object and injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and