2025:CGHC:60514-DB Digitally signed by SISTA NAFR SISTA SOMAYAJULU SOMAYAJULU Date:

2025.12.15 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

14:45:31 +0530 CRA No. 1171 of 2018 {Arising out of judgment dated 13-7-2018 in Sessions Trial No.50/2017 of the Sessions Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur}

Pavan Singh, aged about 26 years, S/o Amol Singh, R/o Village Pevri Koshampara, P.S. Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Ramanujnagar, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, Advocate.

For Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, Panel Lawyer.

Division Bench: -

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Sachin Singh Rajput, JJ.

Judgment On Board (12/12/2025)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The appellant herein has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2)

of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 13-7-2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Surajpur in Sessions Trial No.50/2017, by which he has been convicted under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and pay a fine of ₹ 500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that in between 5-4-2017 and 6-

4-2017 at 11 a.m., the appellant murdered Amritlal Agariya by throwing him into a pond and thereby committed the offence. Sitaram (PW-1) – father of the deceased, informed the matter to the police. Marg was registered vide Ex.P-1 and inquest was prepared vide Ex.P-8. Spot map was prepared by the Patwari vide Ex.P-15. The Investigating Officer also prepared spot map vide Ex.P-23 in shape of Crime Details Form. Dead body of the deceased was sent for autopsy to Community Health Centre, Ramanujnagar vide Ex.P-24 where Dr. S.B. Singh (PW-11) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-12 and opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to drowning in water and in order to ascertain the nature of death, he has collected left humerous bone and water for diatoms test which were sent to FSL, Raipur from where the report Ex.P-21 was received according to which the diatoms test report was found positive. The accused was arrested vide Ex.P-17 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-4 pursuant to which motorcycle was seized vide Ex.P-5. Statement of account of Amritkumar Agariya and Kawlu Singh were also seized vide Exs.P-10 & P-11.

3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC and after usual investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and the case was committed to the Court of Session, Surajpur where the trial was conducted.

4. The prosecution, in order to prove the offence against the appellant, examined as many as 18 witnesses and brought on record 24 documents Exs.P-1 to P-24. The defence has neither examined any witness nor brought on record any document to support its case.

5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence under Section

302 of the IPC, against which he has preferred this appeal.

6. Mr. Shashi Bhushan Tiwari, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the appellant, would submit that death of the deceased to be homicidal has not been established, theory of last seen has not been established and motive of the offence is also not established at all, therefore, the alleged false implication would have no consequence and as such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal.

7. Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned Panel Lawyer appearing on behalf of the State/respondent, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also gone through the record wit