2025:CGHC:59882-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.1874 of 2018 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

12.09.2025 10.12.2025 -- 10.12.2025

1 - Sadan Ram, S/o Samaylal Aged About 30 Years

2 - Kul Bhadur S/o Ram Gahan Aged About 40 Years Both R/o Village Davna, Police Station Jhilmili, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Jhilmili Surajpur District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Respondent(s)

CRA No.173 of 2019

1 - Jhunnulal S/o Bigan Ram Paikra Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Dawna, Police Station Jhilmil District Surajpur Chhattisgarh Appellant (s)

Versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Jhilmil, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s)

CRA No. 204 of 2019

1 - Govardhan Paikra S/o Late Man Sai Aged About 30 Years R/o Village Davna, Police Station Jhilmili, District Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s)

Versus Digitally signed by R 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Jhilmili, District NIRALA Surajpur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Mr. Shobhit Koshta, Mr. Anil Gulati and Mr. Tarun Dansena, Advocates For Respondent (s) : Mr. Ajay Pandey, GA Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad

C A V Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey J.

1. Since all three appeals arise out of common judgment of conviction and order of sentence, therefore, the same have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by a common order.

2. The present appeals are directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2018 passed by the learned 3^rd Additional Session Judge, Surajpur (C.G.) in ST No.38/2017, whereby the appellants have been convicted under Sections 302, 120-B & 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/-, life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- and RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, with default stipulations.

3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Muleshwar lodged a merg intimation at Police Station Jhilmili alleging that on 18/3/2017 at about 5 PM, the appellant Kul Bahadur called the deceased Gorelal for dinner at his home upon which the deceased Gorelal went to his house along with co-accused Govardhan Paikra, Jagdev Paikra and Jhunnulal where they took the dinner and thereafter the accused returned back to home but the deceased did not return home. On the next day the family members of deceased searched the deceased and found his slippers near well of Ramlal Dewangan and found the deceased body in well, upon which a case was registered against the accused persons and they were 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/appellants, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment.

4. Learned counsels for the appellants submit 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. The independent witness PW-2 Manish has not supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile. The memorandum and seizure witnesses PW-7 Murli Prasad Gupta and PW-12 Vijay Gupta have also not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. On mere recovery of gandasa on the instance of appellant Sadan Ram, the appellants cannot be convicted, because the same is not connected to the crime, as no serologist or any other report has been placed on record to show that the crime was committed from the said weapon. The learned court below failed to consider that the last seen theory has not established in the present case, as there is time gap in the last seen and