2025:CGHC:59036-DB ASHOK SAHU NAFR Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Date:

2025.12.06

11:00:51 +0530 CRA No. 667 of 2015 {Arising out of judgment dated 12.05.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.33/2014 by the learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha}

Ramesh Sahu, S/o. Khel Singh, Aged About 30 Years, R/o. Village- Motimpur, Ghapela, Police Station Sahaspur Lohara, Revenue And Civil District- Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station- Kawardha, District-

Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Pankaj Singh, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (05.12.2025)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 12.05.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in Sessions Trial No.33/2014, by which the sole appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as under :

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 24.04.2014 at village Motiyari Khar, the appellant strangulated his wife Anita Sahu (now deceased) and hanged her on the Babul tree; thereby, the aforesaid 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-16, Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P-7, deceased was identified by PW-4 vide Ex.P-3A, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-9 and dead body of deceased Anita Sahu was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. S.K.Bagh (PW- 13), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-19, according to which, cause of death was due to manual strangulation on neck, ligature mark was present on the neck and death was homicidal in nature. Pursuant to memorandum statement Ex.P-10, one bag containing Pair-patti, Biscuit, Razor, Comb, Handkerchief etc. was seized, but the same has not been identified by any of the witnesses. After due investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences 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 13 witnesses and exhibited 19 documents and the appellant-accused in support of his defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited the document.

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the

offence under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as

mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Ms. Ranjana Jaiswal, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the extra judicial confession is inadmissible in evidence as it was made before the police officer, the theory of last seen together has not been established and the seized articles have not been identified by any of the witnesses; therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Mr. Pankaj Singh, 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 for the aforesaid offences and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned