2025:CGHC:56785-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.858 of 2017 The date when The date when the The date when the judgment Digitally the judgment is judgment is is uploaded on the website signed reserved pronounced Operative Full by R NIRALA 28.08.2025 21.11.2025 -- 22.11.2025

1 - Ram Singh Padda S/o Lakhnu Padda, Aged About 21 Years

2 - Mangal S/o Sukhram @ Sukhru Mandavi Aged About 19 Years Both R/o Village Farasgaon Kasai, Police Station Urendabeda, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s)

versus

1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Office, Police Station Arjuni, District Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s)

For Appellant (s) : Mr. K. K. Singh, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. AG 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 28.04.2017 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Dhamtari in ST No.29/2016, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302/34 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Mayur Chhajed lodged report stating therein that he is running Maa Bhuwal Rice Mill at Arjuni, Dhamtari, in which, Garib Ram was engaged as Chowkidar. On 24.02.2016, he went to his Mill at about 9.30 A.M. and he was not found Chowkidar Garibram and after sometime, the dead body of Garib Ram was found in the Room situated above the Office, thereafter a case was registered against the unknown persons and after investigation, the appellants 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.

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. The memorandum and seizure witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution and have turned hostile. There is no direct evidence or indirect evidence against the appellants and only on the basis of conjectures and surmises the appellants have been convicted by the learned Trial Court. The chain of circumstantial evidence is also not complete, but the learned Trial Court has not considered the above said aspect 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. Reliance has been placed on the judgment rendered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Union of India and others vs CDR. Ravindra V. Desai, reported in (2018) 16 SCC 273

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 Section 302 read with Section 34 of IPC against the appellants 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. The first question we have to consider is that whether the death of deceased Garib Ram was homicidal in nature or not?

8. PW-1 Keshav Sahu stated that deceased Garib Ram was his father and he was working as watchman in Rice Mill, Demar. On

24.02.2016 mill owner told him that his father has been killed, then he went to spot and saw that his father was lying dead. He further stated that his father used to keep pocket diary and in his diary,