2026:CGHC:10167-DB Digitally signed by RAVVA UTTEJ KUMAR NAFR RAJU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 603 of 2015 Sanjeev @ Sanju Thakur S/o Jagadish Thakur, aged about 22 years, R/o Village Kalgasa, Thana Darima, District Sarguja, (C.G.)

... Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through P.S. Darima, District- Sarguja, (C.G.)

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, Advocate. For State/Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional A.G.

Hon'ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board Per Arvind Kumar Verma, J.

27.02.2026

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section

374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.10.2013, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Sarguja, District Ambikapur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 11/2012, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC, 1860 and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default of payment of fine, further undergo additional simple imprisonment for six months.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 04.12.2011 the Complainant- PW-02 Anil Singh lodged a report in the Police Station – Darima, District Sarguja (C.G.) regarding the murder of Krishna making allegation that on 04.12.2011 at 8pm, Krishna along with appellant/accused Sanjeev alias Sanju Thakur were warming themselves through bonfire in front of the Motu Baraik’s house whereby both of them had quarreled with each other, but the accused has taken Tangi (Axe) from his house and assaulted with it on the head of the deceased Krishna and fled away from the spot. The accused/appellant committed the murder of the deceased Krishna. The accused/appellant was arrested on 05.12.2011 on the alleged commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC.

3. During the course of investigation, the panchnama of dead body was prepared by the police. Further, police seized the property which was relating to the offence and spot map was prepared, thereafter, the police sent the body for postmortem. The statements of witnesses were recorded and on completion of the investigation, police submitted the charge-sheet under Section

302 of IPC against the present accused/appellant.

4. During the course of trial, the charges under Section 302 of IPC was framed against the present accused/appellant, but he denied the charge.

5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 09 witnesses and exhibited 15 documents. The appellant-accused examined none in his defence nor any document has been exhibited.

6. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05.10.2013, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed.

7. Mr. Jai Prakash Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the impugned judgment passed by the learned trial court is bad; illegal, perverse and contrary to law applicable to the facts and circumstances and evidence available on record. He further argued that the prosecution witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that PW-08 Virendra Kumar has stated that he too was warming himself through bonfire and when he got up from the middle then, the fateful incident took place and he came back to the spot and there he saw Tangi lying on the ground and the appellant had already fled from the spot, but seizure memo shows that the Tangi was recovered from Kotha, but the learned trial Court has failed to consider those aspect. He would further argued that there is no eye witness of the incident and the prosecution story is based on circumstantial evidence and witnesses are hostile. The learned Trial Court committed error of l