Chattisgarh High Court
Ratiram Majhwar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:19050-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1537 of 2024
1 - Ratiram Majhwar S/o Shri Runga Ram Majhwar Aged About 50
Years R/o Village Sitkalo, Chowki Kedma, Police Station Udaipur, Dis-
trict Sarguja (C.G.)
2 - Premsai @ Vidur S/o Shri Ratiram Majhwar Aged About 35 Years
R/o Village Sitkalo, Chowki Kedma, Police Station Udaipur, District Sar-
guja (C.G.)
3 - Dhanmoti @ Ganeshwari W/o Ratiram Majhwar Aged About 48
Years R/o Village Sitkalo, Chowki Kedma, Police Station Udaipur, Dis-
trict Sarguja (C.G.)
4 - Ganeshi Bai W/o Shri Prem Sai Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Sitkalo, Chowki Kedma, Police Station Udaipur, District Sarguja (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Chowki Kedma, Police Station - Udaipur, District Sarguja (C.G.)
----Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and Hon'ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Per Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge 28.04.2025
1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 is directed against the impugned 2 judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2024 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur District Sarguja in Sessions Trial No. 106/2021 whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as follows:-
Conviction Sentenced to
u/s Section R.I. for Life Imprisonment (on two
302/34 of IPC to counts) with fine of Rs. 1000/- (two each appellants counts) in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 2 months (two counts) to each appellants.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Ruben Toppo has lodged an oral report before the Chowi Kedma, Thana Udaipur against the appellants alleging therein that he had gone along with his father Ghuneshwar Toppo and Grandmother Tuli Bai to make bund in the Sitkalo Jokpara field. At the same time, at about 02:30 pm, Ratiram Majhwar of the village came to the field along with his son Premsai alias Vidur, wife Ganeshwari and daughter-in-law Ganeshi Bai and started stopping them from making the bund and started saying that this land is theirs on which father of the complainant told them that the said land is their leased land. On this, the accused Ratiram started abusing him and threatening to kill him and the accused Ratiram snatched the shovel from his father's hand (Ghuneshwar Toppo) and hit him on the head and injured him, due to which his father Ghuneshwar Toppo died on spot and his grandmother Tuli Bai was injured by accused Premsai 3 Alias Vidur by hitting her with a spade and she also died. On the report of the complainant, Merg Intimation was registered under Section 174 of CrPC by Kedma Chowi (Exp- 25), and the Police has registered First Information Report as Crime No. 51/2021 (Ex.P-4) under Section 294, 506, 302, 34 of IPC. Thereafter, Investigation Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses (Ex. P-6), inquest report was prepared (Ex. P-2). During the investigation, Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-01, and thereafter shovel and blood stained on the handle of shovel was recovered, 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. statements were recorded, articles were sent for FSL.
3. After investigation, it was found that Ghuneshwar Toppo died on account of injuries sustained on head by the accused/appellant No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and Tuli Bai died on account of injuries sustained on parietal bone by the accused/appellant No. 2 Premsai and the appellants No. 3 & 4 held the deceased persons. The accused/appellants were arrested for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and arrest/court surrender memo was prepared vide Ex.P- 31 to 34. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed before the learned JMFC, Ambikapur (C.G.) for hearing and disposal in accordance with law.
4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 31 witnesses and exhibited 40 documents. The accused has not examined witness in his defence.
5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary 4 evidence on record and considering that it is the appellants who have committed the murder of deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo and Tuli Bai, convicted and sentenced them under Section 302 of the IPC, against which the instant appeal under Section 415(2) has been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Ruben Toppo (PW-14) who is the eye witness and son of the deceased but his evidence does not inspire confidence and not trustworthy, his evidence is not safe for placing reliance in absence of any corroboration from independent source as he has clearly not stated anywhere in his statement that he saw the whole incident of murder committed by the accused persons. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that according to the prosecution, from the spot, the officer had only collected the blood contained soil, whereas the axe (fawra) has been collected from the house of accused Ratiram Majhar, it seems all the chain has been completed by the prosecution only to implicate the appellants in such crimes. The accused/appellants was not directly involved in causing the incident but rather they themselves are the aggrieved party. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellants for commission of heinous offence of murder, therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt.
5
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that Ruben Toppo (PW-14), who is the son of the deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo and accused/appellant, has stated in his evidence that on the date of incident the appellants assaulted the deceased with Fhawda upon the vital part of the body i.e. head when the deceased Tuli Bai tried to help the deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo, the appellants/accused also assaulted her by giving many blows on the vital part of the body and owing to the injuries both the deceased received grievous injuries and succumbed to death. The accused/appellant has failed to explain the death of the Ghuneshwar Toppo and Tuli Bai. The FIR of the incident was lodged by Ruben Toppo (PW-14) son of the accused/appellant. He contended that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and 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 went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial 6 Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo and Tuli Bai was homicidal in nature ?
10. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-
11) and R. Arpit Singh (PW-4), who have conducted postmortem of the deceased- Ghuneshwar Toppor and Tuli Bai vide Ex.P-23 and Ex.P-16, clearly came to the conclusion that the death of deceased- Ghuneshwar Toppor and Tuli Bai were homicidal in nature due to injury sustained by them. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding.
11. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:-
(i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P-23 and 16) of Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-11) and R. Arpit Singh (PW-4) who conducted autopsy.
(ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of deceased Ghuneshwar Toppor and Tuli Bai was within the knowledge of the appellants, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellants in their statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. Thus, onus of proof was on the appellants to explain such circumstance 7 but he failed to explain the same.
12. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of injury on the head of the deceased has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Ruben Toppo (PW-14), Investigating Officer Ram Nageena (PW-25), FIR (ExP-04), Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-11) and R. Arpit Singh (PW-4) and autopsy report (Ex.P-16 and 23) that the death of deceased Ghuneshwar Toppor and Tuli Bai was homicidal in nature.
13. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellants is substantially based on the evidence of Ruben Toppo (PW-14), Investigating Officer Ram Nageena (PW-25), Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-11) and R. Arpit Singh (PW-4).
14. Ruben Toppo (PW-14) has stated in his evidence who is eye witness that the Ghuneshwar Toppo was his father and the deceased Tuli Bai was his grandmother. The incident took place on 14.03.2021, the accused Premsai alias Vidur and Ratiram Majhwar and accused Dhanmoti and Ganeshi Bai killed his father and grandmother Tuli Bai. On the said date of the incident, his father Ghuneshwar and grandmother Tuli Bai had gone to the field to make bund, when at around 02:30pm, the accused Premsai and Ratiram Majhwar and accused Dhanmoti ad Ganeshi Bai came there and started abusing and saying that the field is theirs. When his father said that field is ours and we have got it on lease, then Premsai and Ratiram started saying that they will kill and throw him 8 away. Ruben says that accused Ratiram snatched the shovel from his hand and hit his father on the head due to which his father got seriously injured. During that time, accused Dhanmoti and Ganeshi Bai were holding his father, when his grandmother Tuli came to save his father then accused premsai hit his grandmother with a stick, due to which his grandmother fell down, then accused Dhanmoti and Ganeshi Bai caught hold of his grandmother. In the meanwhile accused Ratiram ran after him to hit him, then he ran away from there, Ratiram chased him for some distance, but could not catch him. Thereafter, his elder father kewal kispotta and the villagers reached the spot of the incident, and took his father and grandmother Tuli Bai to the government hospital in Kedma in a Bolero car. There it was found that his father Ghuneshwar had died. His grandmother was breathing, she was referred to the hospital in Udaipur and On the way, hi grandmother Tuli Bai died.
15. Ramnageena Yadav Investigating Officer (PW-25) has stated in his evidence that on 14.03.2021, Ruben Toppo along with his mother Sungeti Toppo and his elder father has lodged an oral information against the appellants. On the oral report of the complainant, a crime was registered. He stated that as per memorandum (Ex.P-
13) statement of Ratiram Majhwar, the accused-Ratiram had kept the shovel in his house which was used during the time of incident and as per memorandum statement (Ex.P-14) of Premsai, a Sarai Wooden stick was seized and both are having blood stain and they were sent for FSL and after receiving of FSL report, it was found 9 human blood.
16. Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-11) conducted autopsy of Ghuneshwar Toppo vide Ex.P-23 and found above stated injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that cause of death was due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury and as a result of hard and blunt edge force trauma and the death was homicidal in nature. Dead body of the deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo was sent for autopsy to PHC Kedma, District Surguja vide Ex.P-22. Dr. B. M. Kamre (PW-11) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-23 and found following injuries :-
(i) Lacerated wound in chine 5x 1 cm and lacerated wound in occipital region of head in size of 10x2, 5x1, 4x2 cm in which blood had accumulated.
(ii) both the bones of right wrist were broken and lacerated wound in the middle finger of the right hand in the size of 2x½.
(iii) Abrasion in the right leg in the size of 2x2 and 4x2 He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by sharp and hard object. It has been opined by the Doctor that the cause of death due to haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury and the death was homicidal in nature.
17. Dr. Arpit Singh (PW-14) conducted autopsy of Tuli Bai vide Ex.P-
23 and found above stated injuries on the body of the deceased and opined that cause of death was due to Subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury 10 and as a result of hard and blunt edge force trauma and the death was homicidal in nature. Dead body of the deceased Tuli Bai was sent for autopsy to PHC Udaipur vide Ex.P-15. Dr. Arpit Singh (PW-14) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-16 and found following injuries :-
(i) Lacerated wound of dimension 2.5x1x0.1 cm over mid forehead with underlying hematoma
(ii) Lacerated wound of dimension 4x 1.5x 2.5 cm over right parietal bone, 13cm upward to right mastoid with underlying subgaleal hematoma
(iii) Lacerated wound of dimension 3x1.5x 1.5 cm over occiput, with underlying subgaleal hematoma.
He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature caused by sharp and hard object. It has been opined by the Doctor that the cause of death due to Subdural and subarachnoid haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury and the death was homicidal in nature.
18. Now, the question is, whether the prosecution has discharged its initial or general burden or primary duty of proving the guilt of the accused/beyond reasonable doubt?
19. So far as conviction of the Appellant No. 1 & 2 are concerned, in this regard, the findings of the trial Court observed in the operative part of the judgment that it is proved that the deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo and Tuli Bai died due to the injury caused by Ratiram and Premsai with fhawda and wooden blog, which is of homicidal nature. Thus it is proved that the death of the deceased was caused by the accused Ratiram and Premsai and that the accused Dhanmoti and Ganeshi Bai caught hold the 11 deceased. The death of the deceased by the accused does not fall under any of the exceptions 1 to 5 of Section 300 of IPC. Therefore, it is proved that the accused Ratiram Majhwar injured the deceased by hitting them with Fhawda and wooden stick with the intention of causing their death, regarding which they knew that their said act would result into the death of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has succeeded in proving that on the date of the incident, the accused Ratiram Majhwar and Premsai killed the deceased by hitting them with Fhawda and wooden stick with the intention of killing them
20. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that,
1. death of deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo & Tuli Bai was homicidal in nature;
2. It is the appellant No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No 2 Premsai who have murdered Ghuneshwar Toppo & Tuli Bai by hitting on their parietal region/head with fhawda and wooden stick.
21. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the finding recorded by the trial Court in operative part of its judgment, the fact that the the appellant No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No 2 Premsai have not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the CrPC and considering the statement of Ruben Toppo (PW-
14) and other witnesses, who have clearly stated that Ghuneshwar Toppo & Tuli Bai were killed by appellant No. 1 12 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No 2 Premsai, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No 2 Premsai for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. We do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. Accordingly, the criminal appeal so far as appellant No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No 2 Premsai is concerned, is hereby dismissed. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant No. 1 and appellant no. 2 is in jail since 15.03.2021, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. So far as conviction of the appellant No. 3 Dhanmoti @ Ganeshwari and appellant No. 4 Ganeshi Bai for the offence under Section 302/34 is concerned.
22. From the statement of the witness Ruben Toppo (PW-14) and other prosecution witnesses, it shows that at the time of incident, the appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 assaulted the deceased due to which his father got seriously injured and during that time, accused appellant No. 3 Dhanmoti and appellant No. 4 Ganeshi Bai were holding his father, when his grandmother Tuli came to save his father then accused premsai hit his grandmother with a stick, due to which his grandmother fell down, then accused Dhanmoti and Ganeshi Bai caught hold of his grandmother, which shows that there is no active participation of the appellants No. 3 & 4.
23. From the evidence which has come before the Court below, 13 nowhere does it disclose that the appellant No. 3 & 4 (Dhanmoti and Ganeshi Bai) did the aforesaid act for which he would be guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302/34. Further, when the arguments are taking place between the deceased and the appellants, suddenly the appellant No. 1 & 2 snatched the Fhawda from the Ruben Toppo (complainant) and assaulted the deceased, this goes to show that the appellant No. 3 Dhanmoti and appellant No. 4 Ganeshi Bai were not knowledge about the incident. Further, there was also no occasion or act on the part of the appellant No. 3 & 4 or the behavior of the appellant No. 3 & 4 by which it could be said that the appellant No. 3 & 4 had instigated or for that matter intentionally aided the appellant No. 1 & 2 to the extent to which the appellant No. 1 & 2 was pushed into a position of having no other option but to take a decision of ending their life by hitting the deceased with Fhawda.
24. Looking to the role played by the appellant No. 3 & 4 that they were not knowledge of act committed by the appellant No. 1 & 2 and also considering the fact that they have not made any assault or participated in the said crime and no any witnesses examined before the trial Court has stated against them, we are of the considered view that the prosecution has not proved its case beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against the appellant No. 3 & 4 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC. Therefore, the appellants No. 3 & 4 (Dhanmoti @ Ganeshwari and Ganeshi Bai) are liable to be and are hereby acquitted of the charges framed against them under Section 302/34 by the court of 14 Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 106/2021. The appellants No. 3 & 4 are in jail since 15.03.2021. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not required in any other criminal case.
25. In the result, as regards criminal appeal in respect of the appellant No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No. 2 Premsai @ Vidur is dismissed and as regards criminal appeal in respect of the appellant No. 3 Dhanmoti @ Ganeshwari and appellant No. 4 Ganeshi Bai is allowed.
26. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
27. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Jyoti