Chattisgarh High Court
Chalan Baghel vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 10 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:16592-DB
ANURADHA
NAFR
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.04.13
10:22:44
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 12 of 2024
Chalan Baghel S/o Sadhu Baghel Aged About 51 Years R/o Village-
Tangiyajodi, Police Station- Kodenar, Tehsil And District- Bastar,
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police of Police
Station- Kodenar, Tehsil And District- Bastar, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 10.04.2026
1. Heard Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.
2. Today, though the criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of 2 bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally as the appellant is in jail since 01.08.2022.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, stands disposed of.
4. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, 'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.11.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.71/2022, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for one month.
5. The prosecution case, as unfolded during trial, originates from the Merg Intimation (Ex.P/01) lodged by the complainant PW-04 Vishwanath Baghel on 01.08.2022 at about 08:30 AM at Police Station Kodenar. In the said intimation, it was reported that there existed a long-standing land dispute between the accused Chankalan Baghel and his younger brother PW-03 Dashrath Baghel. It was further alleged that the deceased Sonasher Baghel used to support Dashrath in the said dispute, on account of which the accused bore animosity towards the deceased. 3
6. On the intervening night of 31.07.2022, after having dinner, the complainant and his family members went to sleep inside the house, whereas the deceased Sonasher Baghel was sleeping outside the house on a cemented platform (parchi). At about 11:00 PM, PW-01 Smt. Milky Baghel, upon hearing cries from the courtyard, came out and witnessed that the accused was assaulting the deceased with an iron rod (tangiya/iron weapon). Upon her raising alarm, the complainant and other family members rushed to the spot, where they saw the accused fleeing with the weapon. He was chased and apprehended by PW-08 Bhagat Baghel and PW-06 Vishnu Baghel. By that time, the deceased had succumbed to the injuries. On enquiry, the accused allegedly disclosed that due to the ongoing land dispute and the deceased siding with Dashrath, he assaulted the deceased and thereafter intended to kill Dashrath as well.
7. On the basis of the merg intimation, FIR (Ex.P/02) was registered on the same day against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The investigation was conducted by PW-11 Ram Pyara Patel (Sub-Inspector) and PW-12 Vikas Chandra Roy (Investigating Officer). The Investigating Officer proceeded to the spot and prepared the Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex.P/04) in the presence of witnesses after issuing notice under Section 175 CrPC (Ex.P/03). The dead body was sent for post- mortem examination through PW-10 Rakesh Kumar Ekka, constable, along with requisition (Ex.P/13), and duty certificates 4 (Ex.P/16 & Ex.P/17). The post-mortem examination was conducted by PW-09 Dr. Pradeep Baghel, who proved the Post- Mortem Report (Ex.P/14). As per his findings: (i) The death was caused due to coma and shock resulting from excessive bleeding and head injury, (ii) The injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death, (iii) The death was homicidal in nature, and (iv) The time since death was approximately 24-25 hours prior to the post-mortem. Further, a Query Report (Ex.P/15) was also submitted after examination of seized articles, and the doctor opined that the injuries could be caused by the seized weapon.
8. During investigation, blood-stained and plain soil were seized from the spot vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P/09). The spot map (Ex.P/05) was prepared based on the complainant's version. The accused gave a memorandum statement (Ex.P/06) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, pursuant to which: the weapon of offence (iron rod/tangiya) was recovered and the clothes worn by the accused at the time of incident were seized vide Seizure Memo (Ex.P/07). The seized articles were sent for chemical examination to the Forensic Science Laboratory, and FSL Report (Ex.P/22) confirmed the presence of blood on the seized articles. The forwarding memo and receipts are Ex.P/19, Ex.P/20, and Ex.P/21. The accused was arrested on 01.08.2022, and the arrest memo is Ex.P/23, while information of arrest to relatives is Ex.P/24. 5
9. In order to prove the case, the prosecution examined as many as 12 witnesses, whose testimonies are summarized as follows:
• PW-01 Smt. Milky Baghel: An eyewitness who categorically deposed that she saw the accused assaulting the deceased with an iron rod. Her testimony is direct, natural, and forms the backbone of the prosecution case.
• PW-02 Gangadhar: A witness to the circumstances and part of the surrounding events.
• PW-03 Dashrath Baghel: Brother of the accused; he proved the existence of the land dispute and motive behind the incident. • PW-04 Vishwanath Baghel (Complainant): Supported the prosecution case and proved the merg intimation and FIR. • PW-05 Sonsai Baghel: A witness to the surrounding circumstances.
• PW-06 Vishnu Baghel: A material witness who chased and helped in apprehending the accused.
• PW-07 Ku. Sundarvati Vendra: Witness to the incident or surrounding facts.
• PW-08 Bhagat Baghel: Supported the prosecution version and deposed regarding apprehension of the accused. • PW-09 Dr. Pradeep Baghel: Proved the post-mortem report and nature of injuries.
• PW-10 Rakesh Kumar Ekka: Carried the dead body for post- mortem and proved procedural aspects.6
• PW-11 Ram Pyara Patel (SI): Conducted initial investigation and proved seizures and procedural steps.
• PW-12 Vikas Chandra Roy (IO): Completed the investigation and proved the entire chain of investigation.
10. The prosecution, in support of its case, exhibited 24 documents as Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/24, in turn, in order to defence, accused-
appellant neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.
11. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet (Ex.P/Final Report) was filed against the accused under Section 302 IPC before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Jagdalpur, which committed the case to the Court of Session. The charge under Section 302 IPC was framed against the accused. He abjured guilt and claimed to be tried. His statement under Section 313 CrPC was recorded, wherein he denied all allegations and pleaded false implication. However, he did not adduce any defence evidence.
12. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded innocence. No evidence was adduced by the accused in defence.
13. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned 7 judgment dated 24.11.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the manner mentioned in the fourth paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by them calling in question the impugned judgment.
14. Mr. Ashutosh Shukla, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, has assiduously taken this Court through the entire evidence on record and contended that the conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is unsustainable in the eyes of law and deserves to be set aside. Elaborating his submissions, he would contend as follows:
• Firstly, it is submitted that the entire prosecution case rests heavily upon the testimony of PW-01 Smt. Milky Bai, who has been projected as an eyewitness to the incident. Learned counsel submits that though the prosecution has termed her testimony as unimpeachable, a careful scrutiny would reveal that her presence at the spot and her ability to clearly witness the incident in the late hours of the night is highly doubtful. It is urged that the incident is alleged to have occurred at about 11:00 PM, and there is no convincing evidence regarding the availability of sufficient light enabling proper identification. It is further contended that her testimony, being that of an interested witness closely related to the deceased, requires strict corroboration, which is conspicuously absent. Even 8 otherwise, according to learned counsel, certain omissions and improvements in her deposition render her evidence unreliable, and thus it would be unsafe to base conviction solely on her testimony.
• Secondly, learned counsel submits that the prosecution has attempted to build a case of immediate apprehension of the accused by relying upon the testimonies of PW-06 Vishnu Baghel and PW-08 Bhagat Baghel, alleging that the accused was chased and caught while fleeing from the spot. It is contended that this so-called chain of events is not free from doubt, as there are inconsistencies in the statements of these witnesses regarding the manner of apprehension and the exact sequence of events. It is further argued that both these witnesses are interested witnesses belonging to the same family or village faction as the deceased, and therefore their testimonies ought to have been scrutinized with greater caution. The possibility of false implication due to prior enmity cannot be ruled out.
• Thirdly, with regard to the alleged extra-judicial confession, learned counsel submits that the same is a weak piece of evidence and cannot be relied upon as the sole basis of conviction. It is argued that the alleged confession made before PW-06 and PW-08 is neither voluntary nor reliable, and appears to be a concocted version introduced to strengthen 9 the prosecution case. It is further contended that no independent witness has been examined to corroborate the alleged confession, and the circumstances under which it was made are not clearly established. Therefore, the learned trial Court erred in placing undue reliance on such a doubtful piece of evidence.
• Fourthly, learned counsel submits that though the prosecution has relied upon medical and scientific evidence, the same does not conclusively connect the appellant with the crime. While PW-09 Dr. Pradeep Baghel has opined that the death was homicidal and caused by injuries inflicted by a sharp- edged weapon, it is argued that such opinion is general in nature and does not specifically link the injuries to the alleged weapon recovered from the accused. It is further contended that the FSL Report (Ex. P-22) merely indicates the presence of blood on the clothes of the accused, but the prosecution has failed to establish the blood group or conclusively prove that the same belonged to the deceased. In absence of such conclusive linkage, the scientific evidence loses much of its evidentiary value. It is also pointed out that mere non- explanation by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. cannot be treated as substantive evidence against him. • Fifthly, assailing the recovery, learned counsel submits that the alleged recovery of the weapon and clothes at the 10 instance of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is highly doubtful and suffers from procedural irregularities. It is contended that the memorandum statement (Ex. P-06) and seizure memo (Ex. P-07) have not been proved in accordance with law, and the witnesses to the recovery are not independent. The possibility of planting of the alleged weapon and clothes cannot be ruled out, particularly when the recovery is from an open and accessible place. Therefore, the evidentiary value of such recovery is seriously diminished. • Lastly, with regard to motive, learned counsel submits that though the prosecution has alleged a land dispute between the accused and his brother Dashrath (PW-03), the same has not been proved with cogent and reliable evidence. It is argued that the alleged motive is weak and insufficient to sustain a conviction, especially in a case based on doubtful evidence. It is further contended that mere existence of some dispute does not necessarily lead to the conclusion that the accused would commit such a grave offence. In absence of a strong and clearly established motive, the prosecution case becomes further doubtful.
15. On the strength of these submissions, learned counsel for the appellant prays that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charge.
11
16. Per contra, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated both the oral and documentary evidence available on record and has not committed any illegality or perversity in holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It is contended that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent, consistent, and reliable evidence, which inspires full confidence of the Court.
17. Elaborating further, learned State counsel submits that the conviction is primarily based on the clear, natural, and trustworthy testimony of PW-01 Smt. Milky Bai, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence. Her presence at the scene is most natural, being a member of the household, and her testimony has remained unshaken in cross-examination. It is argued that there is no reason to disbelieve her version merely on the ground of relationship with the deceased, particularly when her evidence is consistent and inspires confidence. The prompt disclosure of the incident and immediate naming of the accused further lends assurance to the prosecution case.
18. It is further contended that the prosecution has established a complete and unbroken chain of events, inasmuch as the appellant was apprehended immediately after the incident by PW- 12 06 Vishnu Baghel and PW-08 Bhagat Baghel while fleeing from the spot. The conduct of the accused, coupled with the extra- judicial confession made before these witnesses, clearly points towards his guilt. Learned counsel submits that the said confession is voluntary and has been consistently proved by the prosecution witnesses, and there is no material contradiction or omission to discard the same.
19. Lastly, learned State counsel submits that the ocular version stands fully corroborated by the medical and scientific evidence. The testimony of PW-09 Dr. Pradeep Baghel, along with the post- mortem report, clearly establishes that the death was homicidal and caused by injuries inflicted by a sharp-edged weapon. The recovery of the weapon and blood-stained clothes at the instance of the appellant pursuant to his memorandum statement, coupled with the FSL report (Ex. P-22) confirming the presence of blood, further strengthens the prosecution case. It is thus contended that the prosecution has proved motive, recovery, and the manner of occurrence beyond doubt, and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
20. 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.
21. In light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties and upon perusal of the record of the trial Court, the 13 following points arise for determination in the present appeal:-
(i) Whether the death of the deceased Sonadhar Baghel was homicidal in nature ?
(ii) Whether the appellant is the author of the crime and has committed the murder of deceased Sonasher Baghel ?
Point for Determination
(i) Whether the death of the deceased Sonadhar Baghel was homicidal in nature ?
22. The prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-04 Vishwanath Baghel (complainant) and PW-01 Smt. Milky Baghel, have categorically deposed that Sonasher Baghel had died on the night of the incident and his body was found lying outside the house on the cemented platform (parchi). Their testimonies clearly indicate that the deceased was assaulted at the said place, which ultimately resulted in his death.
23. PW-01 Smt. Milky Baghel, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence, has stated that upon hearing cries at about 11:00 PM, she came out of the house and saw the accused assaulting the deceased with a weapon. Her testimony further establishes that the deceased was lying injured at the spot and had succumbed to the injuries. Presence of dead body at the place of occurrence is supported by other witnesses PW-06 Vishnu Baghel & PW-08 Bhagat Baghel, who reached spot immediately thereafter. 14
24. The procedural aspects relating to the dead body have been duly proved by PW-10 Rakesh Kumar Ekka, who has deposed that on 01.08.2022, under the instructions of the Station House Officer, he carried the शव of the deceased Sonasher Baghel along with the requisition for post-mortem (Ex.P/13) to Community Health Centre, Badekilepal. He has further stated that after post-mortem examination, the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased for last rites, and the execution report of the duty certificate has been proved as Ex.P/16.
25. The registration of merg intimation and FIR has been proved by PW-12 Vikas Chandra Roy, who has stated that upon receiving information from the complainant regarding the death of Sonasher Baghel, he recorded the merg intimation (Ex.P/01) and thereafter, on the basis of oral report, registered the FIR (Ex.P/02) at Police Station Kodenar. The dead body was thereafter sent for post- mortem examination through PW-10 Rakesh Kumar Ekka, as proved by requisition (Ex.P/13).
26. The medical evidence assumes great significance in determining the nature of death. PW-09 Dr. Pradeep Baghel, who conducted the post-mortem examination on 01.08.2022, has proved the post- mortem report (Ex.P/14). He has deposed that on external examination, the deceased was found lying in a supine position with multiple incised wounds on vital parts of the body, particularly on the head and face. The injuries noted by him include: 15
• An incised wound on the left side of the neck/jaw region measuring approximately 3×3×3 cm with fracture of the lower jaw;
• An incised wound near the left eye measuring 3×3×3 cm; • An incised wound above the left eye on the frontal region measuring 3×3×2 cm;
• An incised wound on the right parietal region measuring 2×2×2 cm;
• An incised wound on the posterior part of the skull measuring 3×3×3 cm.
27. The doctor has clearly opined that all the injuries were grievous in nature and caused by a hard and sharp-edged weapon. According to him, the cause of death was coma and shock due to excessive bleeding and head injuries, and the nature of death was homicidal. He has further stated that the death had occurred approximately 24-25 hours prior to the post-mortem examination. Despite cross-examination, nothing substantial has been elicited to discredit his testimony or to suggest any alternative cause of death. The nature, number, and location of injuries, particularly on the vital parts such as the skull and face, clearly rule out the possibility of accidental or natural death. The injuries are consistent with repeated assault by a sharp-edged weapon and are sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. 16
28. Furthermore, the spot inspection, preparation of inquest (Naksha Panchayatnama Ex.P/04), and seizure of blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence also lend support to the prosecution case that the deceased was assaulted at the spot where his body was found.
29. In view of the consistent ocular testimony of the witnesses who saw the deceased immediately after the incident, the duly proved procedural evidence relating to handling of the dead body, and the unimpeachable medical evidence of PW-09 Dr. Pradeep Baghel supported by the post-mortem report (Ex.P/14), this Court is of the considered opinion that the death of Sonasher Baghel was clearly homicidal in nature.
30. The learned trial Court has rightly recorded the said finding after proper appreciation of the entire evidence on record, and this Court finds no reason to take a different view. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court on this point is hereby affirmed.
31. Consequently, Point for Determination No. (i) is answered in the affirmative and held to be duly proved.
(ii) Whether the appellant is the author of the crime and has committed the murder of deceased Sonasher Baghel?
32. The learned trial Court, upon meticulous appreciation of the entire evidence on record, has recorded a finding that the present 17 appellant is the author of the crime. This Court now proceeds to examine whether such finding is borne out from the evidence, particularly the testimony of the eyewitnesses and other corroborative circumstances.
33. The prosecution case primarily rests upon the direct ocular testimony of PW-01 Smt. Milky Bai, who is an eyewitness to the occurrence. She has categorically deposed that on the fateful night at about 11:00 PM, upon hearing commotion, she came out of the house and witnessed the appellant assaulting the deceased Sonasher Baghel with a tangiya (axe). Her presence at the spot is natural and cannot be doubted, as the incident took place just outside her house. Despite lengthy cross-examination, her testimony has remained unshaken and no material contradiction or omission has been brought on record so as to discredit her version. There is also no suggestion of any enmity or motive for false implication against the appellant. Her evidence, thus, inspires confidence and has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court.
34. The testimony of PW-06 Vishnu Baghel assumes considerable significance. He has deposed that immediately after the incident, he saw the appellant fleeing from the spot, and along with PW-08 Bhagat Baghel, he chased and apprehended him. Upon being caught and questioned by them as well as other villagers, the appellant confessed that he had assaulted and killed the 18 deceased. This witness has further stated that the appellant disclosed the motive behind the crime, namely a land dispute. Importantly, this part of the testimony has remained intact during cross-examination, and no material contradiction has been elicited. His presence at the spot and participation in apprehending the accused lend strong assurance to the prosecution case.
35. Similarly, PW-08 Bhagat Baghel has corroborated the version of PW-06 in material particulars. He has stated that he, along with Vishnu Baghel, apprehended the appellant while he was attempting to flee after the incident. He has also supported the prosecution case regarding the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before them and other villagers. The defence has failed to impeach his credibility, and his testimony also remains unchallenged on the core aspects of apprehension and confession.
36. The contention raised on behalf of the defence regarding alleged irregularities in the memorandum (Ex.P/06) and seizure (Ex.P/07) proceedings, on the ground that signatures were obtained on blank papers, has been rightly discarded by the learned trial Court. A careful perusal of the cross-examination of the witnesses does not reveal any specific suggestion that the memorandum and seizure documents were fabricated in the police station after obtaining signatures on blank papers. The Investigating Officer 19 (PW-11) has categorically denied such suggestion and has proved the due execution of these documents. In absence of any cogent evidence, the said defence plea does not create any dent in the prosecution case.
37. The recovery of the weapon of offence and other articles further strengthens the prosecution case. The Investigating Officer (PW-
11) has proved that blood-stained soil and plain soil were seized from the spot (Ex.P/09). The clothes of the deceased, duly sealed, were handed over by the doctor after post-mortem and were seized vide Ex.P/08. The seizure of the clothes worn by the appellant at the time of the incident has also been duly proved, and no serious challenge has been made to the same.
38. The medical evidence, as discussed while answering Point No. (i), clearly establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by a sharp-edged weapon and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. PW-09 Dr. Pradeep Baghel has also opined that the injuries could be caused by the seized tangiya. His opinion has remained unshaken in cross- examination.
39. The forensic evidence also lends corroboration to the prosecution case. As per the FSL report (Ex.P/22), human blood has been detected on the clothes of the deceased as well as on the shirt of the appellant. Though no blood was detected on the tangiya, the evidence on record, particularly the testimony of the doctor and 20 the Investigating Officer, indicates that the weapon was stained with blood at the time of seizure, and the possibility of the stains being disintegrated or wiped off before chemical examination cannot be ruled out. Moreover, the presence of human blood on the clothes of the appellant is a highly incriminating circumstance, for which no explanation has been offered by him in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
40. The conduct of the appellant in fleeing from the spot immediately after the incident and his subsequent apprehension by PW-06 and PW-08 is another circumstance which goes against him. Such conduct is relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and strengthens the prosecution case.
41. Further, the extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before PW-06 Vishnu Baghel and PW-08 Bhagat Baghel, in the presence of villagers, has not been challenged in cross-examination. It is well settled that if an extra-judicial confession is voluntary and inspires confidence, it can be relied upon. In the present case, the said confession finds corroboration from the ocular testimony of PW-01 and the medical as well as forensic evidence.
42. The nature of injuries inflicted on the deceased, particularly on vital parts such as the head, face, and neck, clearly indicates the intention of the appellant to cause death. The repeated blows with a sharp-edged weapon on such vital parts rule out any possibility of accidental or unintentional act. The opinion of the doctor that 21 death was caused due to coma and shock resulting from excessive bleeding and head injuries further supports the prosecution case. Thus, the intention to commit murder is clearly established.
43. In view of the consistent and reliable testimony of the eyewitness PW-01 Smt. Milky Bai, duly corroborated by PW-06 Vishnu Baghel and PW-08 Bhagat Baghel regarding apprehension and confession, coupled with medical and forensic evidence, and the conduct of the appellant, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved, beyond reasonable doubt, that it is the appellant who committed the murder of deceased Sonasher Baghel.
44. The defence has failed to bring on record any material to probabilise an alternative hypothesis or to create a reasonable doubt in the prosecution case. There is no evidence to suggest that the deceased died due to any cause other than the assault made by the appellant.
45. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned trial Court holding the appellant guilty for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC is well-founded and does not call for any interference by this Court.
46. Consequently, Point for Determination No. (ii) is answered in the affirmative, holding that the appellant is the author of the crime and has committed the murder of deceased Sonasher Baghel. 22
47. Considering the overall facts and circumstances of the case, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt by leading cogent, consistent, and reliable evidence. The case at hand is not one resting on weak or circumstantial evidence, but is firmly anchored in direct ocular testimony, which has been duly corroborated by medical and scientific evidence. The testimony of the eyewitness stands unimpeached and inspires full confidence, having remained steadfast during cross-examination without any material contradiction or embellishment. Such credible and trustworthy evidence forms a strong foundation for sustaining the conviction.
48. Further, the chain of events brought on record by the prosecution is complete and unbroken. The immediate apprehension of the appellant while fleeing from the scene of occurrence lends significant assurance to the prosecution story and rules out any possibility of false implication. The extra-judicial confession made by the appellant before independent witnesses, which remained unshaken, further strengthens the prosecution case and clearly reflects the culpability of the appellant. The recovery of the weapon of offence and blood-stained clothes at the instance of the appellant constitutes an additional incriminating circumstance, duly proved in accordance with law, which corroborates the prosecution narrative.
23
49. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution fully supports the ocular version and conclusively establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and caused by a sharp- edged weapon. The forensic report detecting human blood on the clothes of the appellant, coupled with the absence of any plausible explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., constitutes a strong adverse circumstance against him. The motive behind the crime, arising out of a longstanding land dispute, has also been satisfactorily proved and provides a clear backdrop for the commission of the offence.
50. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court finds no infirmity, perversity, or illegality in the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court. The appreciation of evidence has been carried out in a proper and judicious manner, and the conclusion arrived at is fully supported by the material available on record. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC and the sentence imposed are found to be just and appropriate, warranting no interference by this Court.
51. Accordingly, the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant/accused- Chalan Baghel being devoid of merit is liable to be dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur in Sessions Trial No.71/2022 vide judgment dated 24.11.2023 are hereby affirmed.
24
52. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is reported to be in custody since 01.08.2022, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.
53. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
54. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu