Chattisgarh High Court
Ghanshyam Kumeti vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 12 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:11830-DB
MANPREET
KAUR
Digitally signed
AFR
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.03.13
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
19:31:03 +0530
CRA No. 1020 of 2023
Ghanshyam Kumeti S/o Hariram Kumeti Aged About 49 Years
R/o Ambagarh Chowki, District Rajnandgaon (C.G.) Presently
Residing At 9th Battaion ''b'' Camp Amdai Ghati P.S.
Chotedongar District Narayanpur (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Chotedongar, District
Narayanpur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Aditi Singhvi, Advocate For : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Respondent(s) Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 12.03.2026
1. Heard Ms. Aditi Singhvi, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Deputy Government 2 Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State.
2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/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 10.02.2023 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge Kondagaon, District- Kondagaon (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 41/2021 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence as under:-
Conviction Sentence Fine In default of
under Section (Rigorous payment of
imprisonment) fine add.
imprisonment
Section 302 of the R.I. for Life till Rs. 02 months
IPC natural death 2,000/- S.I.
Section 302 of the R.I. for Life till Rs. 06 months
IPC natural death 2,000/-
Section 307 of the 10 years Rs. 03 months
IPC 1,000/-
Section 450 of the 10 years Rs.1000/- 01 months
IPC
Section 27(3) of the 7 years Rs.500/- 03 months
Arms Act, 1959
Section 201 of the Life Rs.1000/- 01 months
IPC Imprisonment
All sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 29.05.2020 the complainant Gautam Dhamage, who was posted as a Head 3 Constable in the 09th Vahini, B Company of the Chhattisgarh Armed Force at Amdai Ghati Camp, Police Station- Chhotedongar, District Narayanpur, gave oral information at Police Station- Narayanpur regarding the incident. He stated that on the night of 29.05.2020, after having dinner he was sleeping in his barrack. At about 11:30 PM he heard the sound of firing, whereupon he immediately picked up his weapon and rushed towards the front to take his position. At that time it came to light that APC Ghanshyam Kumeti had fired shots inside the camp.
4. It was further alleged that a few days prior to the incident there had been a dispute between the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti and PR Rameshwar Sahu, PC Bindeshwar Sahni and Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi within the camp premises. Owing to the said enmity and previous quarrel, on the night of the incident the accused, with the intention to kill, fired shots from his service rifle AK-47 at the above personnel while they were in and around the barracks. As a result of the firing, PR Rameshwar Sahu sustained gunshot injuries on his left cheek, neck and waist and died on the spot, while PC Bindeshwar Sahni sustained gunshot injuries on his waist, back and neck. Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi also sustained gunshot injuries on his waist and hip and was immediately shifted to Raipur for treatment.
4
5. On the basis of the aforesaid information, a Zero FIR was initially registered at Police Station- Narayanpur under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. Subsequently, on 30.05.2020, the said information was forwarded to Police Station- Chhotedongar, where Crime No. 07/2020 was registered for the aforesaid offences. During investigation, the police inspected the place of occurrence at Amdai Ghati Camp, prepared the spot map, seized blood-stained articles and empty cartridges of AK-47 rounds from the barracks, and conducted inquest proceedings. The dead bodies of the deceased were sent to the District Hospital, Narayanpur for post-mortem examination, while the injured Lakshram Premi was provided medical treatment.
6. The accused Ghanshyam Kumeti was arrested and sent to judicial custody. Statements of witnesses and officials posted at the camp were recorded and the seized articles were sent for examination. After obtaining the necessary sanction for prosecution under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, the police filed the charge-sheet before the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Narayanpur, from where the case was committed to the Court of Sessions.
7. Thereafter, the learned Sessions Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 302 (two counts) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27 of the Arms Act. The 5 charges were read over to the accused, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. In his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined 29 witnesses including the complainant, injured witness, investigating officers and medical experts.
8. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para of the judgment. Hence, this appeal.
9. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial court is contrary to law, facts, and circumstances of the case. The Learned Court below has failed to properly appreciate the material evidence and has erroneously convicted the appellant Ghanshyam Kumeti despite the fact that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is respectfully submitted that no reliable evidence has been adduced by the prosecution to establish the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence at the time of the alleged incident. The Learned Trial Court has also failed to consider the defence and explanation given by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, which clearly explains the circumstances 6 and asserts his innocence, but the same has been ignored without proper reasoning. Furthermore, there is no eye-witness to the alleged incident and even the injured witness has categorically stated that he did not see who fired the bullets, thereby creating serious doubt regarding the involvement of the appellant. In absence of any direct or reliable evidence, the essential ingredients of the offences under which the appellant has been convicted are not fulfilled in the present case. The prosecution evidence, when read as a whole, clearly fails to substantiate the charges framed against the appellant and the conviction appears to be based on conjectures and surmises rather than cogent proof. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserves to be acquitted of all the charges. Learned counsel for the appellant relied upon the judgment passed by Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Jai Prakash Tiwari Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, reported in (2024) 15 SCC 424 and in the matter of Ram Singh vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, reported in (2024) 4 SCC 208.
10. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for respondent / State submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is based on proper appreciation of evidence, both oral and documentary, and does not suffer from any illegality or perversity. The trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant 7 under Sections 302 (two times), 307 of the IPC and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act after recording cogent reasons. Further, though there is no direct eyewitness, the prosecution has proved the case by a complete chain of circumstantial evidence which undoubtedly points towards the guilt of the appellant and excludes every possibility of innocence. The learned trial Court has rightly considered the gravity of the offence and imposed conviction under appropriate sections. The judgment of conviction is well-reasoned, legally sustainable, and based on settled principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in numerous decisions regarding conviction on the basis of statement of injured witness. Hence, the appeal preferred by the accused/appellant is devoid of merit and liable to be dismissed.
11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original record of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection.
12. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.
13. The first and foremost question before this Court is whether on 29.05.2020 at about 11:30 PM, within the premises of Amdai Ghati CAF Camp situated in the jurisdiction of Police Station 8 Chhotedongar, the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti fired from the AK-47 rifle allotted to him and thereby caused the death of PR Rameshwar Sahu and PC Bindeshwar Sahni by intentionally shooting them, and further caused gunshot injuries to Sub- Inspector Lakshram Premi with such intention or knowledge and under such circumstances that, had the said act resulted in death, it would have amounted to the offence of murder, and whether the accused thereby made illegal use of the said AK-47 rifle, rendering himself liable for conviction and punishment under the relevant provisions of law?
14. In this regard, the testimony of the injured witness Sub- Inspector Lakshram Premi (PW-2) assumes considerable significance in the present case. Being an injured witness who was present at the spot at the time of the occurrence, his evidence carries greater evidentiary value and ordinarily commands a higher degree of reliability, unless strong reasons exist to discard the same. In his examination-in-chief, the said witness has categorically stated that on 29.05.2020, after having dinner, he had gone to sleep in his barrack at the Amdai Ghati Camp. He further stated that the deceased PC Bindeshwar Sahni and the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti were also residing in the same barrack. At about 11:00-11:20 p.m., while he was sleeping, the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti fired shots from the AK-47 rifle allotted to him. According to the witness, the accused 9 fired upon him as well as upon PC Bindeshwar Sahni. As a result of the said firing, he sustained grievous bullet injuries. He stated that one bullet struck his thigh and remained lodged in his back after passing through the thigh, while two other bullets pierced through his thigh and exited. Due to the injuries he started bleeding profusely and became drenched in blood. The witness further deposed that PC Bindeshwar Sahni was also hit by bullets and was lying injured on the bed. On hearing the sound of gunfire, the personnel present in the camp became alert and rushed to the barrack. His companions administered first aid to control the bleeding, wrapped him in a blanket and immediately shifted him to District Hospital, Narayanpur through an ambulance. After receiving preliminary treatment there, he was referred to Ramakrishna Hospital, Raipur where he remained admitted for about four to five days for further medical treatment.
15. The injured witness has further stated that a few days prior to the incident, an altercation had taken place between the accused and the deceased PR Rameshwar Sahu during a card game played by the personnel in the camp. According to him, during the said incident Rameshwar Sahu had remarked that the noise being created resembled that made by animals, which was objected to by the accused, leading to a verbal dispute between them. Though the matter was temporarily resolved, the 10 witness stated that the accused harboured resentment over the said remark and, owing to this dispute, he later committed the present act of firing upon PR Rameshwar Sahu, PC Bindeshwar Sahni and Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi, resulting in the deaths of the former two and injuries to him.
16. During cross-examination, the defence suggested that due to darkness inside the barrack at night it was not possible to see the assailant. The witness admitted that the incident had occurred during the night and that the barracks were dark as the personnel were sleeping. However, he firmly denied the suggestion that he had not seen the accused firing the shots. On the contrary, he maintained that he had indeed seen the accused firing at him and at the deceased personnel. The witness further admitted that while he was being taken to the hospital and during his treatment he did not narrate the entire incident to the persons accompanying him or to the medical authorities. He explained that he was not asked about the details of the occurrence at that time and therefore he did not narrate the incident. The defence also suggested that the witness and the deceased Rameshwar Sahu used to harass the accused on account of his caste and that the accused had complained about such harassment to higher authorities, due to which the witness was falsely implicating him. The witness categorically denied all such suggestions and asserted that he had no reason to falsely 11 implicate the accused.
17. Thus, from the testimony of the injured witness it clearly emerges that he has specifically attributed the act of firing to the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti. His presence at the place of occurrence is unquestionable as he himself sustained firearm injuries in the incident. His evidence is consistent, natural and inspires confidence. Merely because the occurrence took place at night or that certain details were not disclosed immediately while he was undergoing treatment does not render his testimony unreliable. On the contrary, his statement provides direct and cogent evidence establishing that the accused fired upon him and the deceased persons with the AK-47 rifle allotted to him, thereby causing the death of PR Rameshwar Sahu and PC Bindeshwar Sahni, and inflicting injuries upon him. Consequently, the testimony of the injured witness substantially corroborates the prosecution case and strongly supports the finding of guilt recorded by the Trial Court
18. PR Gautam Dhamage (PW-1), Company Commander Nazim Ahmed (PW-3), Assistant Platoon Commander Mahasiddh Prasad Sinha (PW-5), Assistant Platoon Commander Leelaram Sahu (PW-6), Assistant Platoon Commander Rajeshwar Prasad Suryavanshi (PW-7), Assistant Platoon Commander Tumanlal Sahu (PW-4), Arun Tiwari (PR) (PW-9), Assistant Platoon Commander Jitendra Ganjir (PW-10), PR Sukaruram Negi (PW- 12
11), R. Palikram Sahu (PW-13) and R. Avinash Sethia (PW-14) have all been examined as witnesses in the present case. From their evidence it emerges that all the aforesaid witnesses, along with the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti, were posted at the Amdai Ghati Camp situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chhotedongar, District- Narayanpur, where they were performing duties relating to security arrangements. These witnesses have consistently stated that prior to and at the time of the incident dated 29.05.2020, the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti was posted along with them in the said camp in the capacity of Assistant Platoon Commander and was entrusted with security duties at the camp.
19. The aforesaid witnesses have further deposed in their examination-in-chief that on the date of the incident, i.e., 29.05.2020, at around 11:30 p.m., after having dinner, the personnel of the camp had retired to their respective barracks and rooms. Some of them were preparing to sleep in their allotted barracks inside the camp premises. At that time, upon suddenly hearing the sound of gunfire being discharged two to three times within the camp area, the personnel stationed both inside and outside the camp immediately became alert and rushed towards the area of occurrence while taking defensive positions with their respective service rifles.
20. The witnesses have further stated that upon reaching the 13 place, they noticed that Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi had sustained bullet injuries. They also found that Police Constable Bindeshwar Sahni was lying unconscious inside his room, while PR Rameshwar Sahu was lying unconscious outside his barrack. As Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi had sustained serious injuries due to the gunshot, he was immediately taken by ambulance to the Chhotedongar Hospital for medical treatment. At the same time, PC Bindeshwar Sahni and PR Rameshwar Sahu, who were also in an unconscious condition, were transported in a pickup vehicle to the District Hospital, Narayanpur, with the assistance of other constables present at the camp. Upon being examined at the hospital, the attending doctor declared PC Bindeshwar Sahni and PR Rameshwar Sahu to be dead.
21. During the course of cross-examination, the above witnesses admitted the defence suggestion that owing to the darkness prevailing at the time of the incident during the night, they had not actually seen the accused firing the shots. However, in their examination-in-chief they also narrated an earlier incident which had taken place on 20.05.2020. According to them, on that day they, along with Bindeshwar Sahni, Major Sinha, Major Rameshwar Sahu and other police personnel, were engaged in playing cards. During the course of the game, PR Rameshwar Sahu received a call on his mobile phone and 14 started conversing over the phone, during which some noise was created in the surroundings. At that moment, Rameshwar Sahu allegedly remarked that they are making noise like animals. The accused Ghanshyam Kumeti was also standing nearby. Upon hearing this remark, the accused responded to Rameshwar Sahu saying that he was calling them animals. This led to a dispute between the accused and the deceased Rameshwar Sahu. However, the dispute was subsequently pacified and resolved by those present there. According to the prosecution witnesses, the said altercation ultimately became the motive for the present occurrence, and on the date of the incident the accused fired upon Inspector Rameshwar Sahu and PC Bindeshwar Sahni, resulting in their deaths, while Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi sustained injuries due to the firing. It has further been stated that the police later interrogated them and recorded their statements in connection with the incident.
22. R. Palikram Sahu (PW-13) has deposed in paragraphs 2, 4 and 5 of his examination-in-chief that on the night of 29.05.2020, at about 11:20 p.m., he was sleeping in his barrack inside the camp premises. Suddenly, upon sensing danger and hearing sounds of commotion, all the personnel in the camp became alert. As the camp stood alerted, he along with other soldiers from his barrack took their respective weapons and proceeded to take defensive positions behind the barracks. 15 During this time, they heard sounds of gunfire emanating from the direction of the main gate of the camp. Initially, they suspected that the camp might have been attacked by Naxalites, and therefore they cautiously moved towards the main gate area to assess the situation. At that time Assistant Platoon Commander Tumanlal Sahu also approached them. Constable Avinash Sethia informed them that the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti was standing there and threatening to fire. Thereafter they moved away from that place. Subsequently, at around 1:40 a.m., after the situation had calmed down, the "stand-down"
procedure was carried out in the camp whereby all the personnel were assembled and counted. During this process it came to light that PR Rameshwar Sahu and Platoon Commander Bindeshwar Sahni had succumbed to gunshot injuries, while Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi had sustained injuries.
23. The said witness was later declared hostile by the learned Public Prosecutor and was subjected to cross-examination. When confronted with leading questions, the witness initially denied the suggestion that on 30.05.2020 he had come to know from the staff that a few days prior to the incident the deceased Rameshwar Sahu had referred to the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti as an animal, which had led to a dispute between them, and that due to the said dispute the accused bore a grudge against Rameshwar Sahu and had therefore fired upon him and 16 the other victims. However, the witness later clarified in his statement that on the following day it had indeed come to their knowledge that the dispute relating to the remark made by Rameshwar Sahu had occurred earlier and that due to misunderstanding he had initially denied the same. Thus, from the testimony of this witness also, it emerges that the accused was responsible for the firing at the time of the incident.
24. Similarly, R. Avinash Sethia (PW-14) has corroborated the testimony of the above witness. In paragraphs 2 to 4 of his examination-in-chief he stated that on the night of 29.05.2020, at around 11:20 p.m., he was sleeping with other jawans in Barrack No. 4 within the camp. Suddenly, upon sensing danger, all the personnel became alert. Thereafter he along with other soldiers of his barrack took their weapons and proceeded to take defensive positions behind the barracks and thereafter moved towards the main gate area to take position.
25. Witness Arun Tiwari (PW-9) has stated in paragraphs 2 and 3 of his examination-in-chief that on 29.05.2020 at about midnight he was sleeping in his barrack inside the camp. Suddenly he woke up on hearing the sound of gunfire, and other jawans also woke up simultaneously. Upon hearing the gunshots, he along with the other personnel took their rifles and cautiously moved out to take positions. Initially there was confusion and it was believed that the camp had been attacked 17 by Naxalites. The witness has further stated at the end of paragraph 3 and in paragraph 4 of his examination-in-chief that there were sounds of firing and it was the accused who had fired the shots. Immediately thereafter, the "stand-down" procedure was conducted, during which all the soldiers were assembled and counted. It was then found that two soldiers, namely Platoon Commander Bindeshwar Sahni and PR Rameshwar Sahu, had died due to bullet injuries, while Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi had sustained injuries. The witness further stated that the accused was apprehended by A. Banjare and the rifle in the possession of the accused was seized. In cross- examination, the witness stated that he did not remember whether he had told the police in his statement that the accused had said he had done what he has to do. He accepted the suggestion of the defence that he had not personally seen the accused firing the shots. However, he denied the suggestion that the accused had never been referred to as an animal. From the overall testimony of the said witness, it appears that immediately after the incident the accused was found in possession of the rifle and was compelled to surrender the same.
26. The said witness has also made an important statement to the effect that the accused was seen standing near the main gate holding a rifle. When the soldiers initially suspected him to be an enemy and abused him, the accused stated that he had been 18 called an animal and that he had done what he had to do. It was thereafter that the sound of gunfire was heard and the accused had fired the shots. In the same manner, Jitendra Ganjir (PW-
10), Assistant Platoon Commander, in paragraph 5 of his examination-in-chief has supported the above statement by stating that when he went to the "Kot" to obtain a first aid kit, the accused shouted that he has killed him and they used to treat him like an animal. The said statement was also heard by Constables Palikram Sahu and Avinash Sethia who were proceeding towards the scene.
27. Palikram Sahu (PW-13) has further stated in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief that the soldiers had taken cover behind a vehicle near the main gate. At that time a voice came from near the main gate stating, "I am Ghanshyam Kumeti. I am the one who is firing. I have been called an animal and therefore I am firing." Although the witness heard the voice clearly, due to darkness he could not visually identify the accused at that moment. Constable Avinash Sethia was also present with him at that time. In support of this testimony, R. Avinash Sethia (PW-
14) stated in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief that when they had taken position near the main gate, he heard the sound of firing and the accused was stating that he had fired the shots.
Assistant Platoon Commander Tumanlal Sahu had also arrived at the scene at that time and when he questioned the personnel, 19 they informed him about the statements made by the accused. Subsequently it came to light that Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi had been injured and had been taken to the ambulance. In the morning it was confirmed that PR Rameshwar Sahu and Platoon Commander Bindeshwar Sahni had died while Lakshram Premi had sustained injuries.
28. From the cumulative reading of the testimonies of the above witnesses it becomes evident that the accused himself had admitted to having fired the shots at the time of the incident and had shouted statements to that effect, thereby confirming his involvement in the crime. Even though some of the witnesses did not directly see the act of firing due to the darkness prevailing at the time of the incident, their statements consistently indicate that immediately after the occurrence the accused was present at the spot with the weapon and had made statements admitting that he had fired the shots.
29. At this stage, it is also necessary to examine the medical evidence placed on record by the prosecution. Dr. Kishore Kumar Sahu (PW-28) and Dr. Omprakash Dubey (PW-29), who conducted the post-mortem examinations of the deceased persons, have proved the post-mortem reports.
30. Dr. Kishore Kumar Sahu (PW-28) has stated that on 30.05.2020 the dead body of Rameshwar Sahu was brought to 20 him for postmortem examination by Constable Dinesh Tigga of Police Station Narayanpur. Upon examination he found that the deceased was lying on his back and was wearing a white vest and dark blue underwear. Both arms and legs were extended and the eyes were closed.
31. During external examination the following injuries were found:
1. Bullet entry wound on the left thigh measuring 1 × 1 cm, round in shape.
2. Bullet exit wound on the left thigh measuring 4 × 4 cm, irregular in shape.
3. Bullet entry wound in the middle of the jaw measuring 1 × 1 cm, round in shape.
4. Bullet exit wound below the right side of the neck measuring 6 × 3 cm, irregular in shape.
32. During internal examination, the doctor found damage to vital organs consistent with firearm injuries, including injury to the throat and windpipe and compression of internal organs. These injuries indicated that the firearm projectiles had passed through the body causing extensive internal damage.
33. The doctor opined that the death of deceased Rameshwar Sahu occurred due to excessive bleeding and neurogenic shock, 21 and that the death had occurred approximately 12-14 hours prior to the examination. He further opined that the death was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report prepared by him is Ex.P-20.
34. The same medical witness also conducted the postmortem examination of deceased Bindeshwar Sahni and found multiple firearm injuries on different parts of the body including the shoulder, cheek and hip region. The internal examination revealed severe internal damage consistent with firearm injuries.
35. The medical witness ultimately confirmed that both deceased persons had sustained gunshot injuries and that their deaths were homicidal.
36. Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi (PW-2), the injured witness, stated in his evidence that on 29.05.2020 at about 11:20 p.m., the accused fired at him using an AK-47 rifle, as a result of which a bullet entered his thigh and two bullets pierced through his thigh. He was thereafter shifted to Ramakrishna Hospital, Raipur, for treatment.
37. Dr. Om Prakash Dubey (PW-29), who examined the injured Lakshram Premi, stated that the injured had sustained gunshot injuries to the chest and abdomen, which were serious in nature and potentially fatal if timely treatment had not been provided.
38. The investigation in the present case was primarily 22 conducted by Inspector Pushpendra Bhatt (PW-27), who was posted at Police Station Chhotedongar at the relevant time. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that after registration of Crime No. 07/2020 under Sections 302 and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act, he proceeded to the place of occurrence situated at Amdai Ghati CAF Camp and undertook the investigation in accordance with law. During the course of investigation, he inspected the place of occurrence, recorded the statements of witnesses present at the camp under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure and prepared various seizure memos and other documents forming part of the investigation.
39. The Investigating Officer (PW-27) has further deposed that during the course of investigation he examined several witnesses who were present in the barracks at the time of the incident and who had knowledge regarding the occurrence. Their statements were recorded under Section 161 CrPC and were relied upon for the purpose of establishing the sequence of events leading to the incident. The witness has further stated that after collecting all relevant evidence, including documentary and material exhibits, he proceeded to complete the investigation.
40. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer (PW-27) it is further established that during investigation he prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence depicting the location of 23 Barrack No.1 and Barrack No.2, the beds on which the deceased persons were lying, the place where injured Sub-Inspector Lachram Premi was found in an injured condition and the places from where empty cartridges and bullets were recovered. The preparation of the spot map and inspection of the scene of offence forms an important part of the investigation and corroborates the prosecution case regarding the manner in which the incident took place.
41. The Investigating Officer Inspector Pushpendra Bhatt (PW-
27) has stated in paragraph 2 of his examination-in-chief that on 30.05.2020 he seized from the place of occurrence a blood- stained piece of mattress cover and a plain piece of mattress cover from the bed of deceased Bindeshwar Sahni along with two empty cartridges of AK-47 rounds from Barrack No.2. The seizure memo prepared in this regard is Ex.P-06 which bears his signatures.
42. Supporting the said seizure, Assistant Platoon Commander Tuman Lal Sahu (PW-8) has stated in paragraph 6 of his examination-in-chief that the police seized a blood-stained mattress cover from the bed on which deceased Bindeshwar Sahni was lying as well as a plain mattress cover and two empty cartridges of AK-47 rounds from beneath the bed and prepared the seizure memo Ex.P-06 in his presence.
24
43. The Investigating Officer (PW-27) has further stated in paragraph 3 of his examination-in-chief that two empty shells of AK-47 rounds were seized from above and below the fourth bed inside Barrack No.2 and one deformed bullet of an AK-47 round was also recovered from the same barrack. Another deformed bullet was recovered from a nearby place and the said articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-07 in the presence of witnesses.
44. The evidence of the Investigating Officer is duly supported by Assistant Platoon Commander Tuman Lal Sahu (PW-8) who has also stated that the police seized two empty rounds and deformed bullets of AK-47 cartridges from Barrack No.2 and prepared seizure memo Ex.P-07 bearing his signatures.
45. The Investigating Officer (PW-27) has further stated that three empty cartridges of AK-47 rifle were seized from near the wall of Barrack No.2 and one deformed bullet was recovered from beneath the bed situated in the north-east direction of the barrack. One more empty cartridge was recovered from beneath another bed on the western side. These articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-08.
46. In paragraph 5 of his examination-in-chief, the Investigating Officer has further stated that blood-stained cotton swabs and plain cotton swabs were seized from the place inside 25 Barrack No.2 where the injured Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi was lying. The seizure memo prepared in this regard is Ex.P-09.
47. The said seizure has also been supported by Tuman Lal Sahu (PW-8) who has stated that the police seized blood-stained cotton and plain cotton from the place where the injured officer was lying and prepared the seizure memo Ex.P-09 in his presence.
48. The Investigating Officer has further stated that gunpowder-laden debris and plain debris were seized from bullet dents located on the outer wall of Barrack No.1 and one AK-47 bullet was also recovered from one of the bullet dents. The said articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-05 in the presence of witnesses.
49. Supporting the above seizure, Leelaram Sahu (PW-6) has stated that the police seized gunpowder debris and bullet shells in his presence and prepared the seizure memo Ex.P-05 bearing his signatures.
50. The Investigating Officer (PW-27) has also stated that blood-stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place in front of Barrack No.1 where deceased Rameshwar Sahu had fallen after sustaining firearm injuries. The said articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-10.
51. The evidence of the prosecution further establishes that the 26 service weapon i.e. AK-47 rifle allotted to the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti along with magazines and cartridges was also seized during investigation. The seizure memo relating to the said weapon is Ex.P-15.
52. Now coming to the scientific evidence, during the course of investigation the seized articles including empty cartridges, bullets, blood-stained articles, soil samples and other materials were sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for scientific examination. The Investigating Officer (PW-27) has stated that he had forwarded the seized articles for forensic examination and subsequently received the FSL report which has been exhibited in the case.
53. The Forensic Science Laboratory report prepared by the Regional FSL, Jagdalpur has been brought on record as Ex.P-44. From a perusal of the said report it is evident that blood was detected on several articles seized from the place of occurrence including the mattress cover, cotton swabs and soil samples.
54. The FSL report further indicates that human blood was detected on certain exhibits including the mattress cover and soil samples seized from the place of occurrence. The presence of human blood on these articles corroborates the prosecution case that the incident had occurred at the place from where the said articles were seized.
27
55. The forensic examination of the cartridges and bullets recovered from the place of occurrence also indicates that they were fired from a firearm weapon consistent with the type of rifle seized during investigation. The FSL report therefore lends further corroboration to the prosecution case regarding the use of the AK-47 rifle during the commission of the offence.
56. From the evidence of the Investigating Officer and the supporting witnesses it is evident that the investigation in the present case was conducted in a systematic manner. The place of occurrence was inspected immediately after the incident and several material exhibits including empty cartridges, bullets, blood-stained articles and soil samples were seized in the presence of witnesses.
57. The seizure memos prepared during the course of investigation have been duly proved by the prosecution witnesses and the material exhibits seized from the place of occurrence were subsequently sent for forensic examination. The results of the forensic examination further corroborate the prosecution case
58. Upon analysis of the entire evidence on record, it becomes evident that on 29.05.2020 at about 11:30 p.m. at Amdai Ghati CAF Camp, the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti, due to a prior dispute arising out of a minor altercation, opened fire with the 28 government-issued AK-47 rifle.
59. The injured witness Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi (PW-2) stated that he saw the accused firing at him and the deceased persons. Other witnesses including Arun Tiwari (PW-9), Palikram Sahu (PW-13), Avinash Sethia (PW-14) and Rajeshwar Prasad Suryavanshi (PW-7) also stated that they heard the accused declaring that he had fired the shots and that he had been called an "animal".
60. Immediately after the incident, Inspector Manoj Banjare secured the accused and compelled him to surrender the AK-47 rifle in his possession.
61. Being an injured eyewitness, PW-2's presence at the scene of occurrence is natural and unquestionable. The settled law is that the testimony of an injured witness carries a higher evidentiary value, as it comes with an inbuilt guarantee of truthfulness. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of M.P. (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon'ble Supreme Court held that the evidence of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal and should ordinarily be relied upon unless strong reasons exist to discard it. Similar views were expressed in Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar (2021) 9 SCC 191, where the Court emphasized that injured witnesses seldom spare the real culprit.
62. In the present case, the testimony of the injured witness 29 Sub-Inspector Lachram Premi (PW-2) finds substantial corroboration from the surrounding circumstances as well as from the statements of other prosecution witnesses. Although some of the witnesses have stated that they did not directly see the act of firing owing to darkness prevailing in the barracks at the relevant time, their evidence consistently establishes that immediately after the occurrence the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti was present at the spot with the service rifle in his possession and was heard admitting that he had fired the shots. Such statements made by the accused immediately after the incident form a significant incriminating circumstance against him and lend strong corroboration to the version of the injured witness.
63. Apart from the ocular evidence, the prosecution case also receives substantial support from the investigation carried out by Inspector Pushpendra Bhatt (PW-27). The Investigating Officer has categorically stated that soon after registration of FIR, he proceeded to the place of occurrence situated within the Amdai Ghati CAF Camp and conducted a detailed inspection of the scene of offence. During such inspection he prepared the spot map of the place of occurrence showing the location of the barracks, the beds where the deceased persons were lying, and the exact places from where empty cartridges, bullets and other incriminating articles were recovered. The spot map thus 30 prepared forms part of the record and corroborates the prosecution case regarding the location and manner in which the incident occurred.
64. During the course of investigation, several material exhibits were seized from the place of occurrence. As deposed by the Investigating Officer (PW-27), blood-stained mattress cover pieces and plain mattress cover pieces were seized from the bed of deceased Bindeshwar Sahni inside Barrack No.2 along with empty cartridges of AK-47 rifle rounds. The seizure was effected vide seizure memo Ex.P-06 in the presence of witnesses. The said seizure has been duly proved by Assistant Platoon Commander Tuman Lal Sahu (PW-8), who has supported the prosecution version and confirmed that the seizure memo was prepared in his presence and bears his signatures.
65. The Investigating Officer has further deposed that two empty cartridges of AK-47 rounds and deformed bullets were recovered from inside Barrack No.2 and from beneath the beds situated therein. These articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-07. The said seizure has also been corroborated by witness Tuman Lal Sahu (PW-8), who has confirmed that the police recovered empty cartridges and deformed bullets from the barrack where the incident had taken place and prepared the seizure memo in his presence.
31
66. The evidence of the Investigating Officer further reveals that additional empty cartridges of AK-47 rifle rounds and one deformed bullet were recovered from the vicinity of the barrack walls and from beneath the beds situated in the barrack. These articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-08. The recovery of multiple empty cartridges and bullets from the barrack area clearly establishes that firing had indeed taken place at the said location.
67. The Investigating Officer has also stated that blood-stained cotton swabs and plain cotton swabs were seized from the place where injured Sub-Inspector Lakshram Premi had fallen after sustaining firearm injuries. The said seizure was effected vide seizure memo Ex.P-09, which has also been proved by the prosecution witnesses. The presence of blood-stained materials at the spot further corroborates the testimony of the injured witness and the medical evidence regarding the injuries sustained by him.
68. Further, gunpowder-laden debris and plain debris were seized from the bullet dents present on the outer wall of Barrack No.1, and one AK-47 bullet was recovered from one of the bullet marks. These articles were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-05 in the presence of witness Leelaram Sahu (PW-6), who has supported the prosecution case and confirmed the seizure proceedings conducted by the police.
32
69. The prosecution has also proved that blood-stained soil and plain soil were seized from the place situated in front of Barrack No.1 where deceased Rameshwar Sahu had fallen after sustaining firearm injuries. The said seizure was made vide seizure memo Ex.P-10. The recovery of blood-stained soil from the said place lends further support to the prosecution version regarding the place where the deceased collapsed after being shot.
70. During investigation the service weapon, namely the AK-47 rifle which had been issued to the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti for official duty, was also seized along with its magazine and cartridges. The seizure memo relating to the said weapon has been exhibited as Ex.P-15. The recovery of the service rifle from the possession of the accused immediately after the occurrence constitutes a significant incriminating circumstance linking the accused to the offence.
71. The prosecution evidence further reveals that all the seized articles including empty cartridges, bullets, blood-stained articles, cotton swabs, soil samples and other materials were properly sealed and sent to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory for scientific examination. The Investigating Officer (PW-27) has categorically stated that the seized articles were forwarded for forensic examination through proper channel and the report of the Forensic Science Laboratory was subsequently 33 received during the course of investigation.
72. The Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P-44) prepared by the Regional FSL, Jagdalpur has been brought on record by the prosecution. A perusal of the said report reveals that human blood was detected on several seized articles including the mattress cover pieces, cotton swabs and soil samples collected from the place of occurrence. The presence of human blood on these articles strongly corroborates the prosecution case that the incident occurred at the said location and that the victims had sustained injuries there.
73. The FSL report further indicates that the empty cartridges and bullets seized from the place of occurrence were subjected to ballistic examination. The examination revealed that the cartridges had been fired from a firearm weapon consistent with the type of rifle seized during investigation, namely the AK-47 rifle. This scientific evidence lends additional corroboration to the prosecution case regarding the use of the said rifle during the commission of the offence.
74. Thus, the investigation conducted by the police and the scientific examination of the seized articles provide important corroborative evidence supporting the prosecution version. The recovery of empty cartridges and bullets from the place of occurrence, the seizure of the service rifle from the possession of 34 the accused, and the forensic report confirming the presence of human blood on the seized articles collectively strengthen the prosecution case and establish the manner in which the offence was committed.
75. It is well settled that even in cases where direct eyewitness evidence is limited, a conviction can safely be based upon circumstantial evidence provided that the chain of circumstances is complete and leads only to the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the circumstances proved by the prosecution include:
(i) the presence of the accused in the barrack at the relevant time,
(ii) the testimony of the injured witness who directly attributed the act of firing to the accused,
(iii) the admission-like statements made by the accused immediately after the incident,
(iv) the recovery of the service rifle from his possession,
(v) the recovery of empty cartridges and bullets from the place of occurrence, and
(vi) the medical and forensic evidence corroborating the prosecution case.
76. The above circumstances form a complete and unbroken 35 chain which clearly points towards the guilt of the accused and excludes every hypothesis consistent with his innocence. The defence has not been able to offer any plausible explanation regarding these incriminating circumstances appearing against the accused.
77. The contention raised by the learned counsel for the appellant that there was no eyewitness to the incident and therefore the conviction cannot be sustained also does not merit acceptance. In the present case the prosecution has examined an injured witness whose presence at the scene of occurrence is undisputed. The testimony of an injured witness carries great evidentiary value and ordinarily cannot be discarded unless it suffers from serious contradictions or inherent improbabilities.
78. In the present case, the testimony of injured witness Lachram Premi (PW-2) is natural, consistent and supported by the medical evidence as well as by the surrounding circumstances proved by the prosecution. Nothing substantial has been elicited during his cross-examination so as to discredit his testimony.
79. Furthermore, the statements of other witnesses who reached the spot immediately after the incident and heard the accused admitting that he had fired the shots constitute an important link in the chain of circumstances. Their testimonies 36 corroborate the prosecution case and reinforce the conclusion that it was the accused who fired the fatal shots.
80. Taking into consideration the entire evidence on record including the testimony of the injured witness, the statements of other prosecution witnesses, the medical evidence, the investigation conducted by the police and the scientific evidence obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the accused Ghanshyam Kumeti fired from the AK-47 rifle and thereby caused the deaths of PR Rameshwar Sahu and PC Bindeshwar Sahni and also caused firearm injuries to Sub-Inspector Lachram Premi.
81. Consequently, the findings recorded by the learned trial Court holding the accused guilty of the offences punishable under Sections 302 (two counts) and 307 of the Indian Penal Code and Section 27(3) of the Arms Act are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference by this Court.
82. In view of the above discussion, this Court finds no merit in the appeal preferred by the accused. The conviction and sentence imposed by the learned trial Court are hereby affirmed.
83. Accordingly, the appeal stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence awarded to the accused/appellant Ghanshyam 37 Kumeti by the learned Sessions Court are maintained. The appellant shall continue to undergo the sentence as awarded by the trial Court
84. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 30.05.2020, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.
85. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, 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 Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet