Chattisgarh High Court
Raju Sidar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 25 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:14291-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1499 of 2021
Raju Sidar S/o Late Gyan Singh Sidar Aged About 36 Years Occupation
Cultivator, R/o Thakur Nagar Jobi, Police Station Kapoo, District Raigarh
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station
Kapoo, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 25/03/2026
1. Heard Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent.
2. Today, the matter is listed for hearing on IA No. 2/2021, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. However, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, the matter is 2 heard finally.
3. Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.05.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No. 124/2017 by the learned 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, District Raigarh, by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) and sentenced to imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- and in default, to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for one year.
4. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 24.08.2017 at about 3 p.m., at village Thakur Nagar, Jobi, within the jurisdiction of Police Station, Kapu, District Raigarh, a dispute arose between the appellant and his father, Gyan Singh (hereinafter referred to as 'the deceased') with respect to selling of paddy after which the appellant assaulted the deceased by hands and fists, throttled and caused murder of the deceased.
5. Merg intimation bearing No. 42/17 (Exhibit P/3) was given to the Police on 24.08.2017 at about 3:00 p.m. by Sanjay Sidar (PW-3) who is the brother of the appellant and son of the deceased. On the basis of the same, FIR (Exhibit P/4) was registered bearing Crime No. 64/2017 on 25.08.217 at about 8:55 a.m by the Sub-Inspector of Police and Station House Officer, J. Lakda (PW-10) for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The memorandum of the appellant was also recorded by the police on 25.08.2017 at about 15:30 hours in presence of Balram Ekka (PW-8) and Neeraj Yadav (PW-9)The appellant was arrested on 25.08.2017 at about 19:30 hours and its information was duly given to his wife Sunita (PW-7). After sending the body for postmortem, its report (Exhibit P/3) was obtained, spot map (Exhibit P/1) was prepared. After conducting 3 necessary formalities and after completion of the investigation, the police submitted its charge sheet on 08.11.2017 before the Court of learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Dharamjaigarh, who registered the case as Criminal Case No. 573/2017. Since the case was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the Court of 1 st Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, vide order dated 13.11.2017 and the case was registered as Sessions Trial No. 124/2017.
6. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant for the offences under Section 302 of the IPC which was denied and the appellant prayed for trial.
7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses namely Devdutt Singh (PW-1), Dr. Vijay Lakda (PW-2), Sanjay Sidar (PW-3), Amar Singh Sidar (PW-4), Vijay Sidar (PW-5), Sahodra (PW-6), Sunita (PW-7), Balram Ekka (PW-8), Neeraj Yadav (PW-9) and J. Lakda (PW-10) and exhibited as many as 14 exhibits.
8. The statement of the appellant/convict under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He expressed his ignorance with respect to some of the questions and some of them were denied as well.
9. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict.
10. Mr. Jitendra Kumar Saxena, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. There is no eye witness to the incident and the conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence. The deceased was the father of the 4 appellant and for a petty reason, no son would kill his own father. The prosecution version itself appears to be concocted. There was no motive for the appellant to cause murder of his father. The incident is alleged to have taken place in broad day light but still there is no eye witness to the incident which makes the prosecution story doubtful. There are omissions and contradictions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses and some of the witnesses have even turned hostile but still the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him to life imprisonment which deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the charges.
11. On the other hand, Mr. Shailendra Sharma, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant and the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences in question. The judgment is based on evidence available on record and as such, the same does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.
13. There is no manner of doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which is evident from the postmortem report (Exhibit P/3) and the statement of the Doctor, namely Dr. Vijay Lakda (PW-2), who had conducted the postmortem. Multiple contusion were present on the body of the deceased which were black-bluish in colour. Right 4 th and left 3rd, 4th, 5th and 6th ribs were found to be fractured. Hyoid bone was also found to be broken. Both the lungs were found to be punctured. On opening of the chest, black bluish colour injuries were found to be 5 present. The Doctor opined that the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. This is a finding of fact and the learned trial Court has not committed any error in arriving at a finding that the death of the deceased was homicidal. We affirm the same.
14. Devdutt Singh (PW-1) is the Patwari who had prepared the spot map (Exhibit P/1) as he was directed by the Tahsildar.
15. It is not disputed that the incident occurred in the house of the deceased himself. The appellant is the son of the deceased. Sanjay Sidar (PW-3) who is also one of the son of the deceased, stated before the Court that when he returned from the pond after taking bath, at about 3 p.m., he was informed by the people of the locality that the appellant had caused murder of his father but since he was afraid of the appellant, he could not ask anything from the appellant. He made phone calls to his other brothers. On the next day, he went to Police Station. He had given merg intimation and had also lodged the FIR. He himself had not seen the appellant causing death but when the incident occurred, the appellant was present in the house. He also stated that there had been a scuffle between the appellant and the deceased on the issue of selling of paddy.
16. Amar Singh Sidar (PW-4) is also the brother of the appellant and son of the deceased. He stated that they were in total four brothers and three of them live together. The appellant used to reside separately. He alongwith Vijay (PW-5) had gone to attend the last rituals (Dashkarm) of a relative. Sanjay (PW-3) called him and Vijay (PW-5) over phone and informed about the incident. When they reached, they found the dead body lying in the verandah of their house. At that time, the appellant was also there. He further stated that before the incident, a scuffle had taken place between the appellant and the deceased on the issue of selling of paddy by the appellant.
6
17. Vijay Sidar (PW-5) is also one of the brother of the appellant and son of the deceased. He stated that on the date of incident, he had gone to village Ludeg to attend Dashkarm alongwith his brother Amar (PW-4). He was informed by his brother Sanjay regarding the incident. He further stated that in the morning, when they were about to leave the house for attending the Dashkarm, at that time also, the appellant was quarreling with the deceased.
18. Sahodara (PW-6) is the neighbour of the deceased. Their houses are adjacent to each other. On the date of incident, she saw that both the appellant and the deceased were quarreling in their house. When she reached there and tried to intervene, she was pushed back by the appellant after which she returned home.
19. From the deposition made by the above witnesses, it is clear that on the date of incident, in the morning, a scuffle took place between the appellant and the deceased as the appellant had sold some paddy belonging to the deceased without asking him. The appellant was very much enraged by the fact that he was being scolded by his father i.e. the deceased time and again for the same issue. The other three brothers of the deceased, namely Sanjay (PW-3), Amar (PW-4) and Vijay (PW-5) and the neighbour Sahodra (PW-5) all have deposed that the appellant was present in the house and had been quarelling with the deceased. The injuries sustained by the deceased are also of such nature which would be caused in a hand to hand combat. No weapon etc. has been used to cause the injuries. The appellant has also not been able to establish that he was not present in the house or that he was present elsewhere. Hence, the learned trial Court was fully justified in holding the appellant guilty of the offence.
7
20. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Court with regard to conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant is just and proper warranting no interference. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.
21. The appellant/convict is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.
22. 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.
23. Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE
Manpreet / Amit
AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed
by AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2026.03.27
12:55:01 +0530