Chattisgarh High Court
Anendra And Ors vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 16 September, 2025
Author: Rajani Dubey
Bench: Rajani Dubey
1
2025:CGHC:47446-DB
AFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1028 of 2013
1 - Anendra S/o Bacchelal Bhaskar Aged About 47 Years
2 - Santosh S/o Anendra Bhaskar Aged About 23 Years
3 - Gyani S/o Tekram Banjare Aged About 30 Years
4 - Sundar S/o Lakhan Banjare Aged About 23 Years
5 - Suresh S/o Lakhan Banjare Aged About 37 Years
6 - Ganesh S/o Lakhan Banjare Aged About 39 Years
7 - Saheb S/o Ramlal Mathur Aged About 36 Years
8 - Gambhir S/o Sadhe Mathur Aged About 26 Years
All resident of Village Girdharikanpa, Police Chowki Damapur, Police
Station Kunda, Rev. And Civil Distt. Kabirdham Distt. Kabirdham C.G.
... Appellants
In Jail
2
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kunda, Distt. Kabirdham
C.G.
... Respondent
For Appellants : Mr. Bhaskar Pyasi and Mr. Dinesh Kumar Yadav,
Advocates
For Respondent : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. AG
For Complainant : Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, PL.
Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey
Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ
Judgment on Board
(16th September, 2025)
Per Rajani Dubey, J
Challenge in this appeal is the legality and validity of the
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10 th September,
2013 passed by the Sessions Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha) in ST
No.46/2011 whereby each of the appellants stands convicted under
Sections 147, 148, 341, 323, 506B and 302 read with Section 149 of
IPC and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
Under Sections 302 read with 149 Life imprisonment, pay a fine of
of IPC. Rs.5000/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for five months'
RI.
Under Section 148 of IPC. RI for two years, pay a fine of
Rs.500/- and in default thereof to
suffer additional RI for three
months.
Under Section 341/149 of IPC. RI for one month.
Under Section 506B/149 of IPC. RI for five years.
Under Section 323/149 of IPC. RI for one year.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently.
02. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 7.5.2011 at 21:05
hours complainant Ishwar Patle lodged a report at Police Chowki-
Damapur that he is an elected panch of Ward No.12 at Village-
Girdharikanpa and in the past when panchayat election was conducted
his opponent Narendra Banjare lost by four votes. Since then Narendra
Banjare and his family members and relatives nourished animosity
against the complainant and his relatives and threaten them of taking
revenge of this defeat. On 7.5.2011 there was marriage of his niece
and he along with his younger brother Bhagwat had gone to Kunda
market on motorcycle for buying DTH. His nephew Manmohan and
son-in-law Daulat also went on another motorcycle with him. After
making purchase, all of them were returning to their house. However,
at about 6.30 when they reached in front of house of Suresh Banjare,
they saw Anendra, Sundar, Ganesh, Gambhir, Saheb, Suresh, Gyani
and Santosh sitting there with club and stick in their hands. They
wrongfully restrained the complainant party on the way and started
assaulting them with intention to kill them. However, they somehow
escaped from there and went to the house of their cousin Pukal.
Seeing their condition, his elder brother Kirtam and other relatives
reached near the house. At that time, Hemlal, Rajesh, Deenu, Matuk,
Manoj, Asharam, Tekram, Kuleshwar, Gangu, Rekhchand, Kalam,
Sadhe and Narendra also reached there with club and stick and they
started beating the family members of the complainant party. As a
result of this, Kirtam sustained injury over his left temporal region,
hands and other parts of the body, he fell unconscious and died
whereas Bhagwat, Horilal, Urendra and Bhagbali also suffered injuries.
03. During investigation, inquest over the dead body was performed
vide Ex.P/9A. The injured persons were got medically examined vide
Ex.P/53 to P/57; spot maps (Ex.P/6 & P/7) were prepared;
memorandum statements of the accused persons were recorded and
at their instance, the clubs used in commission of the offence were
seized vide Ex.P/10 to P/50. Statements of the witnesses were
recorded and seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical
examination from where report Ex.P/59 was obtained. After completing
formal investigation charge sheet was filed against the accused
persons under Sections 147, 148, 149, 294, 323, 506B, 341, 302 of
IPC. Learned trial Court framed charges under Sections 147, 148, 294,
323 (on five counts), 506B, 341 and 302 read with Section 149 of IPC
against the accused persons which were abjured by them and they
prayed for trial.
04. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 17
witnesses in all. Statements of the accused persons were recorded
under Section 313 of CrPC wherein they denied all the incriminating
circumstances appearing against them in the prosecution case,
pleaded innocence and false implication. No witness was examined by
them in their defence.
05. After hearing counsel for the respective parties and appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned trial Court
while acquitting accused Hemlal, Rajesh, Matuklal, Manoj, Asharam,
Kalam, Ayodhya, Narendra, Rekchand, Gangu, Sadhelal and Tekram
of all the charges, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as
mentioned above. Hence this appeal.
06. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the impugned
judgment is per se illegal and contrary to the material available on
record. The finding of learned trial Court that the appellants committed
murder of Kirtram is contrary to the postmortem report and statement
of Dr. KK Dhruv (PW-2) who has stated that death of Kirtram is not
homicidal in nature and that the injuries received by him were not
sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature. PW-3 Ishwar
states that all 21 accused including the juvenile offender assaulted all
the victims, himself as also the deceased whereas the deceased
sustained only three injuries and on examination of PW-3 the doctor
found that the complainant was only complaining of pain in knee and
swelling with tenderness was found. Thus, this witness is not at all
reliable and he gave an exaggeration account of the incident. Learned
trial Court ought to have appreciated that similarly PW-4 Manmohan,
PW-5 Bhagwat, PW-6 Urendra, PW-7 Horilal, PW-8 Pukal, PW-9
Ashok, PW-10 Daulat and PW-12 Bhagbali had received simple
injuries which could be caused in exercise of right of private defence by
accused No.4 Sunder and 2-3 others. There is material contradiction in
respect of the spot where the alleged fight took place. PW-3 Ishwar
states that the body of deceased was not placed in the house of
Manmohan and similar statement was given by Manmohan whereas
PWs-5, 7, 8 & 9 made contrary statements that body of the deceased
was placed in the house of Manmohan. In this case, the police has not
prepared memo regarding recovery/seizure of dead body or the spot.
Likewise, PWs-3, 4, 8, 9, 10 & 12 stated that the accused persons
assaulted in front of school near Pukal's house whereas PWs-5 & 6
state that the accused persons came into the house of Pukal and
assaulted. He submits that the so-called eyewitnesses to the incident
have failed to state the individual act of the accused persons which
shows that the prosecution witnesses cooked up a story to implicate
the accused and being part of conspiracy stated that all the accused
assaulted Kirtam and the injured whereas their medical reports falsify
their statements. Learned counsel further submits that as per
statement of PW-8 Pukal, there was dispute in respect of
encroachment of fencing of badi of Sunder and Ishwar.
07. Learned counsel for the appellants also argues that all the
injured witnesses admitted that they are facing trial in respect of Crime
No.69/2011 for the offence under Sections 147, 148, 324/149, 294 of
IPC which is a counter case in which Sunder received injury on head
caused by axe and the prosecution witnesses failed to explain as to
how Sunder sustained this head injury. Learned trial Court failed to
appreciate and consider the plea of right of private defence raised by
the accused persons to save life of accused Sunder. In fact, when in
exercise of right of private defence Sunder wielded lathi it hit the
injured persons, Kirtram fell down after sustained head injury and died
due to shock. On the same set of evidence, out of 20 accused persons,
12 have been acquitted by learned trial Court. Thus, looking to the
nature and quality of oral evidence, medical evidence and the fact that
counter case was also registered against the complainant party, the
impugned judgment is not legally sustainable and it is liable to be set
aside.
Reliance has been placed on the decisions in the matters of
Laxmi Singh Vs. State of Bihar, (1976) 4 SCC 394; Amar Singhh
Vs. State of Punjab, (1987) 1 SCC 679; Baburam and others Vs.
State of Punjab, (2008) 3 SCC 709; Jawaharlal alias Mullu Vs. State
of CG, 2015 SCC OnLine Chh 1795; Chandrapal Vs. State of CG,
(2023) 16 SCC 655; Sudeep Kumar Bose Vs. State of Cg, 2024
SCC OnLine Chh 186; and Onkar Singh Vs. State of CG, 2025 SCC
OnLine Chh 8739.
08. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State as also learned
counsel for the complainant opposing the contention of the appellants
submit that the learned trial Court upon proper appreciation of the oral
and documentary evidence has rightly passed the impugned judgment
of conviction and order of sentence which need no interference by this
Court. Therefore, the present appeal being devoid of any substance is
liable to be dismissed.
09. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material
available on record.
10. It is clear from the record of learned trial court that the
accused/appellants along with 12 co-accused were charged under
Sections 147, 148, 294, 323 (on five counts), 506B, 341 and 302 read
with Section 149 of IPC and after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence learned trial Court while acquitting 12 co-accused of all the
charges, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as
mentioned in para 1 of this judgment.
11. As per prosecution case, on the date of incident all the accused
persons having formed an unlawful assembly, armed with club and
stick intercepted the complainant party, abused them filthily and in
furtherance of their common object assaulted the complainant Ishwar
and Bhagwat, Horilal, Bhagbali, Urendra and Kirtam and also
threatened them of life as a result of which all of them sustained simple
injuries excluding Kirtam who sustained head injury and died on the
spot. It is also an admitted position before the trial Court that on the
complaint of accused Sunderlal a counter case was also registered
against the complainant party Ishwar, Baglu @ Bhagwat, Urendra,
Bhagbali, Virendra Kumar and Sitaram @ Krishna bearing ST
No.15/2012 under Sections 147, 148, 324 in alternative 324/149, 294
in alternative 293/149 and 506B/149 of IPC.
12. PW-3 Ishwar, brother of deceased Kirtam, states that he is
Panch of Ward No.12 at Village - Girdharikanpa. He contested election
against accused Narendra Banjare and won by four votes as a result of
which Narendra and his family members nourished animosity and ill-
will against him and his family. On 7.5.2011 there was marriage of
Ranjita, daughter of his cousin Pukal, so at around 4 pm he along with
Bhagwat, nephew Mohan and son-in-law Daulat went to Kunda market
on two motorcycles for buying DTH. However, while they were
returning to their house and reached in front of house of Suresh
Banjare, the accused persons Santosh, Anil, Gyani, Sunder, Suresh,
Ganesh, Saheb and Gambir intercepted them, abused them filthily and
started beating him and Bhagwat with club and stick as a result of
which he sustained injuries over his legs. They somehow escaped from
their clutches and went to the house of his cousin Pukal but the
accused persons following them reached near Middle School. By that
time, Gangu, Rekchand, Deenu, Kalam, Sadeh, Hemlal, Rajesh,
Matuk, Asha, Kuleshwar, Manoj and Tekram also reached near Middle
School. Seeing the assault, his brother Kirtam came out of the house
of Pukal who was also assaulted by the accused persons with club and
stick. They also beat Horilal, Bhagbali, Bhagwat and himself when they
came out of the house of Pukal. Due to this assault, Kirtam fell down
on the ground and died on the spot itself. Thereafter, the accused
persons fled from the spot. He lodged Dehati Merg Intimation Ex.P/3
and Merg Intimation Ex.P/4 which bears his signature from A to A part.
In cross-examination this witness remained firm and reiterated that it is
the accused persons who assaulted them with club and stick as a
result of which they sustained injuries and Kirtam died.
13. The other witnesses namely PW-4 Manmohan, PW-5 Bhagwat
Prasad Patle, PW-6 Urendra, PW-7 Horilal, PW-8 Pukal, PW-9 Ashok,
PW-10 Daulat and PW-12 Bhagbali have supported the statement of
complainant Ishwar (PW-3) and also stated that there was fight
between the accused persons and the complainant party in which
Kirtam sustained injuries, he fell on the spot and died and Ishwar,
Bhagwat, Horilal, Bhagbali and Urendra also suffered injuries.
14. Dr. PL Kurre (PW-11) on 8.5.2011 examined the injured
Bhagwat, Horilal, Bhagbali, Urendra and Ishwar vide Exs.P/53, P/54,
P/55, P/56 & P/57. He noticed that Bhagwat sustained five injuries,
Horilal sustained three injuries; Bhagbali suffered three injuries;
Urendra suffered two injuries. All these injuries were simple in nature.
He found that injured Ishwar received only one injury i.e. pain and
swelling in left knee and advised for x-ray. He admits that if no fracture
is found in x-ray, then all these injuries are simple in nature. The
prosecution did not file any x-ray report in this case.
15. Learned trial Court after due appreciation of the oral and
documentary evidence including the medical evidence found that the
accused persons committed rioting, wrongfully restrained the
complainant party, threatened them of life and in furtherance of their
common object, assaulted the injured persons thereby causing them
simple injuries. Thus, conviction of the accused/appellants under
Sections 147, 148, 341/149, 506B/149 and 323/149 being based on
proper appreciation of overall evidence cannot be faulted with and the
same is hereby affirmed.
16. As regards the offence under Section 302 of IPC, the
complainant Ishwar Patle (PW-3) and other witnesses have stated that
during the course of assault by the accused persons they sustained
injuries and the deceased Kirtam also suffered injury, he fell down and
died on the spot. PW-2 Dr. Keshav Kumar Dhruv conducted
postmortem of the deceased on 8.5.2011 and noticed following injuries:
i. contusion and blood clot found in left lateral angle of parietal
region of size 5 cm x 2 cm and there was extra cranium haematoma,
ii. contusion and blood clot seen at the middle of both side covered
the parietal region 3 x 2 cm in size vertical shaped and extracranial
haematoma seen in same region.
iii. lacerated wound on the right forearm of size 3 x 3 cm.
The autopsy surgeon opined that the cause of death was head
injury and death was antemortem in nature. However, viscera was
preserved for chemical analysis for confirmation.
17. As per the prosecution witnesses, all the accused persons
assaulted the deceased with club and sticks, however, the postmortem
report reveals that the deceased suffered only abovementioned three
injuries. In para 2 the autopsy surgeon states that cause of death of the
deceased is possibly shock as a result of head injuries. In cross-
examination he admits that there was no brain injury. He states that
death may occur due to shock and the shock can occur for various
reasons such as due to fall, witnessing beating, over-agitation or
snakebite. In para 5 he admits that the injuries suffered by the
deceased could be due to fall and since the death was not homicidal,
he did not mention nature of death and for ascertaining the actual
cause, he sent viscera for examination. In para 8 he admits that the
head injuries sustained by the deceased were not sufficient in the
ordinary course of nature to cause death. As per FSL report (Ex.P/59),
no poisonous substance was found in the viscera of the deceased.
18. It is a trite law that homicidal nature of death is a sine qua non
for securing a conviction for the offence of murder. The prosecution
must establish, beyond a reasonable doubt, that the death of the
deceased was caused by the criminal act of another person, and did
not result from natural causes, suicide, or an accident. The Hon'ble
Supreme Court in the matter of Chandrapal Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh reported in (2023) 16 SCC 655 held in para 13 of its
judgment as under:
"13. It is also needless to reiterate that for the purpose of
proving the charge for the offence under Section 302 of IPC, the
prosecution must establish "homicidal death" as a primary fact.
In order to convict an accused under Section 302, the court is
required to first see as to whether the prosecution has proved
the factum of homicidal death."
19. Considering the facts and circumstances of the case, the manner
in which the incident took place where the deceased sustained injuries,
in particular the evidence of autopsy surgeon PW-2 Keshav Kumar
Dhruve and the postmortem report (Ex.P/2), it stands established that
the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that
death of Kirtam was homicidal in nature. However, learned trial Court
did not appreciate all these evidence properly and held the
accused/appellants guilty u/s 302/149 of IPC which is not sustainable
in law. Therefore, looking to the nature of injuries sustained by the
deceased, the accused/appellants are held guilty u/s 323/149 of IPC in
place of 302/149 and are sentenced thereunder to suffer RI for one
year.
20. So far as quantum of sentence u/s 506B/149 of IPC is
concerned, the accused/appellants have been in jail since May, 2011
and as such, till date have completed more than 3 years and 6 months
jail sentence. They were granted bail by this Court on 9.10.2014 and
nothing has been brought to the notice of this Court that they have
misused the liberty so granted. Therefore, in the facts and
circumstances of the case, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful
purpose would be served in sending them back to jail at this stage for
undergoing the remaining sentence u/s 506B/149 of IPC and the ends
of justice would be served if their sentence under this section is
reduced to the period already undergone.
21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in part. Conviction of the
accused/appellants under Section 302/149 of IPC is hereby altered to
Section 323/149 of IPC and they are sentenced to undergo RI for one
year. Their conviction under Sections 148, 341/149 & 323/149 of IPC
and the sentence imposed thereunder by learned trial Court are
maintained. However, while maintaining their conviction u/s 506B/149
of IPC, the sentenced imposed thereunder by learned trial Court is
reduced to the period already undergone. Since all the sentences run
concurrently, there is need to pass any order regarding their arrest,
surrender etc.
The appellants are reported to be on bail. However, keeping in
view the provisions of Section 481 of BNSS, 2023, each of the
accused/appellants is also directed to furnish a personal bond for a
sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court
concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith
an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition
against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid
appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court.
22. A copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted
to the concerned trial Court for information and compliance. A copy of
this judgment be also forwarded to the concerned Jail Superintendent
where the appellants are undergoing the sentence, for information and
necessary action.
Sd/ Sd/
(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad)
Judge Judge
MOHD AKHTAR
KHAN
AKHTAR Date:
KHAN 2025.09.18
14:45:52
+0530
Khan
