[Cites 2, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Jatru Kumar @ Pankaj vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 22 April, 2026
Author: Narendra Kumar Vyas
Bench: Narendra Kumar Vyas
1
2026:CGHC:18370-DB
NAFR
NIKITA
JAIN
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Digitally signed
by NIKITA JAIN
Date:
2026.04.22
17:45:20
+0530
CRA No. 260 of 2015
1 - Jatru Kumar @ Pankaj S/o Sukar Kumar Aged About 19 Years, Caste
Kumhaar, Occupation Helper R/o Village Kuding Mahuatoli (Rakhwartoli)
Outpost - Lodaam, Ps Jashpur, Distt. Jashpur C.G.
... Appellant
versus
1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, PS Jashpur, Distt.
Bilaspur C.G.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Shri Akhtar Hussain, Advocate.
For Respondent : Smt. Shailja Shukla, Govt. Advocate.
DB: Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal &
Hon'ble Shri Justice Narendra Kumar Vyas
Judgment On Board
22/04/2026
Per Sanjay S. Agrawal, J
1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under
Section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, questioning the
legality and propriety of the judgment dated 24.01.2015 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur Chhattisgarh in
Sessions Trial No.68/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted
under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for
life with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, and in default of payment of fine
amount, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.
2. Briefly stated the case of the prosecution is that, on 03.06.2014, a merg
intimation (Ex.P.-1) was lodged by one Vinod Tirkey, Kotwar of the
Village Kuding Mahuatoli (Rakhwartoli) before the Police Station
Lodaam, District Jashpur, stating, inter alia, that in the morning at about
7 a.m., he received information from one Shyam Lal that a quarrel had
taken place in the house of the deceased Sukar Kumar and his dead
body was lying there. Based upon the alleged information, an FIR
(Ex.P.-2) was registered against the appellant - Jatru Kumar @ Pankaj
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC for the commission
of murder of his father and, the dead body of his father was sent for
autopsy, which was conducted by Dr. Ashutosh Tirkey (PW-10), who
vide his Post Morterm Report (Ex.P.-15) opined the cause of death to
be shock occurred due to respiratory arrest and during the course of
investigation, walking cane (Bahinga) in pieces and, a bamboo stick
with blood stain was seized on 03.06.2014 vide seizure memo (Ex.P.-
6), based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P.-5) in presence of two
witnesses, namely, Shyamlal Ram (PW-4) and Shankar Das (PW-6)
and, the alleged recovery was sent for chemical examination where
vide FSL report (Ex.P.-20) blood was found on those articles and, after
completion of investigation, a charge sheet was submitted before the
Court of Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jashpur against the appellant
for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and, the matter
was, thereafter, committed to the concerned trial Court, where based
upon the materials available on record, he was charge sheeted for the
commission of murder of his father - Sukar Kumar under Section 302
of IPC, which was denied by him and claimed to be tried.
3. The trial Court, after considering the evidence led by the prosecution,
particularly, the statements of the wife and daughter of the deceased -
Sukar Kumar and also by taking note of the FSL report (Ex.P.-20), held
the appellant guilty for the commission of murder of his father and
accordingly, he was convicted under Section 302 of IPC and has been
sentenced, as mentioned herein-above and, being aggrieved, the
instant appeal has been preferred.
4. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant/accused submits that the
finding of the trial Court holding that the appellant is involved for the
commission of the alleged crime is apparently contrary to the materials
available on record, inasmuch as the evidence led by the prosecution,
particularly, the statements of the wife and daughter of the deceased
have not been scanned in its proper manner and, thereby erred in
convicting him as such. The impugned judgment is, therefore, liable to
be set aside.
5. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent
has supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence as
awarded by the trial Court.
6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire
record carefully.
7. From perusal of the record, it appears that the appellant - Jatru Kumar
@ Pankaj has been charge sheeted for the commission of murder of
his father - Sukar Kumar on the allegation that on the said fateful day,
i.e., on 02.06.2014, in the night around 10 p.m., a quarrel had taken
place amongst the family members of the deceased where the
appellant has assaulted his father with the aid of walking cane
(Bahinga) and with a bamboo stick, which were recovered at his
instance on 03.06.2014 vide seizure memo (Ex.P.-6).
8. In order to establish the alleged allegation, the wife of the deceased,
namely, Asaari Bai (PW-2) and Sunita Kumari (PW-3), daughter of the
deceased, who were the eyewitnesses for the commission of the
alleged crime, were examined, but have failed to prove the prosecution
story, as according to the testimony of deceased's wife (PW-2), it
appears that she was at Jashpur on the day of the incident and was not
aware who has killed her husband, likewise, the daughter of the
deceased, namely, Sunita Kumari (PW-3) was not aware how her
father has died, or who has killed him. Both these eyewitnesses have,
thus, not supported the prosecution version.
9. That apart, according to the FIR, it appears that said Shyamlal, who
informed regarding the dead body of the deceased to Kotwar Vinod
Tirkey, was received the information from one Dhaniram and Chandru
that a quarrel had taken place in the house of the deceased where his
dead body was lying there, but for the reasons best known to the
prosecution, they (Dhaniram and Chandru) have not been examined.
10. It is to be seen further that though the alleged weapons were alleged to
have been recovered from the appellant vide seizure memo (Ex.P.-6)
based upon his disclosure statement (Ex.P.-5) in presence of two
witnesses, namely, Shyamlal Ram (PW-4) and Shankar Das (PW-6), but
both these witnesses have turned hostile without supporting the alleged
recovery in their presence, nor human blood was found on those articles
as per the FSL report (Ex.P.-20). In such circumstances and in absence
of any cogent and reliable evidence led by the prosecution, it is difficult
to hold that the appellant was involved for the commission of murder of
his father, as alleged by the prosecution.
11.Consequently, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of
conviction and order of sentence dated 24.01.2015 passed by the
learned Sessions Judge, Sessions Division, Jashpur Chhattisgarh in
Sessions Trial No.68/2014 is hereby set aside. As the appellant is on
bail, his bail bond and surety stand discharged.
A copy of this order be sent to the concerned trial Court for necessary
compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay S. Agrawal) (Narendra Kumar Vyas)
JUDGE JUDGE
Nikita
