[Cites 19, Cited by 0]
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
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
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-
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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,
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
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,
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
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
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.
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
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
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.
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
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
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
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
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
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
