[Cites 5, Cited by 0]
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
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
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
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
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.
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.
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
