Rajendra Sarang Alias Bhondu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR

¶4

CRA No. 451 of 2024

¶5

Rajendra Sarang Alias Bhondu S/o Late Tularam Sarang, Aged About 20 Years R/o Labhandi, Satnamipara, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

¶6

---- Appellant

¶7

Versus

¶8

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station-Telibandha, Raipur, District-Raipur (C.G.)

¶9

---- Respondent

¶10

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶11

For Appellant : Mr. Adhiraj Surana, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shashank Thakur, Dy. A.G.

¶12

Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶13

Hon'ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶14

Order on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

05.07.2024

¶17

1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.12.2022, passed by the learned XIV Additional Session Judge, Raipur, District - Raipur in Sessions Trial No.49/2021, whereby the appellant-accused has been

¶18

convicted and sentenced in the following manner :

¶19

CONVICTION	SENTENCE
Under Section IPC	302 of : Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs.100/- in default of payment of fine amount 15 days additional R.I.

¶20

2

¶21

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.03.2020, while celebrating the Holi festival at around 12.00 noon, complainant Punit Diler (PW-03) had gone near Ghasidas Chabutara, where his nephew Jess and his friends Nikhil, Rocky, Rajendra alias Bhondu were dancing near Nangada. After some time, complainant's nephew Jess and his friends Nikhil, Rocky, Rajendra alias Bhondu were seen going towards school and the complainant had returned to his home. Thereafter, at around 02.00 p.m., the complainant was going to school on a motorcycle, complainant's brothers Hitendra and Manu told that someone had killed his nephew Jess in the Anganwadi verandah. Then the complainant along with his brothers Hitendra and Manu went to the Anganwadi building and saw that someone had been murdered looked like his nephew Jess. Thereafter, the complainant informed the police by dialing helpline number 112. After sometime police came and investigated the crime scene.

¶22

The prosecution case is further that a large cement concrete brick was kept near the dead body of Jess and there was blood shed in the verandah of the Anganbadi building. The complainant Punit Diler (PW-03) dialed 112 and informed the police about the murder of Jess. On the above information, the police team arrived at the place of the incident and started investigation. Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/05) was recorded and First Information Report (Ex.P/08) was registered against unknown person for the offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code. The case was taken into investigation and postmortem of the body was done. During

¶23

3

¶24

investigation, appellant-accused Rajendra alias Bhondu was arrested (Ex.P/46) and his memorandum statement (Ex.P/06) was recorded in front of the witnesses, wherein he has stated that while going home from the verandah of Anganwadi building situated in Labhandi school premises, the deceased Jess abused his mother using filthy language then he caught hold him by the collar, he pushed him and made him fall in the Anganwadi verandah and in anger, he hit Jess on the head and chest with a brick made of cement concrete placed under the Anganwadi building and jump behind the curtain and run away to his house. On production of the accused by the police, blood stained flower sleeve shirt and blue jeans half-trousers were seized from the possession of the appellant/accused and the blood of the deceased on the surface of the verandah was picked up from the spot with cotton, plain cotton, brick made of blood stained concrete, blood stained slippers, matchstick and a piece of pipe were seized vide Ex.P/07. The preserved discarded clothes, blood etc. of the deceased were seized and all the seized materials were sent to FSL for examination. The accused was arrested on 10.03.2020 and his family members were informed about his arrest. Dehati Nalsi was registered vide Ex.P/01. Spot Map was prepared by the investigation officer vide Ex.P/12. Patwari also prepared spot map vide Ex.P/9. From the place of the incident, blood found near the dead body is collected by piece of cotton, plain cotton, a cement-concrete brick having blood stains, a pair of gents chappal/footware having blood stains, a piece of chilam

¶25

4

¶26

used for smoking and a key brand match box have been seized vide Ex. P/7. On the basis of memorandum statement given by the appellant/accused vide Ex.P/6, clothes having blood stains were recovered from the possession of the appellant/accused and seized vide Ex.P/10.

¶27

On 11.03.2020, the dead body of deceased was sent for postmortem to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. While conducting postmortem by Dr. Snigdha Jain, Doctor-cum-Professor, Department of Forensic Medicine, Mekahara, Raipur samples of various parts of dead body, blood samples, nails and clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P/13. The postmortem report is Ex.P/15. The external and internal injuries found on the body of the deceased Jess are as

¶28

below :

¶29

Abrasion dark red colour on right malar eminence of approximately 3 cm diameter with underlying contusion.

¶30

Small lacerated wound on right eyebrow lateral part.

¶31

Abrasion above right eyebrow on forehead with contusion approximately 3 cm diameter.

¶32

Multiple parallel healed scars of multiple tentative cuts on inner left forearm.

¶33

Right side neck swollen with abraded contusion above the swelling of size approximately 1 cm.

¶34

Abrasion dark red colour with contusion behind the left ear approximately 1 cm x 0.5 cm.

¶35

Further, the undersurface of scalp is contused at right temporal muscle fibers anteriorly. Plenty of subarachnoid hemorrhage and subdural hemorrhage present. Brain matter is oedematous. Both temporal lobes are contused and softened, left more than right. Comminuted fracture on left

¶36

5

¶37

temporal bone with displacement of fragments which are radiating throughout left side. Thalamus and pons shows hemorrhages. Right middle cranial fossa is fractured at junction of anterior and middle cranial fossa. Blood is present in lateral ventricles. Both lungs are contused. Right lung also contused at upper lobe, left lung contused throughout laterally. Heart, right chamber contains fluid blood.

¶38

The injuries are antemortem in nature and are caused by hard and blunt force trauma by hard and blunt force surface or object. All injuries are fresh in duration.

¶39

All clothes are preserve. Air dried blood sample is preserved for blood grouping. Nails are preserved for tissue scrapping of accused.

¶40

All the above sample are preserved, sealed, sign and labeled and handed over to the P.C. concerned.

¶41

In container 1- Stomach with content, pieces of small intestine with content.

¶42

In container 2-Pieces of lung, liver, spleen, & kidney. 3) In container 3-preservative saturated common salt solution.

¶43

Viscera labeled, sealed & handed over to P/C concerned.

¶44

Dr. Snigdha Jain opined that cause of death was head injuries & their complications and the duration of death is within 24 hours of postmortem examination.

¶45

3. The query report of the seized object i.e. a cement brick size 34cmx15.5cmx13cm weighing about 13.5 Kgm is Ex.P/16 and Dr. Snigdha Jain has opined that the seized brick could have caused the injuries to the deceased as shown in the postmortem report. There is a possibility that the deceased may have been murdered with the seized brick. To know whether the stains on the brick were blood, the said brick was sealed, signed, labeled and handed over to the

¶46

6

¶47

concerned constable for chemical testing in FSL to know whether it was human blood or not.

¶48

4. Seized samples were sent for FSL examination to FSL, Raipur vide memo. dated 02.05.2020, Ex. P/37. The clothes of deceased alongwith blood samples and other seized articels were also sent for FSL examination to FSL, Raipur vide memo. dated 14.05.2020, Ex. P/39. In response to the query dated 02.05.2020, the FSL report dated 08.06.2020 was received vide Ex.P/42 and in response to the query dated 02.05.2020, the FSL report dated 14.05.2020 was received vide Ex.P/43 respectively. In the FSL report Ex.P/42, it is mentioned that exhibits 'A' & 'B' contain ethyl alcohol, the quantity of which is 91mg/100gm viscera. Exhibit 'C' does not contain chemical poison and in FSL report Ex.P/43, it is mentioned that exhibit 'C', 'D' & 'G' are disintegrated.

¶49

5. On completion of investigation, charge sheet No.120/2020 was prepared and presented against the accused in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Raipur, since the Sessions Court has the jurisdiction to try the case, the case was referred to the Sessions Court for trial. The appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence that he has not committed any offence and he has falsely been implicated in crime in question.

¶50

6. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined 17 witnesses and exhibited 49 documents. The statements under Section 313 of CrPC of the

¶51

7

¶52

appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the material appears against him, plead innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. After appreciation of oral and documentary evidence led by the prosecution the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him life imprisonment with fine amount of Rs.100/-, hence this appeal.

¶53

7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has falsely been implicated for the offence. There are material omissions and contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses. The prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There is no legally admissible evidence on record to hold the appellant guilty for the alleged offence. The important witnesses turned hostile and have not supported the prosecution’s case. There is no eye witness to the incident that the appellant has caused injuries to the deceased. He would further submit that the witnesses of extra judicial confession are not reliable and their evidence are not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty for the offence. He would further submit that as they were friend and there was no motive or intention on the part of the appellant/accused to cause death of the deceased and only on account of sudden quarrel, under heat of passion and in anger, the appellant caused injuries to the deceased, which caused his death. Therefore, the case of the present appellant falls within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC and the act of the appellant is culpable homicide not amounting to murder and,

¶54

8

¶55

therefore, it is a fit case where the conviction of the appellant for offence under Section 302 of the IPC can be converted/altered to an offence under Section 304 (Part-I or Part-II) of the IPC. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed in full or in part.

¶56

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the argument advanced by the learned counsel for the appellant and have submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The involvement of the appellant has been proved by the witness PW-3 and PW-5, who have duly supported the case of the prosecution. The appellant is said to be friend of the deceased, his presence at the relevant point of time has been proved by the witness but they have failed to explain as to how the deceased was murdered within the boundary of Anganbadi building. The evidence of extra judicial confession corroborates the non-explanation of the injuries on the body of the deceased inside Anganbadi building. The appellant has not explained in his 313 CrPC statement about the circumstances appears against him. In view of the number of injuries found on the body of the deceased, the learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that it is not a case where the appellant’s conviction under Section 302 of the IPC can be altered/converted under Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC and as such, the instant criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶57

9

¶58

9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶59

10. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. Snigdha Jain (PW-12), has come to the conclusion that cause of death was head injuries & its complications. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that cause of death of the deceased was due to head injuries and its complications are the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding.

¶60

11. Now, the question for consideration would be whether the accusedappellant herein is the perpetrator of the crime in question, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by relying upon the testimony of Dr. Snigdha Jain (PW-12). The trial Court in para-18 and para-20 of its judgment has recorded the finding that the the evidence of Dr. Snigdha Jain (PW-12) shows that the cause of death of the deceased has been attributed to head injuries & its complication. The doctor has opined that there were torn wounds on the body of the deceased, which were caused by hard and blunt object and temporal bone was broken and there were abrasion marks on the chest and other parts of the body. Considering all the above

¶61

10

¶62

facts, it is proved that death of deceased Jess was homicidal in nature.

¶63

12. Smt. Seema Radia (PW-1), who is mother of the deceased has stated in her Court statement that God has told her that boys wer killing Jess near the village school. When she reached near the school, the deceased was bleeding from his mout, his head was cracked, his ars and legs were broken and there were marks of being beaten with a sharp object all over his body. A large concrete brick weighing about 20 to 25 kg was lying near the deceased.

¶64

13. Punil Diler (PW-3) has stated in his examination-in-chief that on the day of Holi in the year 2020, around 12 noon to 12:30 pm, he was sitting in the paan cart located on the other side of Anganwadi School Labhandi, when Rajendra Sarang alias Bhondu came running towards him from Anganwadi building and sat next to him. After some time, accused Rajendra Sarang alias Bhondu went to his home and he also went to his home to have food. In cross examination the said witness has admitted that while giving his statement to the police, he had not told about the accused came running towards him from the Anganbadi and sitting near him panting.

¶65

14. Nikhil Bharti (PW-15) and Gaurav Nihal (PW-16) who were also celebrating the holi festival with the deceased have stated that the incident took place on the day of Holi and both of them alongwith Golu alias Dharmendra, Nikhil and accused Rajendra & the deceased were sitting together playing Holi at around 11:00-12:00

¶66

11

¶67

noon near the Anganwadi building located near the school of their village. The deceased Jess and the accused were smoking ganja, both of them were addicted to the drug, then Golu left from there and after some time both of them left from there. After their departure, accused Rajendra and the deceased were sitting near Aanganbadi building, smoking ganja. They also stated that when they reached the spot, the deceased Jess was lying soaked in blood and a big piece of concrete was also lying near him. The above statements of the witnesses have been irrefutable in their cross-examination.

¶68

15. The statement of all these witness fully supports the prosecution story that the accused has killed complainant's nephew Jess. Thus, the above three witnesses have stated that they saw the deceased with the accused for the last time.

¶69

16. Dr. Snigdha Jain (PW-12) has opined that cause of death was due to head injury and its complications. Death is likely to occur within 12 to 24 hours of postmortem. The cause of death has been mentioned to be dependent on circumstantial evidence. Vide letter dated 01.05.2020, she has sent a query report regarding the seized cement-concrete brick and an opinion was sought as to whether the injuries caused to the deceased could have come from the seized cement-concrete brick mentioned in the postmortem report. In her query report, the doctor has opined that the above injuries could have been caused by cement-concrete brick seized from the place of incident.

¶70

12

¶71

17. The aforesaid finding brings us to the next question for consideration, whether the case of the appellant is covered within Exception 4 to Section 300 of the IPC vis-a-vis culpable homicide not amounting to murder and his conviction can be converted to Section 304 Part-I or Part-II of the IPC, as contended by learned counsel for the appellant ?

¶72

18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sukhbir Singh v. State of Haryana 1 has observed as under:-

¶73

“21. Keeping in view the facts and circumstances of the case, we are of the opinion that in the absence of the existence of common object Sukhbir Singh is proved to have committed the offence of culpable homicide without premeditation in a sudden fight in the heat of passion upon a sudden quarrel and did not act in a cruel or unusual manner and his case is covered by Exception 4 of Section 300 IPC which is punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC. The finding of the courts below holding the aforesaid appellant guilty of offence of murder punishable under Section 302 IPC is set aside and he is held guilty for the commission of offence of culpable homicide not amounting to murder punishable under Section 304 (Part I) IPC and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and to pay a fine of Rs.5000. In default of payment of fine, he shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment for one year.”

¶74

19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Gurmukh Singh v. State of Haryana 2 has laid down certain factors which are to be taken into

¶75

1 (2002) 3 SCC 327

¶76

2 (2009) 15 SCC 635

¶77

13

¶78

consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused with reference to Section 302 or Section 304 Part II of the IPC, which

¶79

state as under :-

¶80

“23. These are some factors which are required to be taken into consideration before awarding appropriate sentence to the accused. These factors are only illustrative in character and not exhaustive. Each case has to be seen fro its special perspective. The relevant factors are as under :

¶81

(a) Motive or previous enmity;

¶82

(b) Whether the incident had taken place on the spur of the moment;

¶83

(c) The intention/knowledge of the accused while inflicting the blow or injury;

¶84

(d) Whether the death ensued instantaneously or the victim died after several days;

¶85

(e) The gravity, dimension and nature of injury;

¶86

(f) The age and general health condition of the accused;

¶87

(g) Whether the injury was caused without premeditation in a sudden fight;

¶88

(h) The nature and size of weapon used for inflicting the injury and the force with which the blow was inflicted;

¶89

(i) The criminal background and adverse history of the accused;

¶90

(j) Whether the injury inflicted was not sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death but the death was because of shock;

¶91

(k) Number of other criminal cases pending against the accused;

¶92

(l) Incident occurred within the family members or close relations;

¶93

(m) The conduct and behaviour of the accused after the

¶94

14

¶95

incident.

¶96

Whether the accused had taken the injured/the deceased to the hospital immediately to ensure that he/she gets proper medical treatment ?

¶97

These are some of the factors which can be taken into consideration while granting an appropriate sentence to the accused.

¶98

The list of circumstances enumerated above is only illustrative and not exhaustive. In our considered view, proper and appropriate sentence to the accused is the bounded obligation and duty of the court. The endeavour of the court must be to ensure that the accused receives appropriate sentence, in other words, sentence should be according to the gravity of the offence. These are some of the relevant factors which are required to be kept in view while convicting and sentencing the accused.”

¶99

20. Likewise, in the matter of State v. Sanjeev Nanda 3, their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that once knowledge that it is likely to cause death is established but without any intention to cause death, then jail sentence may be for a term which may extend to 10 years or with fine or with both. It has further been held that to make out an offence punishable under Section 304 Part II of the IPC, the prosecution has to prove the death of the person in question and such death was caused by the act of the accused and that he knew that such act of his is likely to cause death.

¶100

21. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Arjun v. State of Chhattisgarh 4 has elaborately dealt with the issue and observed in paragraphs 20 and 21, which reads as under :-

¶101

3 (2012) 8 SCC 450

¶102

4 (2017) 3 SCC 247

¶103

15

¶104

“20. To invoke this Exception 4, the requirements that are to be fulfilled have been laid down by this Court in Surinder Kumar v. UT, Chandigarh [(1989) 2 SCC 217 : 1989 SCC (Cri) 348], it has been explained as under :(SCC p. 220, para 7)

¶105

“7. To invoke this exception four requirements must be satisfied, namely, (I) it was a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was done in a heat of passion; and (iv) the assailant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. The cause of the quarrel is not relevant nor its I relevant who offered the provocation or started the assault. The number of wounds caused during the occurrence is not a decisive factor but what is important is that the occurrence must have been sudden and unpremeditated and the offender must have acted in a fit of anger. Of course, the offender must not have taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel manner. Where, on a sudden quarrel, a person in the heat of the moment picks up a weapon which is handy and causes injuries, one of which proves fatal, he would be entitled to the benefit of this exception provided he has not acted cruelly.”

¶106

Further in Arumugam v. State [(2008) 15 SCC 590 : (2009) 3 SCC (Cri) 1130], in support of the proposition of law that under what circumstances Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC can be invoked if death is caused, it has been explained as under : (SCC p. 596, para 9)

¶107

“9. …. '18. The help of exception 4 can be invoked if death is caused (a) without premeditation; (b) in a sudden fight; (c) without the offender's having taken undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner; and (d) the fight must have been with the person killed. To bring a case within Exception 4 all the ingredients mentioned in it must be found. It is to be noted that the “fight” occurring in Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC is not defined in the Penal Code, 1860. It takes two to make a fight. Heat of passion requires that there must be no time for the passions to cool down and in this case, the parties had worked themselves into a fury on account of the verbal altercation in the beginning. A fight is a combat between two or more persons whether with or without weapons. It is not possible to enunciate any general rule as to what shall be deemed to be a sudden quarrel. It is a question of fact and whether a quarrel is sudden or not must necessarily depend upon

¶108

16

¶109

the proved facts of each case. For the application of Exception 4, it is not sufficient to show that there was a sudden quarrel and there was no premeditation. It must further be shown that the offender has not taken undue advantage or acted in cruel or unusual manner. The expression “undue advantage” as used in the provisions means “unfair advantage”.

¶110

22. In the matter of Arjun (supra), the Supreme Court has held that if there is intent and knowledge, the same would be case of Section 304 Part-I of the IPC and if it is only a case of knowledge and not the intention to cause murder and bodily injury, then same would be a case of Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

¶111

23. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Rambir v. State (NCT of Delhi)5 has laid down four ingredients which should be tested to bring a case within the purview of Exception 4 to Section 300 of IPC, which reads as under:

¶112

“ 16. A plain reading of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC shows that the following four ingredients are required: (i) There must be a sudden fight; (ii) There was no premeditation; (iii) The act was committed in a heat of passion; and (iv) The offender had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.”

¶113

24. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments (supra), it is quite vivid that as per evidence of Punil Diler (PW-3) on the day of Holi in the year 2020, around 12 noon to 12:30 pm, he was sitting in the paan cart (betel shop) located on the other

¶114

5(2019) 6 SCC 122

¶115

17

¶116

side of Anganwadi School Labhandi, when appellant/accused Rajendra Sarang alias Bhondu came running towards him from Anganwadi building and sat next to him, but he has not noticed anything to be unnatural, except that he was panting. There was no premeditation on the part of the appellant to cause death of deceased Jess, the quarrel took place between the appellant & the deceased with regard to using filthy language to his mother and out of that anger and in heat of passion, the appellant assaulted the deceased by hands, fists and cement-concrete brick due to which he died on the spot. The appellant did not have any intention to cause death of deceased Jess, but by causing such injuries, he must have had the knowledge that such injuries inflicted by him would likely to cause death of Jess, as such, his case would fall within the purview of Exception 4 of Section 300 of IPC, as the act of the appellant herein completely satisfied the four necessary ingredients of Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC i.e. (i) there must be a sudden fight; (ii) there was no premeditation; (iii) the act was committed in a heat of passion and (iv) the appellant had not taken any undue advantage or acted in a cruel or unusual manner.

¶117

25. Considering the above-stated facts, also considering the evidence of Smt. Seema Shadiya (PW-1), mother of the deceased and Punit (PW-3), complainant/maternal uncle of the deceased and also statement of Nikhil Bharti (PW-15) and Gaurav Nihal (PW-16) who were also celebrating the holi festival with the deceased, also considering the evidence of Dr. Snigdha Jain (PW-12), nature of

¶118

18

¶119

injuries caused by the appellant to the deceased, postmortem report (Ex.P-15) and the fact that the appellant is in jail since 11.03.2020, it would meet the end of justice that if the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is altered/converted to Section 304 Part-II of the IPC.

¶120

26. Accordingly, conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is set aside, however, he is convicted under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for 5 years.

¶121

27. The appellant is stated to be in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as modified by this Court.

¶122

28. The criminal appeal is partly allowed to the extent indicated hereinabove.

¶123

29. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance.

¶124

Sd/Sd/( Ravindra Kumar Agrawal ) ( Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶125

Ravi Mandavi

Rajendra Sarang Alias Bhondu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Rajendra Sarang Alias Bhondu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Pintu Vishwakarma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bharti Axa General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Thankuri

The Bajaj Allianz General Insurance Company Limited Vs Smt. Kosi

X Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mohammad Abid Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Sunder Lal @ Pappu @ Vishal Vs State of Chhattisgarh