Yogesh Chakradhari Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:34355-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.22 18:46:31 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 113 of 2021

¶7

Yogesh Chakradhari S/o Naresh Chakradhari, Aged About 20 Years R/o Old Gourela, Police Station - Gourela, District - Bilaspur (Now District - Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi) Chhattisgarh

¶8

... Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Station House Officer, Police Station - Gourela, District - Gourela-Pendra-Marwahi) Chhattisgarh

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.Amiyakant Tiwari, Advocate as amicus curiae. For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate

¶13

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶14

Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ

¶17

21/07/2025

¶18

This criminal appeal preferred by the appellant herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment dated 19.01.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Jude, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur, in Sessions Trial

¶19

2

¶20

No.24/2009, whereby learned trial Court has convicted the appellant herein for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.

¶21

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 19.06.2019 complainant Sanjay Bhoumik appeared at Police Station Gaurela and lodged a report to the effect that his nephew Rahul Diwan’s photo studio is near old Gaurela forest barrier. His nephew was in the studio on 19.06.2019, at around 4 P.M., Lok Prasad Dhavariya of Om Sai Auto Parts shop came to his house and told him that three people together stabbed his nephew Rahul to death. On the above information, he went to the spot and saw that his nephew Rahul was lying soaked in blood in Sai Auto Parts shop, blood was oozing from many places on his body, injury marks were visible and his nephew had died. His nephew was in love with Jyoti, daughter of Naresh Chakradhari of Purana Gaurela, due to enmity of this matter, his nephew was murdered by the appellant and two minor persons together. On the above information, Merg intimation (Ex.P-8) was registered. On the basis of above report of the complainant, Gaurela Police Station registered the FIR in Crime No.170/2019 under Section 302/34 of the IPC vide Ex.P-9 against the present appellant and two minor persons and took the case into investigation. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-21. Patwari also prepared the spot

¶22

3

¶23

map vide Ex.P-10. Spot panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-11. Inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P15. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-1. Bloodstained soil, plain soil and one gamcha stains with blood were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-2. T-shirt stains with blood was seized from the appellant afer removing from his body vide Ex.P-3. One button knife was seized from the house of juvenile accused vide Ex.P-4. One t-shirt stains with blood and one pair shoes stains with blood were seized from juvenile accused vide Ex.P-5. One vest stains with blood and one loar were seized from accused Rohit vide Ex.P-6. Appellant Yogesh Chakradhari was arrested on 20.06.2019 vide arrest memo Ex.P-

¶24

Postmortem of body of deceased Rahul was conducted by Dr.B.S.Paikra (PW-8) vide Ex.P-20 and found following injuries:-

¶25

“1. Stab wound which was in the supraclavicular area was deep and blood was flowing from it. Two veins, subclavian artery and vein were cut in the wood and due to the same injury a hole was made in the heart. The said injury was caused by a cut and sharp object.

¶26

Deep stab wound on the right side of the back whose size was 3 x 2 cm which was quite deep. The said injury was also caused by a hard and sharp object. Near the same injury, a cut wound which was quite deep was found due to which ribs number 10 and 11 were found fractured and the liver was

¶27

4

¶28

damaged. The said injury was also caused by a hard and sharp object.

¶29

A scratch of 3 x 3 cm was found on the right shoulder. There were may scratches on the left side of the neck and a scratch of 3 x 2 cm was found on the left eyebrow. These injuries could have been caused by hard and sharp object. ”

¶30

The doctor has opined that cause of death is excessive bleeding due to rupture of heart & liver. Mode of death is coma and nature of death is homicidal. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-20), human blood was found on cement (Article A) seized from the spot, gamcha (Article C) of the deceased, knife (Article D) seized from juvenile Karan Chakradhari, t-shirt (Article E) seized from the present appellant, t-shirt (Article F) seized from juvenile Karan Chakradhari, short shoe (Article G) seized from juvenile Karan Chakradhari, vest (Article H) seized from juvenile Rohit Chakradhari and loar (Article I) seized from juvenile Rohit Chakradhari. However, test result of Articles A, C, E, F, G, H, I is inclusive. Hence, the blood group result could not be determined.

¶31

The appellant was charge-sheeted in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pendra Road, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road, District Bilaspur for trial in accordance with law.

¶32

5

¶33

In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents Exs.P-1 to P-24. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, in which he denied guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed the offence and he has falsely been implicated in offence in question. However, the accused examined none in his defence.

¶34

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 19.01.2021, convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, this appeal.

¶35

Learned amicus curiae appearing for the appellant submits that the trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant under Section 302/34 of the IPC only on the basis of the statements of Lachchhu Tekam (PW-3) and Haridas (PW-5), though police statement of these witnesses weer recorded after almost one and half months from the date of registration of the FIR. While registering the FIR and merg intimation, there were no mention about the said witnesses Lachchhu Tekam (PW-3) and Haridas (PW-5). According to complainant Sanjay Bhoumik (PW-6), he was informed about the incident to one Lok Prasad Dhavariya, but said Lok Prasad Dhavariya has not informed about the accused who has committed murder of Rahul. He further submits that the prosecution has not given any explanation in respect of delay in

¶36

6

¶37

recording the statements of Lachchhu Tekam (PW-3) and Haridas (PW-5), therefore, the statements of Lachchhu Tekam (PW-3) and Haridas (PW-5) are not reliable. He also submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that independent memorandum and seizure witnesses namely Bhola Prasad (PW-1) and Lok Prasad Dhavariya (PW-2) have not supported the case of the prosecution and therefore, the memorandum and seizure have not been proved by the prosecution agency. He contended that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not proved any motive or intention on the part of the appellant to commit murder of deceased Rahul, therefore, conviction of the appellant under Section 302/34 of the IPC being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be quashed. As such, the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. He relies upon the judgment of the Supreme Court in the matter of Aslam Alias Imran v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2025 LawSuit (SC) 420 .

¶38

On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State, would submit that the prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and as per FSL report (Ex.P-20), human blood was found on t-shirt seized from the appellant. He further submits that considering the material available on record, the trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. As such, criminal appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶39

7

¶40

We have heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶41

The first question for consideration would be, whether the learned trial Court has rightly held the death of deceased Rahul to be homicidal in nature.

¶42

The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr.B.S.Paikra (PW-8), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Rahul vide Ex.P-12, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Rahul was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding.

¶43

The next question for consideration would be, whether the appellant is perpetuator of the crime.

¶44

The prosecution has cited Lachchhu Tekam (PW-3) and Haridas (PW-5) as eyewitnesses in the present case.

¶45

Lachchhu Tekam (PW-3) has stated in para 1 of his evidence that the incident occurred about 5-6 months ago, around 3:30 in the afternoon. He was heading to the market on his motorcycle to buy vegetables. Near the railway crossing, he saw Rahul's photo studio where a fight was taking place. Three boys were fighting with Rahul. He thought it was a village boy, and he should

¶46

8

¶47

intervene. When he approached, the boy with long hair pulled out a knife and killed him. The accused present in the court was one of the three boys. The boy with long hair stabbed Rahul while the other two held him, and the accused present in the court held Rahul. He got scared after seeing the knife and could not intervene. Rahul went to the nearby motorcycle shop, holding his stomach, and fell down. The accused people ran away, wiping blood from their hands. Rahul died after falling in the motorcycle shop. In para 2 of his cross-examination, he has stated that police took his statement. Police interrogated him 10-15 days after the incident. He did not tell the police that three boys were fighting with Rahul and a boy with long hair had stabbed him. He did not even tell the police that he is a boy from the village and he will go and mediate. He voluntarily said that the police did not ask him about the above thing so he did not tell them. There are three mohallas in Pateratola, one is Bandhwatol, second is Sanwatpur, third is Pateratola. Rahul, Sanjay and Ranjit live in Pateratola itself, their house is at some distance from his house.

¶48

Haridas (PW-5) has stated in para 1 of his evidence that he know the accused present in the Court, and he knew deceased Rahul. The incident occurred five to six months ago at 3:30 in the afternoon. He visited Rahul's Narmada Photo Studio to get his photo taken. After the photo was taken, he asked him to come back after half an hour. When he returned, he saw three people, including the accused present in the Court and another person

¶49

9

¶50

with long hair, beating Rahul while holding him. Two men were holding Rahul, and one was beating him with a knife. The accused present in the Court was holding Rahul along with the other accused. After beating him, all three accused left and ran towards the barrier. Rahul held his stomach and fell near the nearby garage, and blood was oozing from his body. Para 2 of his cross-examination, he has stated that he work in a hotel in Kevchi. He denied that he had gone to Kevchi for work on the day of the incident. He further denied that when he came the gate was closed and hence there was a crowd near the photo studio. He also denied that when he went to get his photo clicked there was a crowd of 10-15 people there. He denied that when he came to get his photo clicked there was a crowd. He also denied that he do not recognize the three persons who were present there and were fighting. He voluntarily said that he do not know them by name but he can recognize them by their faces.

¶51

Investigating officer D.K.Kurre (PW-13) has denied in para 2 of his cross-examination that Yogesh Chakradhari has not been arrested by him. He denied that he has not informed his family about his arrest. He has admitted that he has not taken action for property confiscation. In para 3 of his cross-examination, he has admitted that on 20.06.2019, he had recorded the statements of witnesses Ranjit Bhoumik, Sanjay Bhoumik, Shyamlal Dhavariya, Smt. Tupti Diwan, Lok Prasad Panika, Lachchhu Tekam, Haridas, Chaitram Rathore and Durgesh Keshari as per their instructions.

¶52

10

¶53

Due to being recorded together, he had mistakenly got the statements of all recorded on 20.06.2019. He had recorded the statements of witnesses Lachchhu Tekam, Haridas and Chaitram on 04.08.2019. He has admitted that he had not recorded the statements of Lachhu Tekam, Haridas and Chaitram on 20.06.2019. In para 4 of his cross-examination, he himself has stated that it was not necessary to write the reason for the delay. He has admitted that between 19.06.2019 and 04.08.2019, the said witnesses Lachchhu, Chaitram and Haridas never came to the police station and told about the incident. He also admitted that Lachchhu Tekam and Haridas did not even file a report regarding the incident at the police station. In para 6 of his crossexamination, investigating officer D.K.Kurre (PW-13) has stated that he do not remember whether the witness knew Lachchhu Tekam and Haridas before recording their statements in connection with this incident or not. This witness had told that both the witnesses Lachchhu Tekam and Haridas are witnesses of the incident. This is a confidential part of the investigation which is not necessary to be written in the charge-sheet. He admitted that it has not been recorded by any witness of the case that both the witnesses are eyewitnesses. He further admitted that there is no mention in the First Information Report about the eyewitnesses of the incident. During the investigation, he came to know that both the witnesses Lachchhu Tekam and Haridas are eyewitnesses of the incident, therefore, he had recorded their statements on

¶54

11

¶55

04.08.2019. He admitted that the matter of not knowing the persons who killed Rahul Diwan by name and recognizing them by sight was not recorded by the police in Lachchhu Tekam’s statement. He also admitted that Haridas also did not tell the names of the accused and told about the clothes worn by them, their age and hair. He admitted that he did not ask the reason for delay in giving the statements from both the witnesses. In para 7 of his cross-examination, he has stated that at the initial stage of investigation they did not know that Haridas and Lachchhu Tekam were eyewitnesses of the incident, so their statements were not taken initially and when it was known, it was recorded later.

¶56

17.Sanjay Bhoumik (PW-6) who has lodged the FIR has stated in para 1 of his evidence that the incident took place in the month of June this year. He was at his home at 4 P.M. in the evening when Lokprasad Dhavariya came to his house and told him that tree people have stabbed his nephew. After that, he told his brother Ranjit Bhoumik about the incident. After that he came to his nephew’s shop Narmada Photo Studio with his brother Ranjit where he saw that his nephew Rahul was lying soaked in blood inside Sai Garage. He had injuries on his stomach, chest, back and near the eye and there was blood spread on the floor. The police came there a little later after they reached there and after that they brought their nephew to Senetorium Hospital where the doctor declared him dead. After that he went to the police station and informed about the incident.

¶57

12

¶58

The trial Court in para 31 of its judgment has observed that in the case, it is clear that the First Information Report (Ex.P-9) has been lodged by Sanjay Bhoumik. It is also clear that there was a rivalry between the appellant and the deceased over his love affair with the appellant’s sister. Sanjay Bhoumik said that it was known from the people around that Yogesh Chakradhari and his brothers had killed deceased Rahul. Immediately after the incident, the merg intimation and First Information Report have been lodged. When a family member is murdered and the person immediately reaches the scene of the incident, it cannot be imagined that he would inquire all the facts minutely and collect the information including the names of the people and go to the police station and lodge the report immediately because in such circumstances, when a family member dies, the person remains in a sad and distraught state. In such a situation, the name of the witness who witnessed the incident has also been mentioned by him in the First Information Report. On this basis there is no reason to disbelieve the First Information Report.

¶59

The Supreme Court in the matter of Aslam alias Imran (supra) has held as under:-

¶60

“22. It is a settled law that enmity is a double-edged weapon. On one hand, it provides motive, on the other hand it also does not rule out the possibility of false implication. From the nature of the evidence placed on record by the prosecution, the possibility of the present appellant being falsely implicated on

¶61

13

¶62

account of previous enmity cannot be ruled out. In our opinion, therefore, the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.”

¶63

Finally, reverting to the facts of the case in the light of aforesaid discussion, it is quite established that conduct of Lachchhu Tekam (PW-3) and Haridas (PW-5) though cited as prosecution witnesses did not make any report to the police promptly on 20.06.2019 and those two witnesses also did not inform the police about the incident though house of deceased Rahul, Sanjay and Ranjit is at some distance from his house and report was lodged by Sanjay Bhoumik (PW-6) who informed the police that Lokprasad Dhavariya came to his house and told him that three people have stabbed his nephew. Lachchhu Tekam in his crossexamination has stated that police interrogated him 10-15 days after the incident. He did not tell the police that three boys were fighting with Rahul and a boy with long hair had stabbed him. Investigating officer D.K.Kurre (PW-13) in para 4 of his crossexamination has stated that it was not necessary to write the reason for the delay. He has admitted that between 19.06.2019 and 04.08.2019, the said witnesses Lachchhu, Chaitram and Haridas never came to the police station and told about the incident. He also admitted that Lachchhu Tekam and Haridas did not even file a report regarding the incident at the police station. He has recorded the statements of witnesses Lachchhu Tekam,

¶64

14

¶65

Haridas and Chaitram on 4.8.2019 i.e. after about one and half months.

¶66

In the present case, according to the FSL report (Ex.P-20), test result of Articles A, C, E, F, G, H, I is inclusive. Hence, the blood group result could not be determined.

¶67

At this stage, pertinent decision of the Supreme Court on this point in the matter of Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh and another, (2019) 7 SCC 781 may be noticed herein, in which the Supreme Court has summarized the law on this point after taking into the decision of the Supreme Court (Constitution Bench) in the matter of Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P., AIR 1963 SC 74 .

¶68

In Raghav Prapanna Tripathi (supra), the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that in case the prosecution needed to prove that the bloodstains found on the earth or the weapons were of a human origin and were of the same blood group as that of the accused.

¶69

The aforesaid decision of the Supreme Court i.e. Raghav Prapanna Tripathi (supra) was followed in Balwan Singh (supra) in which it was observed as under:-

¶70

“23. From the aforementioned discussion, we can summarise that if the recovery of bloodstained articles is proved beyond reasonable doubt by the prosecution, and if the investigation was not found to be tainted, then it may be sufficient if the prosecution shows that the blood found on the articles is of human origin though, even though the blood group is not proved because of disintegration of blood. The court will have to come to

¶71

15

¶72

the conclusion based on the facts and circumstances of each case, and there cannot be any fixed formula that the prosecution has to prove, or need not prove, that the blood groups match.”

¶73

Considering the evidence of eyewitnesses Lachchhu Tekam (PW-3), Haridas (PW-5) and further taking into consideration the evidence of investigating officer D.K.Kurre (PW-13), FSL report (Ex.P-20), material available on record and the law laid down by the Supreme Court in the above-stated judgments, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that it is the appellant who has caused death of the deceased and benefit of doubt ought to have given to him.

¶74

For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal is allowed . Conviction and sentence of the appellant under Section 302/34 of the IPC are hereby set aside. The accused / appellant is acquitted of the said charge levelled against him. He is in jail since 20.06.2019. He be set at liberty forthwith if no longer required in any other criminal case.

¶75

27.Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (Now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), the appellant is directed forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Proceure of sum of Rs.25,000/with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerend which shall be effective for a period of six months

¶76

16

¶77

along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶78

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

¶79

Sd/- Sd/-

¶80

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

¶81

Bablu

Yogesh Chakradhari v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Yogesh Chakradhari 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

Kaushilya Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Moolchand (Died), (through Legal Heir) Vishwajit Thawait Vs Mr. Harish Duhan (C.M.D.)

Mrs. Janak Dulari Dehari Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

M/S L.C. Katre Vs Mrs. Niharika Barik

Mahendra Kumar Sahu Vs Mr. Pradeep Gupta

Smt. Mamta Khare Vs Shri Pardeshi Siddharth Komal