Dismissed¶86

Tuleshwar Singh Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC18 Jun 2025CRA/272/2022

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Chhattisgarh High Court (DB, Ramesh Sinha CJ & Bibhu Datta Guru J), CRA No. 272 of 2022, decided 19.06.2025 — appeal against life-sentence conviction under S.302/34 IPC for murder by drowning in Hasdeo river dismissed; eyewitness boatman PW-1 Sumar Sai; medical cause of death hypoxia due to drowning; diatom/chemical test Ex.P-22 positive matching seized river water; no exception to S.300 IPC attracted; common intention; conviction upheld.

What did the court decide?

No relief to the appellants: conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court upheld; appellants, who are in jail, to serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court. ¶86

Tuleshwar Singh Gond Vs State of… — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

No relief to the appellants: conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court upheld; appellants, who are in jail, to serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.

¶86

Issue for consideration

Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature? +2 more

¶42

Court's answer

The death of the deceased was homicidal: he died due to drowning in water at the scene of crime; the doctor (PW-7) opined death was due to hypoxia caused by blockage of the windpipe due to drowning, and the chemical test report (Ex.P-22) on the right thigh bone matched the one-litre water seized from the scene and was positive.

¶54

Ratio / Principle

Sumar Sai (PW-1) is an eyewitness to the crime committed by the appellants; his account that the accused took the deceased into the river while beating him, and that after the deceased jumped into the water out of fear they jumped on him and killed him by pressing him with their feet, stands unrebutted, no reason for false implication having been shown.

¶70

Key takeaways

Considering the manner in which the death was caused, it is proved that the accused drowned the deceased in water with the intention of causing his death, due to which his windpipe got blocked and he died.ratio¶75
The act of the accused does not fall under any exception of Section 300 IPC: nothing on record shows the deceased provoked the accused, and no sudden fight in the heat of passion without premeditation is shown.ratio¶76
The prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants; the conviction and sentence awarded by the trial Court are upheld and the criminal appeal is dismissed as lacking merit.

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal appeal under Section 374(2) CrPC against conviction of two appellants under Section 302/34 IPC (imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.100/- each, in default R.I. 03 months) imposed on 05.01.2022 by the First Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, in Sessions Trial No.12/2021 for drowning an unknown fish-seller in the Hasdeo river near village Navapara on 06.09.2020. HELD: (i) death was homicidal — postmortem by Dr. Umashankar Singh (PW-7) attributed death to hypoxia from blockage of the windpipe due to drowning, and the State FSL chemical test report (Ex.P-22) comparing the deceased's right thigh bone with the one-litre river water seized from the scene was positive; (ii) Sumar Sai (PW-1) was an eyewitness who saw the accused beat the deceased in the boat, the deceased jump into the water out of fear, and the accused jump on him and crush him to death with their feet; his account was confirmed by his son Chamru Singh (PW-3) and no motive for false implication was shown; (iii) the accused thereby acted with the intention to cause death in furtherance of common intention; (iv) nothing showed provocation or a sudden fight without premeditation, so the act fell outside exceptions 1 to 5 to Section 300 IPC. Conviction and sentence upheld; appeal dismissed.

2025:CGHC:25590-DB

MANPREET KAUR

Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.06.20 10:38:17 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 272 of 2022

¶6

NAFR

¶7

1 - Tuleshwar Singh Gond S/o Laxman Ram Gond Aged About 35 Years R/o Chandan Nagar, (Chiruwakhalkar) Police Station Prem Nagar, District Surajpur Chhattisgarh.

¶8

2 - Marwadi Manjhwar S/o Chamra Singh Aged About 28 Years R/o Village Kantra (Sukhe) Police Station Lemru, District Korba (C.G.)

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bango, District Korba Chhattisgarh.

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

For Appellant(s) : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶17

19.06.2025

¶18

This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed

¶19

against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

¶20

¶21

sentence dated 05.01.2022 passed by the learned First Second Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District- Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.12/2021, by which the appellants herein have been convicted 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 R.I. for 03 months (each).

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant Sumar Say, who lives in a house built on the banks of the water of Hasdev Dubhan in village Navapara, takes people from Navapara river bank to Dhamatikkara river bank in his boat and takes them across the river. On 08.09.2020, he lodged a case in Police Station-Bango under Outpost Morga that on 06.09.2020, he had taken two people from village Bhulasi Bhavana from Navapara river bank in his boat and left them at Dhamatikkara river bank. When he was returning from there at around 1.00 pm, he saw that the boatman accused Tuleshwar Singh God, who lives in Premnagar, along with his fellow accused Marwari Manjhwar, dragged the deceased towards the water of Hasdev River Dubhan while beating him with hands and slapping him. The two accused took the deceased in their boat, took him about 20 metres into the water and started kicking him, due to which the deceased got scared and jumped into the water to save his life.

¶23

When the unknown deceased jumped into the water, both the accused jumped on him and drowned him in the water by holding

¶24

¶25

his head. When that person did not come out, both the accused sat in the boat and went towards Khotkhori. The deceased was a resident of village Tikri Bokalo, Atardiha, Police Station Premnagar. On 08.09.2020, the body of the deceased came above the water and that inquest was given. On the basis of the said inquest information, the rural report was prepared. As per the above, after registering the inquest information, the body of the deceased was taken out of the water and a map panchayatnama was prepared by giving panchnama notice to the witnesses. The body was sent to CHC Podi Uparoda for postmortem. In the postmortem report, the death of the deceased was found to be due to blockage of his windpipe and drowning, a crime was registered against the accused under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and the case was taken into investigation.

¶26

During the investigation, as per the statement of the informant Sumar Sai (PW-1), a map of the crime scene was prepared in front of witnesses. Accused Tulseshwar Singh was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded in front of witnesses. In which it was told that he along with his partner co-accused Marwari killed the deceased by drowning him in water. On the indication of accused Tuleshwar Singh, a boat made of semar wood and river water in a one litre plastic bottle was seized from the spot and a seizure sheet was prepared and the T-shirt of the deceased was given and it was seized in front of witnesses.

¶27

¶28

During the investigation, the Patwari map of the place of occurrence was sent by the Morga Police Station to the Tehsildar Podi Uparda for getting it prepared from the concerned Patwari. The statements of the witnesses were recorded. The right thigh bone (femur bone) of the deceased in the seized sealed packet and 1 liter water in a sealed plastic bottle were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur (C.G.) through the Superintendent of Police Korba for chemical testing. After completing all the formalities related to the investigation, the charge-sheet was presented in the court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Katghora.

¶29

On the basis of the materials available in the charge-sheet and evidence available on record, charges were framed against the accused under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and when the charges were read out and explained to them, they denied committing the offence and sought defence and claimed to be tried.

¶30

In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 22 documents Exs.P-1 to P- 22. Statement of the accused/appellants was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which they denied their guilt. However, the appellants-accused examined none in their defence.

¶31

The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 05.01.2022,

¶32

¶33

convicted the appellants for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, this criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellants herein.

¶34

Mr. C.R. Sahu, learned counsel for the appellants submits that the judgment of conviction passed by the learned trial Court is bad in law as well as facts available on record. The finding of judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Session Judge is illegal and contrary to law which is liable to be set aside. He further submits that in this case, the complainant lodged the report before concerned police station and after receiving the information the concerned police reached on the incident place. On the basis of information the merg intimation has been mentioned. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that PW-1 has implicated the appellants in a false case and there is no present circumstances and medical examination and FSL report has not proved because the deceased died due to plunged into the water. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there are so many contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses so the warrant of conviction of the appellants are bad in law. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is no motive means ria or enmity in between appellants and deceased and there is no eye witness in the present case and the case of the prosecution is totally based upon circumstantial evidence for which chain of evidence is incomplete to show that the

¶35

¶36

involvement of present appellants so warrant of conviction of appellants are bad in law. The learned trial Court failed to appreciate that on the basis of memorandum statement of appellants, the seizure was made and common articles was seized by appellants which are easily available in the village. Ingredients of section 302/34 of Indian Penal Code would not be attracted in the present case. Only on the basis of assumption the present appellants have been convicted and there is hardly any evidence available against the present appellants which connects the involvement of present appellants. Lastly, there are so many infirmities and the prosecution failed to prove his case beyond all reasonable doubt and the guilt of the appellants were not proved by the prosecution beyond all reasonable doubt.

¶37

On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned trial Court has come to the conclusion regarding involvement of the accused / appellants in the crime in question under the concluding paras of the judgment in which the the learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the accused / appellants, which connect them with the instant crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, criminal appeal deserves to be

¶38

¶39

dismissed. He lastly submits that the charges levelled against the appellants are of very serious nature like committing murder of the deceased with the help of hand, leg and fist and then plunge his head into the water till his death and because of this reason, the appellant of the appellants is liable to be dismissed.

¶40

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

¶41

In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution.

¶42

The first point for consideration would be, whether the death of the deceased was homicidal is nature?

¶43

In this regard, Dr. Umashankar Singh (PW-7) has stated that, on 09.09.2020 at 2.30 PM, Constable No. 554 of Outpost- Morga Pankaj Tiwari brought dead body of the unknown man of around 50 years of age for postmortem. Upon external examination of the said dead body, it was found that the said body was of a man and he was wearing a purple and black coloured T-shirt and brown coloured underwear.

¶44

According to the Dr. Umashankar Singh (PW-7), medical witness, there was a foul smell coming from the body of the deceased and putrefaction had started. His elbow and knee joints were bent. There was swelling in the whole body. Eyes were sunken. Skin

¶45

¶46

was peeling off from the stomach, arms and thighs. The stomach was swollen. There was swelling in the testicles. No external injury was found on the dead body. Hair was coming out easily. No injury was found on the skull, cranium and cervix. All three membranes of the brain were intact. There was redness in the brain. On internal examination of the dead body of the above deceased, it was found that the membrane, ribs and soft tissue were red. The throat was filled with frothy fluid. The right and left lungs had become soft and on cutting them, brown blood was coming out. The right side of the deceased's heart had blood while the left side was empty. The large vessels were filled with blood. The intestinal membrane was red. The mouth, esophagus and pharynx were filled with frothy fluid. The fodder bag (stomach) was filled with water. His small intestine was filled with gas and the large intestine was filled with faeces and gas. The liver, spleen and kidney had become soft which indicates the onset of liquefaction. The urinary bladder was empty. The testicles were swollen, there were no external injuries. The deceased was found to have drowned before death which was within 3 days. He sealed the right thigh bone of the deceased for diatom examination and the purple and black striped T-shirt he was wearing for identification and handed it over to the constable.

¶47

According to the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death of the deceased was due to hypoxia (lack of oxygen in the

¶48

¶49

blood) caused by obstruction of the windpipe due to drowning in water. He handed over the postmortem report (Ex.P-11).

¶50

Karmu Sai Paikra, Sub-Inspector (PW-10) says that on receiving the case diary of the case for investigation, he collected one litre water in a plastic bottle from the submerged part of Hasdeo river in front of witnesses and seizure memo (Ex.P-7) was prepared. Khageshwar Sahu, Constable No. 716 (PW-4) says that in this case, one litre water in a plastic bottle was seized from the scene of incident and viscera and clothes of the deceased were seized from Podi Hospital in his presence and seizure memo (Ex.P-7) and (Ex.P-8) were prepared. PW-10 also stated that after the postmortem of the dead body was done, Constable No.356 Vijendra Singh Binjwar (PW-11) stated that he had brought the right thigh bone and T-shirt of an unknown person in a sealed packet received from the doctor and gave it to the outpost incharge, which was seized and seizure memo (Ex.P-8) was prepared. PW-10 stated that the bone of the said unknown person and one litre of water seized in the case were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for testing, which is Ex.P-19.

¶51

In this case, the doctor has given his opinion that the place of incident, village Navapara, is submerged in Hasdeo river and the deceased died due to drowning in water. It is also proved in this case that a bottle of water was seized from the said crime scene. Similarly, after conducting the postmortem of the deceased, his

¶52

¶53

right thigh bone was also seized and the said bone and one litre water seized from the crime scene were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory for diatom test. According to Vijendra Singh Binjwar (PW-11), on receipt of the said report, it was presented in the trial Court vide Ex.P-22. On observing the chemical test report (Ex.P-22), it was seen that on testing the thigh bone of the deceased and one litre water seized from the crime scene, the chemical test report (Ex.P-22) was found to be positive .

¶54

As per above, it is clear from the observation of chemical test report (Ex.P-22), that water was found in the right thigh bone of the deceased in accordance with the one liter water seized from the scene of crime. Thus, the deceased died due to drowning in water at the scene of crime, which is also confirmed by the evidence of Dr. Umashankar Singh (PW-07), in which, he has stated the cause of death of the deceased to be hypoxia which is due to blockage of windpipe due to drowning in water.

¶55

The next question for consideration is, whether the accused on 06.09.2020 at 1.00 pm, at the place of incident, by forming a common intention and in furtherance of it, assaulted the deceased with kicks and punches and drowned him in water, causing his death intentionally or knowingly?

¶56

In this regard, statements of Sumar Sai (PW-1), Harihar Singh (PW-2), Chamru Singh (PW-3), Khageshwar Sahu (PW-4), Jaipal

¶57

¶58

Singh (PW-5), Gyan Das (PW-6), Dr. U.N. Mahendra Umashankar Singh (PW-7), Rajesh Yadav (PW-8), Mahendra Pandey (PW-9), Karamu Sai Paikra (PW-10), Vijendra Singh Binjwar (PW-11) and Pranjal Tiwari (PW-12) are taken into consideration.

¶59

Sumar Sai (PW-1) stated that in the month of Bhado in the year 2020, at about 2.00 pm, the deceased was resting in his house after drinking water, when both the accused came after drinking alcohol and without any reason, dragged the deceased by his arm to the submerged side of Bango Dam, where boats ply, and while beating him, caught hold of the deceased and made him sit in the boat. They were beating the deceased by taking him to the middle of the river, when the deceased jumped into the water out of fear. After that, the accused also jumped on him and killed the deceased by pressing him with their feet. In this regard, he had given information at the police post Morga. Rural Nalasi is Ex.P01 and Rural Merg is Ex.P-02.

¶60

Harihar Singh (PW-2) stated that the deceased used to roam around and live in his village 10-15 years before the incident and used to do fish business in the nearby villages. He used to say that he was from Surguja side and sometimes from Podi Uparoda side. On the date of the incident, the deceased was going to village Ramta Bilmata to sell fish and was sitting on the river bank waiting for the boat, then the accused caught him and made him sit in the boat and took him to the middle of the river and drowned

¶61

¶62

him. In this regard, he went with his relative Sumar Sai (PW-01) and informed the police station Morga.

¶63

The evidence of Harihar Singh (PW-2) shows that he had gone to the police post Morga along with Sumar Sai (PW-1) to report the incident. He himself has admitted that he did not see the incident. Sumar Sai's son Chamru Singh (PW-3) stated that he had gone to another village on the day of the incident. When he returned after two-three days, his father told him that the accused took the deceased to the middle of the river while beating him, then the deceased jumped into the water out of fear, after which both the accused also jumped on him. In this regard, his father had gone to the police post Morga along with Harihar Singh of the village and reported the incident.

¶64

Mahendra Pandey (PW-9) Sub-Inspector deposed that on 08.09.2020, the complainant Sumar Sai (PW-1) appeared at the police post Morga and lodged an information that on 06.09.2020, both the accused dragged the deceased towards the river bank and took him 20 meters away in the boat and when they started beating him, the deceased jumped into the water fearing the beating. Thereafter, both the accused jumped on him and beat him They drowned him in water by holding his head. In this regard, he had registered a village report on zero which is Ex.P01 and a village crime information Ex.P-02. Before preparing the Panchnama of the dead body, he had given Panchnama notice

¶65

¶66

(Ex.P-5) to the witnesses and prepared a map Panchayatnama (Ex.P-6) in front of them. During the investigation, as per the complainant, he prepared the site map (Ex.P-3) and sent the dead body to CHC Podi Uparoda by filing the written complaint (Ex.P14) for examination. The accused were arrested and arrest slip was prepared and memorandum statement of accused Tuleshwar Singh was recorded and as per his statement in front of witnesses, a boat of 10 feet length and 1.5 feet width made of semar wood was seized from his possession and seizure slip was prepared.

¶67

Rajesh Yadav (PW-8) , Head Constable deposed that on 09.09.2020, Constable Vijendra Binjwar of Morga Police Station presented the case under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. at zero and registered case No. 65/2020 in relation to the deceased unknown person, in which it is mentioned that the deceased died due to drowning in water. Information about the accidental death is Exhibit.P-12. On the same date, the same constable presented the case under Section 302/34 of the IPC at zero and registered case No. 123/2020 against the accused. The First Information Report is Exhibit P-13.

¶68

Sumar Sai (PW-1) has admitted during his cross-examination that due to his age of 70-80 years, he has poor eyesight. He has also accepted that he had gone to row the boat. Therefore, he cannot tell what all had happened, but he has also said that he was in the

¶69

¶70

river and also saw that the accused were taking the deceased into the river while beating him. The said witness is shown to have given similar information about the incident to his son Chamru Singh (PW-3). Thus, the complainant Sumar Sai (PW-01) has said to be an eyewitness of the incident. He is also shown to have told his son about the incident, which has been confirmed by his son Chamru Singh (PW-03). It has not been shown anywhere on behalf of the accused that if the complainant and his son have given a false statement against them, then why have they done so.

¶71

On observing the evidence of Dr. Umashankar Singh (PW-7), it is seen that during the examination of the dead body of the deceased, no external injury was found on the body of the deceased. According to Sumar Sai (PW-1), when the deceased jumped into the water from the boat in fear of being beaten up, the accused jumped on him and crushed him to death with their feet inside the water. Medical evidence also proves that the death occurred due to blockage of windpipe due to drowning in water.

¶72

The testimony of the above witnesses reveals the fact that from unbroken judicial statements of prosecution eye witness Sumar Sai (PW-01) and medical witness Dr. Umashankar Singh (PW-07) , it is clear that the accused were not allowing the deceased to come out by drowning him in water, which clearly shows that they had the intention to cause the death of the deceased.

¶73

¶74

The above controverted judicial statements of these two prosecution witnesses makes it amply clear that the appellants are the perpetrators of crime.

¶75

Therefore, considering the manner in which the death of the deceased is shown to have been caused, it is proved that the accused drowned the deceased in water with the intention of causing his death, due to which his windpipe got blocked and he died.

¶76

So far as question whether the act of the accused falls under exceptions 1 to 5 of section 300 of the Indian Penal Code or not is concerned, in this regard, complainant Sumar Sai (PW-1) stated that at the time of the incident, the accused took the deceased away by holding his arm and dragging him without any reason, beating him. Thus, on perusing the record, it is not shown anywhere that the deceased provoked the accused in any way. Besides, the sudden fight between the deceased and the accused which took place in the heat of passion does not show that it was done without any premeditation. Thus, the act of the accused does not fall under any exception of Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶77

Thus, in the series of proving the involvement of the accused in the incident on behalf of the prosecution and the judicial statements of the eye witness, which has been proved by the statement of the independent witnesses of the seizure and memorandum, no discrepancies have come to light in the cross-examination of the

¶78

¶79

said witness and on that basis, the truth of the said proceedings cannot be doubted.

¶80

A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that,

¶81

On the date of offence, the appellants took the deceased forcibly on their boat;

¶82

The appellants jumped on him and crushed him to death with their feet inside the water;

¶83

Death of deceased was due to drowning in water;

¶84

Medical evidence also proves that the death occurred due to blockage of windpipe due to drowning in water;

¶85

Sumar Sai (PW-01) is the eye-witness of the crime committed by the appellants.

¶86

In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellants. The conviction and sentence as awarded by the trial Court to the appellants is hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed .

¶87

It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are in jail. They shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.

¶88

Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing

¶89

¶90

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.

¶91

( Bibhu Datta Guru ) (Ramesh Sinha ) Judge Chief Justice

¶92

Manpreet

Tuleshwar Singh Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Tuleshwar Singh Gond 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

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Surendra Prasad Shrivastava Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Temna @ Karamsai Majhwar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ashok Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Phool Singh Netam Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Guru Rajkumar Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mukesh Karse Vs State of Chhattisgarh