Dismissed¶26

Sonsingh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC5 Jan 2025CRA/367/2024

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Sonsingh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA No. 367 of 2024, Chhattisgarh HC Bilaspur, decided 06/01/2025 (Ramesh Sinha, CJ; Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.) — appeal against conviction under Sections 449 & 302 IPC dismissed; axe (tangia) murder of Soni Baghel; motive: elopement of appellant's daughter with deceased's son; eyewitnesses PW-3 Lalita Baghel and PW-4 Sakshi Kashyap; recovery of blood-stained axe and clothes on memorandum statement; FSL human blood; homicidal death; conviction and sentence upheld; appellant to serve remaining sentence.

What did the court decide?

The death of the deceased was homicidal in nature; this is a finding of fact with which the Court concurred, as arrived at by the learned trial Court on the basis of the postmortem report and Dr. Pankaja Bhagat's (PW-12) opinion. ¶16

Sonsingh Yadav Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2025)

What the court decided

AI extract

Outcome

Dismissed

¶26

Issue for consideration

Whether the death of the deceased (Smt. Soni Baghel) was homicidal in nature. +1 more

¶16

Court's answer

¶16

Ratio / Principle

The appellant is the author of the crime — a pure finding of fact based on the evidence on record (eyewitness testimony of PW-3 and PW-4, proved motive of elopement of the appellant's daughter with the deceased's son, recovery of the blood-stained axe and clothes at the appellant's instance, FSL and query reports, and absence of any explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C.) — and the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court.

¶24

Key takeaways

The prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court committed no legal or factual error in arriving at the finding of guilt of the appellant/convict.ratio¶25

Detailed headnote1 paragraphs

Criminal Appeal (CRA No. 367 of 2024, Chhattisgarh HC, Bilaspur; DB — Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ, with Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.; decided 06.01.2025) under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. against conviction dated 25.09.2023 in ST No. 86/2021 under Sections 449 and 302 IPC — DISMISSED. Appellant Sonsingh Yadav struck deceased Smt. Soni Baghel multiple blows with an iron axe (tangia) on neck/jaw/temple in her house at village Keshlur on 05.01.2021 at about 21:55 hours; motive proved — appellant's daughter had eloped with the deceased's son. Two eyewitnesses (Lalita Baghel PW-3, cousin Sakshi Kashyap PW-4); prompt merg/FIR; memorandum statement dated 07.01.2021 led to recovery of the axe from a pond and blood-stained clothes (Exhibits P/5, P/6); FSL report (Exhibit P/35) found human blood on both; query report (Exhibit P/21) opined the axe could cause the injuries; postmortem (Exhibit P/18) established homicidal death by chopped wounds. Court held the appellant to be the author of the crime, prosecution case proved beyond reasonable doubt, no legal or factual error by the trial Court; appellant (in jail) to serve the remaining sentence, with liberty to approach the Supreme Court through Legal Services Committees.

2025:CGHC:624-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 367 of 2024

¶6

Sonsingh Yadav S/o Late Khutiram Yadav Aged About 41 Years R/o Keshlur, PS Parpa, District - Bastar, Chhattisgarh.

¶7

... Appellant

¶8

Versus

¶9

State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Parpa, District - Bastar At Jagdalpur, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent : Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer

¶11

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶12

Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

¶13

Judgment on Board

¶14

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶15

06/01/2025

¶16

1. Heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Malay Jain, Panel Lawyer for the State/ respondent.

¶17

2. Today, the matter is listed for orders on IA No. 2/2024, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. However, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the matter is heard finally at this stage itself.

¶18

¶19

3. Challenge in this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 25.09.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 86/2021 by the learned Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:

¶20

Conviction under Section	Jail Sentence (Rigorous)	Fine	Default Sentence
449 of the Indian	10 years	Rs. 100/-	1 month R.I. more.
Penal Code (for short,
the IPC)
302 of IPC	Imprisonment for life	Rs. 100/-	1 month R.I. more
Both the abovejail sent	ences to run conc	urrently.

¶21

4. The appellant/convict - Sonsingh Yadav was charged for the offences under Sections 449 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code alleging that on 05.01.2021 at 21:55 hours, in the house of deceased Smt. Soni Baghel, village- Keshlur, Khaspara, under Police Station- Parapa, which is used as a place of worship or as a place of custody of any property, committed criminal trespass by entering/remaining therein and during the aforesaid time period with the intent and knowledge of the matter, caused the death of Soni Baghel by hitting her on the neck, jaw and temple with an iron axe ( Tangiya ).

¶22

5. The prosecution case, in brief is that, the informant - Lalita Baghel (PW3), wife of Late Premnath Baghel, appeared before the Police StationFraserpur / Parapa on 05.01.2021 at 21:55 hours and gave an intimation regarding death of her mother. Upon the said information, Merg Intimation bearing No. 5/2021 (Exhibit P/8) was recorded by the police. It was informed by the informant (PW-3) that on 05.08.2021, when she was studying inside the house and her mother (deceased) was sleeping in the

¶23

¶24

hall with her younger daughter Sakshi Baghel (PW-4), at around 21:55 hours, the appellant who lived in the neighborhood came to her house and inquired from her mother about his own daughter Kavita and struck her mother four-five times on the neck and jaw with a tangia. Due to serious injuries and excessive bleeding caused by the hitting with the tangia , her mother (deceased) died on the spot. Based on the said information, the FIR (Exhibit P/9) was registered by the Police.

¶25

6. On the basis of information given by the informant (PW-3), the Assistant Sub-Inspector Sudarshan Dubey (PW-16) registered merg intimation bearing No. 05/2021 (Exhibit P/8) and thereafter the FIR (Exhibit P/9). During investigation, after reaching the place of incident, i.e. village Keshlur Khaspara, notice of Section 175 Cr.P.C. (Exhibit P-1) was given to the witnesses for the proceedings of panchnama of the dead body of deceased and the inquest (Exhibit P/2) was prepared in presence of the witnesses. By digging up the tiles on which the blood of the deceased was deposited, the blood-soaked soil and plain soil were seized and seizure memo (Exhibit P-07) was prepared. The dead-body was sent for postmortem to Medical College Dimrapal, where Dr. Pankaja Bhagat (PW-12) conducted the post-mortem on 06.01.2021 and submitted the report (Exhibit P-18) in which the cause of death of the deceased was mentioned as "due to injury caused by hitting the head with a sharp heavy weapon" and that it was homicidal in nature. On 18.01.2021, the seized items, tangia and clothes worn by the accused were brought to the Forensic Science Department, Medical College Dimrapal. During further investigation, on 07.01.2021, memorandum statement (Exhibit P/5) of appellant was recorded in presence of witnesses at the place of incident i.e. village Keshlur Khaspara, and on the basis of the memorandum, videography of the recovery of the Tangiya was done in

¶26

¶27

presence of witnesses. As per seizure memo (Exhibit P/6), the blood stained full pants worn by the appellant at the time of the incident were seized. The appellant was duly arrested and information regarding his arrest was given to his family members.

¶28

7. After investigating the matter, the police submitted the police report alongwith charge-sheet against the appellant/convict under section 302, 201 and 449 of the IPC before the Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Jagdalpur, on 27.03.2021 which was registered as Criminal Case No. 645/2021 and was later committed to the Court of Sessions vide its order dated 18.10.2021.

¶29

8. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges on 09.12.2021 charging the appellant/accused for the offence punishable under Sections 449 and Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial.

¶30

9. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as many as 17 witnesses namely; Smt. Bati Kashyap (PW-1), Banshi Mourya (PW-2), Ku. Lalita Baghel (PW-3), Ku. Sakshi Kashyap (PW-4), Anchal Mourya (PW-5), Lalit Mourya (PW-6), Lalit Baghel (PW-7), Kavita Yadav (PW-8), Rajendra Pawar (PW-9), Suresh Singh Bhadauriya (PW-10), Rajkumar Mourya (PW-11), Dr. Smt. Pankaja Bhagat (PW-12), Ku. Savita Khess (PW-13), Ashok Kumar Pardhi (PW-14), Moti Singh Thakur (PW-15), Sudarshan Dubey (PW-16) and Budhram Nag (PW-17) and exhibited as many as 39 exhibits.

¶31

10. The statement of the appellant/convict under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded on 26.04.2023. He stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He has expressed his ignorance in respect

¶32

¶33

of many questions and many of the questions were denied also. In support of his case, he has not examined any of the witnesses.

¶34

11. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict.

¶35

12. Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant submits that there are contradictions and omissions in the evidence of the witnesses. The witnesses are interested witnesses being the relatives of the deceased. The learned trial Court ought to have considered this fact that the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not sufÏcient to hold the appellant guilty of the offence in question. The learned trial Court has heavily relied on the memorandum statement of the appellant and the conviction and sentence cannot be based upon the same. Only on the basis of presumption and without there being any corroboration of evidence, the order of conviction has been passed. Even the appellant has no criminal antecedent and this is the first offence which is alleged against him. The learned trial Court ought to have taken lenient view towards the appellant.

¶36

13. On the other hand, Mr. Malay Jain, learned Panel Lawyer for the State/respondent submits that the appellant has committed a heinous offence of murder with an axe in a brutal manner and there are eye witnesses also in the present case. The evidence of the witnesses, medical report as well as the forensic report clearly indicates towards the guilt of the appellant. The judgment of conviction and sentence awarded by the learned trial Court is just and proper warranting no interference.

¶37

¶38

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

¶39

15. There is no doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature as is evident from the statement of Dr. Smt. Pankaja Bhagat (PW-12) and the postmortem report (Exhibit P/18). As per the postmortem report, there are multiple cuts size from 1 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. to 4.2 c.m x 0.3 c.m. present over right shoulder area and right collar region including upper end of chain. Multiple cuts present over back side of right shoulder area ranging from 1.5 c.m. x 0.2 c.m. to 8.5 c.m. x 0.8 c.m. Two cuts present over upper 1/3rd of back side of jacket one cut is 4 c.m. below the hood stitched line of size 5 c.m. x 0.5 c.m., another cut is v-shaped present 7.0 c.m. below hood stitched line. The Doctor (PW-12) has found the further following injuries on the body of the deceased : (i) chopped wound over right ear from below tragus to obliquely upward and backward toward helix 4.7 c.m. x. 2 c.m. x bone deep base is red, margin rough and dark brown in colour (ii) chopped wound over right side of face 1 c.m. from tragus of right ear 4.2 xc.m. x 2 c.m. bone deep base is red, margin rough and dark brown colour (iii) chopped wound over right side of cheek 2 c.m. fro right ear lobe towards mandible 5.5 c.m. x 2.4 c.m. bone deep, base red, margins rough and dark brown colour (iv) chopped wound over right side of cheek 3.5 c.m. from chin and 2.7 c.m. from angle of mouth of size 4.8 c.m x 1.8 c.m. x bone deep, base red, margin rough and dark brown colour (v) chopped wound over right side of neck 3.5 c.m. below right ear lobe and 7 c.m. from chin of size 6 c.m. x 0.8 c.m. x bone deep, obliquely upward and backward, base red, margin dark red in colour (vi) chopped wound over right side of neck 7 c.m. below right ear lobe and 6 c.m. from sternal notch of size 5.5. c.m. x 0.9. c.m. x bone deep, base

¶40

¶41

red, margin rough and dark red in colour (vii) chopped wound over back of right side of neck 10 c.m. below occipital protuberence and 8 c.m. from right shoulder tip, base is red and margin are rough and dark red colour (viii) chopped wound over left ear from helix towards tragus obliquely downward and medially of size 3.5 c.m. x 2.5 c.m. x bone deep, base red, margin irregular rough and dark red in colour. All the injuries were recent and ante-mortem.

¶42

16. The Doctor (PW-12) has opined the cause of death to be chopped wounds over head and neck and the nature of death was homicidal. Hence, there remains no manner of doubt that the nature of death of the deceased was homicidal which is a finding of fact and we concur with the said finding arrived at by the learned trial Court.

¶43

17. Now the question arises whether it was the appellant who has caused the murder of the deceased.

¶44

18. In the present case, the merg intimation was given by the daughter of the deceased namely Lalita Baghel (PW-3) on 05.01.2021 at about 23:00 hours and the incident is said to have taken place at about 21:55 hours. Thereafter, the FIR was registered at about 23:20 hours wherein the informant (PW-3) has clearly stated that the appellant came to their house and gave fatal blow on the head, neck, face and leg of the deceased with an axe and caused murder. Hence, there is no delay in lodging the FIR.

¶45

19. There are two eye witnesses to the incident, firstly, the daughter of the deceased namely Lalita Baghel (PW-3) and her cousin Sakshi Kashyap (PW-4). They both have deposed clearly before the learned trial Court in between 9:30 p.m. to 10 p.m. when they were sleeping on the floor in the hall of the house. At that time, the accused came and slammed the door

¶46

¶47

and entered the house. He was carrying an axe in his hand and asked the deceased as to where her daughter was and gave multiple blows with the axe on the deceased and thereafter ran away from the spot. She has also stated the reason as to why the appellant assaulted the deceased. The reason was that the daughter of the appellant had eloped with the son of the deceased and because of which he had a grudge against the deceased. The witness Lalita Baghel (PW-3) had also informed the incident to Batti Kashyap (PW-1) and Munni Baghel. The evidence of Lalita Baghel (PW-3) is corroborated by the evidence of Batti Kashyp (PW-1).

¶48

20. Banshi Maurya (PW-2) is the brother of the deceased. He deposed that Lalita Baghel (PW-3) informed him over phone that the appellant had caused murder of the deceased. When he reached the place of incident, he saw the dead body of the deceased and blood on all over the room. The other witnesses, namely Anchal Mourya who is the niece ( Bhanji ) of the deceased is the witness of seizure (Exhibit P/7) of plain soil and blood stained soil from the place of incident. Lalit Maurya (PW-6) is the witness of memorandum (Exhibit P/5) and seizure of axe and full pant of the accused (Exhibit P/6).

¶49

21. Lalit Baghel (PW-7) is the son of the deceased. He stated that his fatherin-law i.e. the appellant had killed his mother as he had a love affair with the daughter of the appellant and once the appellant had seen this witness alongwith his daughter on a motorcycle. The appellant had objection with their relationship and had strictly warned not to meet this witness. On 05.01.2021, this witness eloped with the daughter of the appellant and had switched off his mobile and went to Lohandiguda. In the morning he received phone call of his sister that the appellant had came in the night to their house and killed their mother. Similarly, Kavita

¶50

¶51

Yadav (PW-8) is the daughter of the appellant who has also deposed that the deceased was murdered by the appellant. He has also deposed in a similar fashion as has been stated by PW-7 with regard to their love affair and that her father was infuriated with the relationship between them.

¶52

22. Rajendra Pawar (PW-9) is the person who had videographed the seizure of axe from the pond and prepared a C.D. (Exhibit P/12). Suresh Singh Bhadauriya (PW-10) is the Patwari who had prepared the spot map (Exhibit P/3). Rajkumar Maurya (PW-11), is the Head Constable, Ku. Kavita Khess (PW-13), Ashok Kumar Pardhi (PW-14), Motisingh Thakur (PW-15) are the Police Constables and Sudarshan Dubey (PW-16) is the Assistant Sub Inspector who have deposed with respect to various formalities that were performed by them during the course of investigation. Budhram Nag (PW-17) is the Investigating OfÏcer who has deposed with regard to the manner in which the investigation was done and the other procedural aspects of the case.

¶53

23. The memorandum statement (Exhibit P/5) of the accused/appellant was recorded on 07.01.2021 at 12:05 p.m. wherein he has stated that since the son of the deceased had taken his daughter and when he tried to search, he could not find his daughter, then he asked the deceased as to where they had hidden his daughter but they did not tell anything and as such, he became angry and assaulted the deceased on her face, neck and cheek for 8-10 times with an axe and thereafter threw the axe in a pond and he was wearing the same clothes which he had worn at the time of the incident. On his instance, the weapon of assault i.e. the axe was recovered from the pond as also the clothes containing blood stains, vide Exhibit P/6. The said weapon and the clothes were examined at FSL, Jagdalpur in which human blood has been found on both the

¶54

¶55

articles i.e. the clothes of the appellant as well as the axe as is evident from the report (Exhibit P/35). The query report (Exhibit P/21) also clearly indicates that the axe seized from the appellant could cause the injuries sustained by the deceased.

¶56

24. There has been a motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased which stands proved in this case. The appellant was in deep anguish and infuriated by the fact that his daughter had eloped with the son of the appellant. When he tried to search his daughter and could not find her, he took a drastic step of assaulting the deceased with an axe. The weapon of assault has also been seized at the instance of the appellant himself which contains human blood. The blood stained clothes of the appellant have also been recovered. There are eye witnesses available who had seen the incident and even in the statement of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. no explanation has been offered by the appellant as to why the witnesses would falsely implicating him in the crime in question. The appellant is the author of the crime is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record and we are of the opinion that in the present case, the only view possible was the one taken by the learned trial Court.

¶57

25. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has been successful in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has not committed any legal or factual error in arriving at the finding with regard to the guilt of the appellant/ convict.

¶58

26. Accordingly, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed.

¶59

¶60

27. The appellant-Sonsingh Yadav is stated to be in jail. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence as has been awarded to him by the learned trial Court.

¶61

28. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentences 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.

¶62

29. Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any.

¶63

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

¶64

Amit

¶65

AMIT
KUMAR
DUBEY
Digitally signed by
AMIT KUMAR
DUBEY
Date: 2025.01.08
17:00:39 +0530

Sonsingh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Sonsingh Yadav v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Nandu Ram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Ku. Devan Rajwade @ Rani, Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Kedarram Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Bhagwat Verma Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Arati @ Varsha Choubey Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Khalid Vs State of Chhattisgarh