Ajit Toppo Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

2025:CGHC:33254-DB

¶3

NAFR

¶4

Digitally signed by BABLU BABLU RAJENDRA RAJENDRA BHANARKAR BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.17 17:56:42 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 459 of 2024

¶7

Ajit Toppo S/o Late Stanislas Toppo, Aged About 51 Years Resident - Village-Ghogharbasen, Police Station-Bagicha, District-Jashpur (Chhattisgarh), Present Residence-Narwadipa, Ward No. 05, Gharghoda, Police Station-Gharghoda, District-Raigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶8

...Appellant

¶9

versus

¶10

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Officer, Gharghoda, DistrictRaigarh (Chhattisgarh)

¶11

... Respondent

¶12

For Appellant : Mr.Saurabh Dangi, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer

¶13

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

¶14

Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ

¶16

16/07/2025

¶17

1. This criminal appeal is presented by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment dated 29.01.2024 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh in Session Case No.08/2021

¶18

2

¶19

by which he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for one month.

¶20

2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that complainant Satish Oraon (PW-1), son of deceased Lalit Oraon, informed about the murder of deceased Lalit Oraon on 19.10.2020 and merg intimation No.82/2020 (Ex.P-1) was registered by Police Station Gharghoda. On the said date itself, a report was lodged by complainant Satish Oraon in the police station Gharghoda that appellant Ajit Toppo who is a resident of Jashpur, and is the maternal uncle (mama) of the complainant. Under Indira Awas Yojana, the complainant's grandmother was provided with a house in Narwadipa Ward No.3. The complainant grandmother Mitro Bai and grandfather Bhakulal lived in the said house. After the death of his grandmother, Bhakulal lived with the complainant’s elder father Nehru Oraon. The complaint father Lalit Oraon used to sleep alone in the said house of Indira Awas. After the arrival of the complainant maternal uncle (mama), appellant Ajit Toppo slept with Lalit Oraon. On 19.10.2020, during the Navakhai festival, chicken was cooked in the house, after eating and drinking liquor, deceased Lalit Oraon went to his home to sleep. At around 9.30 in the night, when the complainant went to the spot after hearing a voice, the appellant was coming out of the room. The complainant went inside and saw his father Lalit Oraon having an injury on the neck and he

¶21

3

¶22

was lying there. The appellant later removed the axe and kept it somewhere on the other side of the house. Due to the appellant staying in the complainant’s house, there was a fight and rivalry between the appellant and the deceased regarding food and drink. For this reason, the deceased was murdered by the appellant by assaulting him in a fit of anger. On the report of the complainant, the first information report (ExP-2) was registered in Crime No.244/2020 at Police Station Gharghoda under Section 302 of the IPC and investigation of the case was started.

¶23

3. During the investigation, as per the case for the prosecution, inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P.-9. The body of deceased Lalit Oraon was sent to the Community Health Center, Gharghoda for postmortem where Dr.Vikas Kumar Sharma (PW-7) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-15 and found following injuries:-

¶24

“1. Incised wound 6cmx2cmx3cm just right to chin.

¶25

Incised wound horizontal 3x0.5x1cm just below right mandibular inferior border.

¶26

Laceration 3x1.5 x0.5 cm

¶27

Laceration 2 x 1.5 x 0.5 cm both parallel and running over inferior boarder of right mandible.

¶28

Laceration vertical 1.5x0.5 x 0.5 cm just behind right ear.

¶29

Laceration 3x0.5x0.5 cm over pinna of right ear lobe and pinna involved.”

¶30

4

¶31

The doctor has opined that the deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock resulting from massive blood loss. Death was homicidal in nature. During the investigation, spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide EX.P-4. The appellant was arrested on 20.10.2020 vide arrest memo Ex.P-14. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded vide Ex.P-10 and on the basis his memorandum statement, axe was recovered from kitchen garden next to the house of the deceased. Recovery panchnama was prepared vide Ex.P-11. Bloodstained bed-sheet, piece of cement and plain cement were recovered from the spot vide Ex.P-12. Axe was seized from kitchen garden next to the house of the deceased vide seizure memo Ex.P-13. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.P-26), human blood was found on bed-sheet seized from the spot (Article A), piece of cement (Article B) and axe (Article D) seized from kitchen garden on the pointing out of the appellant and blood of group A was found in the axe.

¶32

4. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Sections 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) and after completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge, Gharghoda for trial.

¶33

5

¶34

5. In order to prove the guilty of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 08 witnesses. The statement of the accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code where he denied the circumstances appearing against him and claimed innocence and false implication in the crime in question.

¶35

6. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this criminal appeal.

¶36

7. Mr.Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel for the appellant submits that learned trial Court committed grave legal error to consider the statement of Satish Uraon (PW-1) whose evidence does not inspire confidence and is not reliable. He further submits that alleged axe has not been seized from exclusive possession of the appellant and the same has been seized from open place. He also submits that there is no eyewitness in the present case and the case is based on circumstantial evidence. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial Court ought to have seen that there was no eyewitness in the present case and therefore, whole conviction is based on circumstantial evidence, however, there is no circumstantial

¶37

6

¶38

evidence present in the case as the chain of circumstantial evidence has not completed. He contended that the trial Court ought to have seen that the prosecution has failed to prove the motive of offence as the appellant having no reason/motive to commit murder of the deceased and the whole case is based on very weak circumstantial evidence. He contended that if the entire case of the prosecution is taken as it is no offence as alleged under Section 302 of the IPC is made out against the appellant and he has been falsely implicated by the prosecution. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside.

¶39

8. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that conviction of the appellant / accused is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution during investigation recorded the statements of the prosecution witnesses in which they have categorically deposed in their statements regarding conduct and commission of offence by the accused / appellant, which is concurrent evidence against the accused / appellant and thus, learned trial Court has rightly convicted and sentenced the accused / appellant. Therefore, the instant appeal deserves to be dismissed. He further submits that learned trial Court has come to the conclusion regarding involvement of the accused / appellant in the crime in question under the concluding paras of the judgment in which learned trial

¶40

7

¶41

Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the accused / appellant, which connect him 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 dismissed.

¶42

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

¶43

10. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Lalit Oraon was homicidal in nature ?

¶44

11. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr.Vikash Kumar Sharma (PW-7), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Lalit Oraon vide Ex.P-15, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Lalit Oraon 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.

¶45

12. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.

¶46

8

¶47

13. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193 , wherein it has been observed thus:

¶48

“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”.

¶49

14. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79 , it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:

¶50

“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

¶51

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

¶52

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and

¶53

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of

¶54

9

¶55

explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.”

¶56

15. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104) , it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

¶57

16. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis

¶58

10

¶59

than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”.

¶60

17. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :-

¶61

“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established;

¶62

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

¶63

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

¶64

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

¶65

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

¶66

18. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established

¶67

11

¶68

by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again.

¶69

19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus :

¶70

“41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

¶71

Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts

¶72

12

¶73

in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.”

¶74

20. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the following circumstantial evidence against the appellant:-

¶75

(i) The deceased died due to hemorrhagic shock resulting from massive blood loss and death was homicidal in nature.

¶76

(ii) The appellant used to work in the Dhaba and lived with the deceased in Indira Awas house.

¶77

(iii) The complainant reached the spot immediately after the incident. After this, axe used in the incident was hidden elsewhere by the appellant.

¶78

(iv) The appellant and the deceased used to sleep together, the incident took place on the night of 19.10.2020 at 21.30 P.M. No such explanation has been offered by the appellant as to how the deceased died.

¶79

(v) On the basis of memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-10), axe stains with blood was seized from kitchen garden next to the house of the deceased, in which human blood was found.

¶80

21. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has

¶81

13

¶82

been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probabilities the act must have been done by the accused.

¶83

22. Satisn Uraon (PW-1) (son of the deceased) has stated in para 1 of his evidence that his father used to sleep in the same room and the appellant also used to sleep with him. In para 2 of his evidence, he has stated that on the date of the incident, the appellant knocked on their room’s door around 9 P.M. and said that he would sleep here. When he asked him to sleep with his father in the room, he started forcing him. He took him to the room where his father used to sleep. When he opened the door, it was dark and the appellant starting shouting loudly, “what has happened to his father?” He got scared and turned on the torch and saw that his father’s throat was slit. In para 6, he has admitted that before the incident, appellant Ajit Toppo was reprimanded for coming to their house and why he was staying there. He also admitted that when he turned on the

¶84

14

¶85

torch and looked, his father’s throat was slit and axe was lying there. He admitted that his maternal uncle (mama) quickly removed the axe lying at the scene of the incident. He also admitted that his father used to forbid his maternal uncle (mama) from coming to their house and due to this enmity, his father was murdered.

¶86

23. Anima Uraon (PW-2) (wife of the deceased) has stated in para 2 of her evidence that her husband and brother went to sleep in their Indira Awas. At around 9:00-10:00 P.M. her brother came and told her son that what has happened to his father, let’s go and see, then her son went with a torch and saw that there was a mark of injury on her husband’s neck. She went with her son and saw that there was a mark of injury on her husband’s neck. The appellant had attacked the deceased’s neck with axe. There was a dispute between her husband and the appellant, due to which the appellant killed her husband. In para 4 of her evidence, she has stated that when she went to the scene of the incident, there was a mark of injury on her husband’s neck and blood was splattered on the wall and the deceased was lying in a blood-soaked state. She has admitted that whenever the appellant came to their house, he used to get drunk and fight with the deceased. He admitted that when she went to the scene of the incident, axe was lying there. She also admitted that when they started calling their brother-in-law and father-in-law, at the same time, the appellant hidden the axe somewhere else.

¶87

15

¶88

24. Thus, with the above discussion of evidence, the prosecution has been succeeded in proving that deceased Lalit Uraon was murdered. This act of murder was committed by causing injuries to the deceased. According to the FSL report (Ex.P-26), blood was found on axe seized on the pointing out of the appellant from kitchen garden next to the house of the deceased.

¶89

25. The trial Court in para 31 of its judgment has observed that from the complete observation of the above statements of the witnesses, it is clear that the appellant used to work in the Dhaba and lived with the deceased in the Indira Awas house. The complainant reached the spot immediately after the incident. After this, axe used in the incident was hidden elsewhere by the appellant, which also shows his criminal mindset. The appellant and the deceased used to sleep together and the incident took place on the night of 19.10.2020 at 21.30 P.M.. No such explanation has been offered by the appellant as to how the deceased died. The deceased died due to the axe used in the incident, which was hidden by the appellant. Thus, all the links of circumstantial evidence are matching with each other in such a way that the deceased was murdered by the appellant. Hence, it is proved that on 19.10.2020 at about 21.30 P.M. the appellant murdered the deceased by assaulting him with axe.

¶90

26. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as under: -

¶91

16

¶92

“ 27. How much of information received from accused may be proved .—Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved.”

¶93

27. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.

¶94

28. The Supreme Court in the matter of Asar Mohammad and others v. State of U.P., AIR 2018 SC 5264 with reference to the word “fact” employed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act has held that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. It has been further held that the discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place and it includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. Their Lordships relying upon the decision of the Privy Council in the matter of Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC

¶95

67 observed as under: -

¶96

“13. It is a settled legal position that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word “fact” as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual physical material object”. The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited

¶97

17

¶98

the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. It includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. It will be useful to advert to the exposition in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra¹ , in particular, paragraphs 23 to 29 thereof. The same read thus:

¶99

“23. While accepting or rejecting the factors of discovery, certain principles are to be kept in mind. The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor (supra) has held thus: (IA p. 77)

¶100

“… it is fallacious to treat the ‘fact discovered’ within the section as equivalent to the object produced; the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered. Information supplied by a person in custody that ‘I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house’ does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if to the statement the words be added ‘with which I stabbed A’, these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.

¶101

xxx	xxx	xxx
xxx	xxx	xxx
xxx	xxx	xxx”

¶102

1 (2015) 1 SCC 253

¶103

18

¶104

29. The Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja alias Perumal v. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 12 has defined the ‘custody’. It held that the expression “custody” under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police.

¶105

30. The Supreme Court in the matter of Boby v State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 held that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. Section 27 puts a bar to use the confessional statement, but the fact that discovery and information which proved to reliable would be a circumstantial evidence.

¶106

31. Applying the aforesaid well settled principles of law and taking into the facts in totality and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances

¶107

19

¶108

against the appellant, which connect him 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. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court.

¶109

32. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed .

¶110

33. It is stated at the Bar that the the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.

¶111

34. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.

¶112

35. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his 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 the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

¶113

Sd/- Sd/-

¶114

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

¶115

Bablu

Ajit Toppo v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ajit Toppo 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

Mahesh Kumar Thadani @ Junaid Khan Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Amit Gupta Vs the State of Chhattisgarh

Santram @ Chhotu Nishad Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Ramakant @ Tingu Sahu Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Pappu Singh Rajput Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Tilak Ram Chouhan Vs State of Chhattisgarh