State of Chhattisgarh Vs Rajesh Pahadi Korva

1 - Rajesh Pahadi Korva S/o Shri Ramdev Aged About 25 Years R/o Devmud Mudkudvapara, Ramla, Police Station- Lakhanpur, DistrictSarguja, Chhattisgarh. Present Address- Baropahad, Police StationLemru, District- Korba, Chhattisgarh.

¶10

... Respondent(s)

¶11

For Appellant	: Mr. Avinash Singh, G.A.
For Respondent(s)	: Mr. Ravindra Sharma along with Mr. Sahil
	Sahu, Advocate

¶12

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey

¶13

Hon’ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board

¶14

Per Rajani Dubey, J. 20/03/2026

¶15

Heard on admission.

¶16

2

¶17

The present appeal has been filed by the appellant assailing the judgment dated 31.05.2017 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Korba, District- Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 14/2017, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

¶18

The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased, Sukhmati, was residing with the accused at her matrimonial home situated in village Devbhavadi. During this period, the accused, on account of suspicion regarding the character of the deceased, used to subject her to physical assault. Owing to such ill-treatment, Sukhmati left her matrimonial home and started residing with her parents at village Baropahar. Subsequently, the accused also came and began residing at the house of the parents of the deceased. The parents of Sukhmati questioned the accused regarding his conduct of assaulting her; however, the accused did not furnish any explanation and continued to harbour suspicion regarding her character. The parents of the deceased advised and restrained the accused from further ill-treatment.

¶19

On 02.12.2016, the deceased Sukhmati, along with Saniyaro Bai and the accused Rajesh, went to the weekly market at village Dokramna for the purpose of selling Charota seeds. While returning to village Baropahar in the evening, the three halted near a stream and lit a fire to warm themselves. After some time, the accused and the deceased asked Saniyaro Bai to

¶20

3

¶21

remain near the fire while they proceeded to fetch their belongings. They returned after approximately two to three hours. Thereafter, the deceased expressed her intention to return home; however, the accused insisted on staying there overnight. This led to a quarrel between them. During the altercation, the deceased caught hold of the accused’s shirt, which got torn. Enraged, the accused threw the deceased on the ground and assaulted her with stones and a wooden stick. He further dragged her by her leg, causing grievous injuries. Despite the deceased raising cries for help and Saniyaro Bai attempting to intervene, the accused continued the assault and ultimately caused the death of Sukhmati by repeatedly striking her with stones and a stick. Thereafter, the accused threatened Saniyaro Bai with dire consequences, including death, if she disclosed the incident to anyone. Due to fear, she remained silent and stayed near the dead body during the night. On the following day, the accused escorted Saniyaro Bai towards Baropahar and left her midway. She returned home in the evening of 03.12.2016 and informed the parents of the deceased about the incident. Upon receiving the information, the father of the deceased, along with his wife Chingibai and other villagers, proceeded to the spot and found the dead body of Sukhmati lying with multiple injuries, including severe head injuries with profuse bleeding. The matter was reported at Police Station Lemru on the next day. On the basis of the complaint lodged by Teejaram, a case was registered.

¶22

4

¶23

During the course of investigation, the police prepared the inquest report and the dead body was sent to Primary Health Centre, Lemru, for post-mortem examination. The Investigating Officer prepared a spot map and seized incriminating articles from the place of occurrence, including blood-stained soil, plain soil, stones, broken glass bangles, a hair belt, bangles of the accused, and currency notes. On 08.12.2016, the accused was interrogated and his memorandum statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses. Pursuant thereto, a wooden (tendu) stick and a fullsleeved shirt stained with blood and hair were recovered at his instance. Statements of witnesses were recorded and the seized articles were sent for medical and forensic examination.

¶24

Upon completion of investigation and on the basis of the post-mortem report and other collected evidence, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code before the Court of the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Korba. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions for trial and has been placed before the trial Court for adjudication in accordance with law. The learned trial Court framed the charge under Section 302 of IPC, to which appellant abjured his guilt and claimed to be tried.

¶25

In order to bring home the guilt of the accused/respondent, the prosecution examined as many as 8 witnesses. The statement of the accused/respondent was also recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all the

¶26

5

¶27

incriminating circumstances appearing against him and pleaded innocence alleging false implication in the case. The accused/respondent did not lead any evidence in defence.

¶28

Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the accused of the charge under Section 302 of IPC. Hence, this acquittal appeal.

¶29

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment is based on erroneous assumptions, surmises and conjectures and the evidence brought on record has not been properly appreciated for the purpose of determining the guilt of the respondent. The learned Trial Court has committed a grave error both in facts and in law by disbelieving the cogent and reliable testimony of the eye-witness, PW-2 Saniyaro Bai, without assigning justifiable and convincing reasons. The learned Trial Court has erroneously treated the post-mortem report as doubtful and suspicious, despite there being no material contradiction or infirmity in the medical evidence to warrant such a conclusion. The learned Trial Court has misdirected itself in the appreciation of evidence by improperly evaluating the testimony of the eyewitness in the light of medical evidence. The learned Trial Court has arrived at a wholly erroneous and unjustified conclusion resulting in the acquittal of the respondent in a heinous offence of murder, despite the eye-witness testimony remaining consistent, credible and unshaken during cross-examination. The impugned judgment is contrary to law and facts on record, suffers from

¶30

6

¶31

serious legal infirmities and is therefore unsustainable, warranting interference by this Court.

¶32

On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent/accused submits that the impugned judgment is well-reasoned and based on proper appreciation of evidence. The learned Trial Court has rightly found inconsistencies in the prosecution case and extended the benefit of doubt. The view taken is a plausible one and does not warrant interference. Accordingly, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

¶33

Heard counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶34

It is evident from the record of the learned Trial Court that a charge under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was framed against the respondent/accused. Upon due appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence adduced on record, the learned Trial Court acquitted the respondent/accused, holding that the prosecution failed to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶35

It is an undisputed fact before the learned Trial Court that the deceased, Sukhmati, was the wife of the respondent/accused, Rajesh and she died on 02.12.2016.

¶36

Dr. M.L. Bhariya (P.W.-8), who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, stated that he had found multiple injuries on the body and opined that the cause of death was shock

¶37

7

¶38

resulting from excessive bleeding. He further deposed that the death was homicidal in nature and had submitted his report in this regard vide Ex.P/25.

¶39

He denied the suggestion that the cranial injuries could have been caused by a fall on a hard or heavy object. He clarified that, in cases of a fall leading to a skull fracture, the injury would ordinarily involve a larger area; however, in the present case, the fracture was in the nature of a fissure, thereby ruling out the possibility of such a fall.

¶40

Upon considering the testimony of Dr. M.L. Bhariya (P.W.-8) and the post-mortem report (Ex.P/25), the learned trial Court rightly concluded that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature.

¶41

The prosecution has alleged that the accused assaulted his wife with a stone and a club, as a result of which she sustained injuries and ultimately succumbed to the same.

¶42

Teejram Pahadi Korva (P.W.-1), father of the deceased, stated that on the date of the incident, the accused Rajesh, along with Sukhmatiya and Shaniaro Bai, had gone to the market at Grag Dhokargana. He deposed that after completing their shopping, all three were returning home, and midway, Rajesh allegedly killed Sukhmatiya. He further stated that this fact was informed to him by Shaniaro Bai. He also stated that, thereafter, Dehati Nalisi was registered vide Ex.P/1 and Dehati Merg Intimation vide Ex.P/2; the spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/3, and the dead body

¶43

8

¶44

supurdnama was executed vide Ex.P/4, on all of which he affixed his thumb impression.

¶45

In his cross-examination, he admitted that during the period Rajesh and Sukhmatiya resided at his house, they lived harmoniously. He further admitted that, to his knowledge, no quarrel had ever taken place between them during that period.

¶46

Further in para 11, he stated that, “यहकहना�सह�ह�किकघटना�क� रा�तस�खमकितय�बह�तअधि�कशरा�बकि�य�ह�एथी�औराशकिनाय�रा�ब�ईभी�शरा�बक�नाश� म थी�।यहकहना�सह�ह�किकघटना�क�रा�तस�खमकितय�औराशकिनाय�रा�ब�ईक�मध्य झग़቟�ह�आथी�।यहकहना�सह�ह�किकघटना�क�रा�तशकिनाय�रा�ब�ईना�स�खमकितय� क��त्थीरास�म�रा�थी�।यहकहना�सह�ह�किकशकिनाय�रा�ब�ईक��त्थीरास�म�राना�क� क�राणह�स�खमकितय�क�म)त्य�ह�ई।��ना* कहत�ह�किकस�खमकितय�क�रा�जे�शना��त्थीरा ” स�म�रा�थी�औराउस�क�क�राणस�खमकितय�क�म)त्य�ह�ई।

¶47

Shaniyaro Bai (P.W.-2) stated that she, along with Rajesh and Sukhmatiya, had gone to the market at village Jokarmana during the day to sell Barota seeds. She deposed that after selling the Charota seeds at Dhokarangana market, all three of them were returning to their village, Baropahad, at night. She further stated that, on the way, a quarrel took place between Rajesh and Sukhmatiya, during which the accused Rajesh assaulted Sukhmatiya with a stick, causing her to fall down and die on the spot. She also stated that thereafter she went to village Pahad and on the following day, informed her father-in-law Teejram and mother-in-law Digibai about the incident.

¶48

9

¶49

The prosecution, having declared the witness hostile, crossexamined her, wherein she admitted that after assaulting Sukhmatiya with a stick, the accused had also pelted stones at her. She further admitted that Sukhmatiya died at the spot as a result of the injuries inflicted by the accused. She also admitted that she became frightened and fled from the place of occurrence to village Pahar. However, she further stated that it was pitch dark at the time of the incident and, due to such darkness, she could not see anything clearly.

¶50

Dharam Singh (P.W.-4) admitted his signature on memorandum (Ex.P/7), seizure memo (Ex.P/8) and arrest memo (Ex.P/9).

¶51

In his cross-examination, he admitted that he had not signed the Memorandum Ex.P/7 after reading its contents and that he had affixed his signature on Ex.P/7 at the insistence of the police.

¶52

It was observed that both the witnesses, namely Vijay Kumar Agrawal (P.W.-5) and Rati Ram (P.W.-6), did not support the case of the prosecution. They were accordingly declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution; however, they denied the suggestions put to them.

¶53

It was further noted that Rati Ram (P.W.-6) admitted only his signatures on the seizure memos (Ex.P/11 and Ex.P/12), while denying all other suggestions made by the prosecution.

¶54

Upon a close scrutiny of the statements of all the witnesses, it was found that, as per the prosecution case, the dead body was

¶55

10

¶56

discovered outside the house. It was further observed that the only eye-witness, Shaniyaro Bai (P.W.-2) had stated that a quarrel had taken place between the accused and the deceased; however, she also admitted that due to darkness, she could not see the incident clearly.

¶57

It was further recorded that the accused/respondent, in his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, in response to Question No. 79, stated as under:–

¶58

" श्ना 79 क्य�, आ�क�छऔराकहना�चा�हत�ह� ?

¶59

उ्ቈरा शकिनाय�रा� ब�ईम�झस�एकतराफा�्ቚ �मकरात�थी�, म�झस�कि44�ह कराना�चा�हत�थी�।घटना�कि5ना�6कक�भी�शकिनाय�रा�, स�खमकितय�क�स�थी ब�जे�रागईथी�, म7 नाह8 गय�थी�।5�ना9 शरा�बकि�एह�एथी�, स6भी4त* शरा�बक� नाश�म स�खमकितय�क�चा�टलग�औरा4हमरागई।इसक�फा�य5�उठा�ना� क�धिलएशकिनाय�रा�म�झ�स�खमकितय�क�हत्य�क�म�मल�म फा6 स�ना�चा�हत�ह� क्य9किकम7 उसक�कि44�हक�्ቚ स्त�4 ठा�करा�कि5य�थी�।"

¶60

The learned trial Court, upon meticulous appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on record, found that the testimony of Shaniyaro Bai was unreliable and inconsistent with the post-mortem report. It was further held that Shaniyaro Bai could not be treated as an eye-witness to the incident. The Court also observed that the other witnesses were not reliable and the prosecution had failed to adduce any cogent, clinching and legally admissible evidence against the respondent/accused.

¶61

11

¶62

Consequently, it was concluded that the prosecution had failed to

¶63

prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶64

The Hon’ble Apex Court in its latest judgment dated 12.02.2024 (Criminal Appeal No 1162 of 2011) passed in Mallappa and Ors.

¶65

Versus State of Karnataka reported in (2024) AIR (SC) 1252, has held in para 36 as under:-

¶66

36. Our criminal jurisprudence is essentially based on the promise that no innocent shall be condemned as guilty. All the safeguards and the jurisprudential values of criminal law, are intended to prevent any failure of justice. The principles which come into play while deciding an appeal from acquittal could be summarized as:-

¶67

“(i) Appreciation of evidence is the core element of a criminal trial and such appreciation must be comprehensive-inclusive of all evidence, oral and documentary; (ii Partial or selective appreciation of evidence

¶68

12

¶69

may result in a miscarriage of justice and is in itself a ground of challenge;

¶70

(iii If the Court, after appreciation of evidence, finds that two views are possible, the one in favour of the accused shall ordinarily be followed;

¶71

(iv) If the view of the Trial Court is a legally plausible view, mere possibility of a contrary view shall not justify the reversal of acquittal;

¶72

(v) If the appellate Court is inclined to reverse the acquittal in appeal on a re-appreciation of evidence, it must specifically address all the reasons given by the Trial Court for acquittal and must cover all the facts;

¶73

(vi) In a case of reversal from acquittal to conviction, the appellate

¶74

13

¶75

Court must demonstrate an illegality, perversity or error of law or fact in the decision of the Trial Court.”

¶76

In light of the aforesaid facts and circumstances and upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence on record, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt of the respondent/accused beyond reasonable doubt. The testimony of the sole alleged eye-witness, Shaniyaro Bai (P.W.-2) is found to be unreliable and inconsistent, particularly in view of her admission regarding inability to see the incident due to darkness, as well as contradictions with the medical evidence. It is further observed that other material witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and were declared hostile and no cogent, clinching and legally admissible evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the charge against the accused.

¶77

In view of the principles laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mallappa (supra) the view taken by the learned trial Court is a legally plausible view. Also, in an appeal against acquittal, where two views are reasonably possible, the view favourable to the accused must ordinarily be adopted. Interference is justified only when the findings of the trial Court are shown to be perverse, illegal or based on a manifest misappreciation of evidence. Having regard to the limited scope of interference in an appeal

¶78

14

¶79

against acquittal, we find no illegality or irregularity in the conclusions recorded by the learned Trial Court. No such infirmity is demonstrated in the present case so as to warrant interference.

¶80

Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed at motion stage itself.

¶81

Sd/Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) JUDGE JUDGE

¶82

Ruchi

¶83

RUCHI YADAV

¶84

Digitally signed by RUCHI YADAV

State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Pahadi Korva

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

State of Chhattisgarh v. Rajesh Pahadi Korva

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

Ramesh Kumar Rajput Vs State of Chhattisgarh

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Chandrika and Ors.

State of Chhattisgarh Vs Krishna Sahu

State Of Chhattisgarh Vs Khidmat Singh Rathia

Xyz Vs Kanhaiya Kenwat

Chhattisgarh State Agriculture Maketing Board Vs M/S Price Water House Coopers Pvt. Ltd.