Ganga Ram Bandhle Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

Digitally signed by ANURADHA ANURADHA TIWARI TIWARI Date: 2026.03.24 10:47:33 +0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:13645-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

CRA No. 1208 of 2023

¶7

1 - Ganga Ram Bandhle S/o Shri Sukhdev @ Guput Aged About 20 Years R/o Village- Daukapa, Police Station - Jarhagaon, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶8

2 - Sukhdev Bandhle @ Guput S/o Shri Jhangalu Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Daukapa, Police Station - Jarhagaon, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellants

¶10

versus

¶11

State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police Station- Jarhagaon, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate For State/Respondent : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government Advocate

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board

¶15

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

23.03.2026

¶17

1. Heard Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellants as well as Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

¶18

2

¶19

2. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 28.02.2023 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.27 of 2019, whereby the appellants/accused have been convicted and sentenced as under :-

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 341 read	Simple imprisonment for 01
with Section 34 of the	month with fine of Rs.500/-, in
Indian Penal Code, 1860	default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 07 days.
Under Section 294 of the	Rigorous imprisonment for 03
Indian Penal Code, 1860	months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
Under Section 506 Part-II of the Indian Penal Code, 1860	Rigorous imprisonment for 06 months with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 15 days.
Under Section 307 read	Rigorous imprisonment for 10
with Section 34 of the	months with fine of
Indian Penal Code, 1860	Rs.1,000/-, in default of
	payment of fine amount,
	additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months.
Under Section 323 read	Rigorous imprisonment for 06
with Section 34 of the	months with fine of Rs.500/-,

¶21

3

¶22

Indian Penal Code, 1860	in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month.
Under Section 302 read	Imprisonment for life with fine
with Section 34 of the	of Rs.2,000/-, in default of
Indian Penal Code, 1860	payment of fine amount,
	additional rigorous
	imprisonment for 01 month.
It is directed that all the se	ntences were run concurrently.

¶23

3. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that: On account of a long-standing dispute relating to a piece of land adjoining the house of the complainant party, relations between the parties had become strained. The accused persons, namely Gangaram Bandhle, Sukhdev Bandhle and others, were residing in the neighbourhood of the complainant, and there existed frequent quarrels over construction activities allegedly being carried out by the complainant side on the disputed land.

¶24

4. On 09.09.2019 at about 6:00 PM, the accused persons, armed with lathis, came in front of the house of the complainant and started abusing in filthy language and threatening the complainant party with dire consequences. This fact is primarily supported by PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre) and corroborated by PW-06 (Pinki Kurre) and other eyewitnesses.

¶25

5. When the complainant party objected to such conduct, PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), mother of the complainant, came out of the house and questioned the accused persons as to why they were hurling

¶26

4

¶27

abuses and issuing threats. At this, accused Gangaram Bandhle and the juvenile co-accused assaulted her with lathis on her head, while other accused persons joined in the assault. As a result, she fell on the ground and was further beaten mercilessly. This part of the incident finds consistent support from PW-01, PW-03, PW-04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06. Seeing the assault, the daughters raised alarm and rushed inside to call their father, Sanjay Kurre (deceased). Before he could intervene effectively, the accused persons fled from the spot after leaving PW-03 (Sharda Kurre) in an injured condition.

¶28

6. Subsequently, when Sanjay Kurre was taking the complainant (PW-01) on a moped to lodge a report, near the shop of one Kumar Bandhle, the accused persons again intercepted them. The juvenile co-accused struck Sanjay Kurre on the head with a lathi, causing both to fall down. Thereafter, accused Gangaram Bandhle and Sukhdev Bandhle repeatedly assaulted him on the head with lathis, causing severe injuries. The ocular version of this second incident is supported by PW-01, and finds corroboration from surrounding circumstances and medical evidence.

¶29

7. As a result of the brutal assault, Sanjay Kurre sustained grievous head injuries, his head was badly crushed and face disfigured. The accused persons fled from the scene believing him to be dead. The injured was later declared dead, as reflected in Ex.

¶30

5

¶31

P/10 (Inquest Report) and Ex. P/14 (Postmortem Report). Upon information, a merg intimation (Ex. P/12) was registered, followed by registration of FIR (Ex. P/01) under Sections 294, 506 Part-II, 302, 307, 341, 34 IPC.

¶32

8. During investigation: (i) Spot map (Ex. P/02 & P/03) was prepared, (ii) Memorandum statements of accused persons were recorded (Ex. P/04 & P/06) under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, (iii) Weapons (lathis) were seized vide Ex. P/05 & P/07, (iv) Medical examination of injured witnesses was conducted, (v) Postmortem report (Ex. P/14) confirmed that death was homicidal in nature due to head injuries and (vi) Seized articles were sent for forensic examination (Ex. P/23 to P/26).

¶33

9. The medical evidence of PW-10 (Dr. Nilofar Hirani), PW-11 (Dr. Ravi Shankar Prasad Devangan), PW-13 (Dr. Anurag Singh), PW14 (Dr. Abhimanyu Singh) and PW-15 (Dr. R. Jitpure) corroborates the ocular version and establishes that the injuries sustained were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. Further, PW-12 (Investigating Officer Keshav Narayan Aditya) proved the entire investigation including seizure, spot inspection, and recording of statements.

¶34

10. Upon completion of investigation, the final report (charge-sheet) was filed before the competent Court. After committal of the case to the Court of Session, charges were framed against accused for offences punishable under Sections 294, 506(B), 302, 307, 341,

¶35

6

¶36

323, 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”). The charges were read over and explained to the accused persons, who denied the same and claimed to be tried.

¶37

11. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges levelled against the accused persons, examined in all 15 witnesses (PW01 to PW-15) and proved documentary evidence marked as Ex. P/01 to Ex. P/30, thereby attempting to establish the chain of events in a cogent and reliable manner. The prosecution evidence comprises eyewitnesses, injured witnesses, formal witnesses, medical experts, and the investigating officer, each playing a distinct role in unfolding the prosecution story.

¶38

12. PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), the complainant and an eyewitness to the occurrence, is a crucial witness who narrated the entire incident, including the initial altercation, the assault on her mother, and subsequently the fatal attack on her father. Her testimony forms the backbone of the prosecution case and is supported by prompt lodging of FIR (Ex. P/01).

¶39

13. PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), the injured eyewitness, provided a direct account of the assault inflicted upon her by the accused persons. Being an injured witness, her testimony carries great evidentiary value and lends strong assurance to the prosecution version.

¶40

14. PW-04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06 (Pinki Kurre) are also eyewitnesses to the incident, who corroborated the version of PW-01 and PW-03 with respect to both the assault on Sharda

¶41

7

¶42

Kurre and the subsequent attack on the deceased. Their testimonies are consistent.

¶43

15. PW-02 (Vijay Bhaskar), PW-05 (Satish Kurre), PW-07 (Hemchand Kurre) and PW-08 (Ramdas Kurre) are witnesses to surrounding circumstances, including reaching the spot after the incident, and they support the prosecution case regarding the aftermath and condition of the victims.

¶44

16. PW-09 (Mukesh Kumar Pandey), Patwari, proved the spot map and relevant land-related aspects, thereby lending support to the prosecution’s version regarding the place of occurrence and the background land dispute. The spot map is exhibited as Ex. P/02 and Ex. P/03.

¶45

17. The medical evidence has been adduced through PW-10 (Dr. Nilofar Hirani), PW-11 (Dr. Ravi Shankar Prasad Devangan), PW13 (Dr. Anurag Singh), PW-14 (Dr. Abhimanyu Singh) and PW-15 (Dr. R. Jitpure), who proved the injuries sustained by the deceased and other injured persons. The postmortem report (Ex. P/14), along with CT Scan (Ex. P/29) and X-ray reports (Ex. P/30), clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and caused due to severe head injuries inflicted by hard and blunt objects like lathis.

¶46

18. PW-12 (Keshav Narayan Aditya), the Investigating Officer, proved the entire investigation, including registration of merg intimation (Ex. P/12), FIR (Ex. P/01), preparation of inquest report (Ex.

¶47

8

¶48

P/10), seizure of weapons (Ex. P/05, P/07, P/13, P/21), recording of memorandum statements of the accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act (Ex. P/04 and P/06), and sending of seized articles for forensic examination (Ex. P/23 to P/26).

¶49

19. The prosecution also proved formal documents such as arrest memos (Ex. P/08 & P/09), dead body supurdnama (Ex. P/11), bed head ticket (Ex. P/28), and other procedural documents, completing the chain of investigation.

¶50

20. Thus, through the oral testimony of PW-01 to PW-15 and documentary evidence Ex. P/01 to Ex. P/30, the prosecution endeavoured to establish: (i) the motive (land dispute), (ii) the presence of the accused at the scene of occurrence, (iii) the overt acts committed by each accused, (iv) the nature of injuries and cause of death, and (v) the recovery of weapons used in the offence, thereby seeking to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the offences alleged against them.

¶51

21. The statements of the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. were recorded, wherein they denied the allegations and pleaded false implication. The defence examined DW-01 (Prakash Bandhle) and relied upon Ex. D/01 and D/02, being prior statements of prosecution witnesses. However, the prosecution case rests on consistent ocular testimony of eyewitnesses duly corroborated by medical and documentary evidence, establishing that the accused

¶52

9

¶53

persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Sanjay Kurre and caused injuries to other victims.

¶54

22. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 28.02.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellants in the manner mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by them calling in question the impugned judgment.

¶55

23. Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, learned counsel for the appellants, assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, has submitted that the findings recorded by the learned trial Court are wholly unsustainable in law. It is contended that the conviction of the appellants is based solely on the testimonies of interested and closely related witnesses, and there is a complete absence of any independent eyewitness to the alleged incident. The prosecution has examined only family members of the deceased as eyewitnesses, namely PW-01, PW-03, PW-04 and PW-06, whose evidence, being highly interested, ought to have been scrutinized with great caution. However, the learned trial Court has mechanically relied upon their testimonies without seeking independent corroboration.

¶56

24. Mr. Shriwas further submits that the conduct of the prosecution witnesses is unnatural and improbable, which creates serious

¶57

10

¶58

doubt about the veracity of their statements. It is argued that despite the alleged brutal assault, no independent person from the locality has been examined, although the incident is stated to have occurred in a residential area, thereby making the prosecution story doubtful. It is further contended that from the cross-examination of PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), it is clearly borne out that she herself had abused and assaulted the juvenile accused, which indicates that the incident was not a one-sided attack as alleged, but rather a case of sudden quarrel and mutual fight. This material aspect probabilises the defence version and completely demolishes the prosecution theory of premeditated assault with common intention.

¶59

25. It is argued by Mr. Shriwas that the prosecution has suppressed the true genesis of the occurrence, and has failed to explain the circumstances under which the incident actually took place. The admitted existence of a land dispute between the parties provides a strong motive for false implication, and the possibility of exaggeration and embellishment in the prosecution story cannot be ruled out. It is further argued that there are material contradictions and inconsistencies in the statements of the prosecution witnesses with regard to the role attributed to each accused, the manner of assault, and the sequence of events. Such discrepancies go to the root of the prosecution case and render the evidence unreliable. The learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate these contradictions.

¶60

11

¶61

26. Mr. Shriwas also submits that the prosecution has failed to establish any specific overt act attributable to each of the appellants, particularly in relation to the fatal injuries sustained by the deceased. In absence of clear and cogent evidence, the application of Section 34 IPC is wholly unjustified. It is further contended that the medical evidence does not conclusively support the ocular version. Although injuries have been found on the deceased, the prosecution has failed to establish a clear nexus between those injuries and the acts allegedly committed by the appellants. The possibility that the injuries may have been caused in the course of a free fight or due to some other reason has not been ruled out. He also questioned the recovery of alleged weapons (lathis) at the instance of the appellants, submitting that such recovery is highly doubtful and lacks evidentiary value, particularly in absence of any reliable forensic evidence connecting the seized articles with the crime.

¶62

27. Lastly, it is submitted by Mr. Shriwas that during examination of accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants have categorically denied the prosecution allegations and have specifically stated that they have been falsely implicated due to previous enmity. The explanation offered by the appellants has not been duly considered by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the learned trial Court has erred in convicting the appellants by placing undue reliance on unreliable

¶63

12

¶64

and interested testimony. As such, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence be set aside, and the appellants be acquitted of all the charges.

¶65

28. Per-contra, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the State, supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that the prosecution has successfully established its case beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and reliable evidence. The testimonies of PW-01 Ku. Manisha Kurre, PW-03 Sharda Kurre, PW-04 Lalita Kurre and PW-06 Pinki Kurre, who are eyewitnesses to the incident, are consistent, trustworthy and inspire confidence. Merely because they are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded, particularly when it is well corroborated by medical and documentary evidence. He further submits that the ocular version of the incident is fully supported by medical evidence, including the postmortem report, which clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and caused by multiple head injuries inflicted by hard and blunt objects. The role attributed to the accused persons is clear and specific, and their participation in the crime stands duly proved. The minor discrepancies, if any, in the statements of witnesses are natural and do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It is further argued that the prosecution has also proved the motive, i.e., the land dispute between the parties, and the conduct of the accused persons in coming armed with lathis and

¶66

13

¶67

assaulting the victims clearly demonstrates their common intention. The recovery of weapons at the instance of the accused, coupled with the consistent testimony of eyewitnesses, forms a complete chain of evidence. It is thus submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants, and no case for interference is made out. The appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed.

¶68

29. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.

¶69

30. The first question that arises for consideration in the present appeal is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the death of the deceased – Sanjay Kurre – was homicidal in nature.

¶70

31. The learned trial Court, upon a meticulous appreciation of the medical as well as ocular evidence available on record, has recorded a categorical finding that the death of Sanjay Kurre was homicidal. In the present case, the postmortem examination of the deceased was conducted by PW-15 (Dr. R. Jitpure), and the postmortem report (Ex. P/14) clearly indicates that the deceased had sustained multiple grievous injuries, particularly on vital parts of the body such as the head. The report reveals extensive cranio-cerebral damage, including fracture of skull bones and underlying brain injury, which were sufficient in the ordinary

¶71

14

¶72

course of nature to cause death. The cause of death has been opined to be due to shock and coma resulting from severe head injuries inflicted by hard and blunt objects like lathis.

¶73

32. The medical evidence adduced by PW-10 (Dr. Nilofar Hirani), PW11 (Dr. Ravi Shankar Prasad Devangan), PW-13 (Dr. Anurag Singh), PW-14 (Dr. Abhimanyu Singh) and PW-15 (Dr. R. Jitpure) consistently supports the prosecution case and establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not accidental or selfinflicted, but were the result of a violent assault. The nature, number, and location of injuries clearly rule out any possibility of natural or accidental death. The CT Scan report (Ex. P/29) and X- ray report (Ex. P/30) further corroborate the presence of fatal head injuries.

¶74

33. Apart from the medical evidence, the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses, particularly PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), is fully consistent with the medical findings. She has categorically stated that the accused persons assaulted the deceased with lathis on his head, resulting in his fall and subsequent fatal injuries. This version finds further corroboration from surrounding circumstances, including the inquest report (Ex. P/10), merg intimation (Ex. P/12), and the prompt lodging of FIR (Ex. P/01).

¶75

34. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that when the ocular testimony of trustworthy witnesses is fully corroborated by medical evidence, the same inspires great confidence and can be

¶76

15

¶77

safely relied upon. In the instant case, there is complete harmony between the medical and ocular evidence, leaving no scope for doubt regarding the cause and nature of death.

¶78

35. Furthermore, it is pertinent to note that the finding with regard to the homicidal nature of death has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants during the course of arguments. Even otherwise, this Court, upon independent scrutiny of the evidence on record, finds no perversity, illegality or infirmity in the conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court.

¶79

36. In view of the aforesaid analysis, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established that the death of Sanjay Kurre was homicidal in nature. The finding recorded by the learned trial Court in this regard is based on proper appreciation of evidence and does not call for any interference. Accordingly, the said finding is hereby affirmed.

¶80

37. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the appellants are the authors of the crime and whether their conviction under the various provisions of the Indian Penal Code is sustainable in law.

¶81

38. At the outset, it is pertinent to observe that the prosecution case rests primarily on the ocular testimony of eyewitnesses, including an injured witness, which is duly corroborated by medical and documentary evidence. It is a settled principle of law that the testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal, as

¶82

16

¶83

such a witness is a natural witness to the occurrence and the presence at the scene cannot be doubted. In the present case, PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), who herself sustained injuries in the course of the incident, has categorically deposed regarding the assault made by the appellants. Her testimony clearly establishes that the appellants, armed with lathis, assaulted her and thereafter also participated in the fatal assault on the deceased. Nothing substantial has been elicited in her cross-examination to discredit her testimony.

¶84

39. The evidence of PW-03 finds full corroboration from the testimony of PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), who is an eyewitness to both phases of the incident. She has consistently narrated the sequence of events, namely, the initial altercation, the assault on her mother, and thereafter the fatal attack on her father. Her presence at the spot is natural and her testimony inspires confidence. Similarly, PW-04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06 (Pinki Kurre) have also supported the prosecution case in material particulars. Their statements are consistent with each other and there are no material contradictions affecting the substratum of the prosecution case.

¶85

40. The contention raised by learned counsel for the appellants that all eyewitnesses are related and interested witnesses does not merit acceptance. It is well settled that the evidence of related witnesses cannot be discarded solely on the ground of

¶86

17

¶87

relationship, if it is otherwise found to be reliable and trustworthy. In the present case, the testimonies of PW-01, PW-03, PW-04 and PW-06 are cogent, consistent and corroborated by medical evidence. No material contradiction or omission has been brought on record to render their evidence unreliable. Their presence at the scene is most natural, as the incident occurred in front of their house.

¶88

41. The prosecution version is further strengthened by medical evidence. The injuries sustained by the deceased, as reflected in the postmortem report (Ex. P/14), clearly indicate multiple blows on the head caused by hard and blunt objects. This fully corroborates the ocular version that the appellants assaulted the deceased with lathis. The nature of injuries also rules out the possibility of a simple scuffle or free fight, as suggested by the defence.

¶89

42. Being an injured eyewitness, PW-03 (Sharda Kurre)’s presence at the scene of occurrence is natural, probable and beyond any shadow of doubt. She sustained injuries during the course of the very incident in which the deceased was fatally assaulted, and therefore, her testimony assumes great significance. It is well settled that the evidence of an injured witness carries a higher evidentiary value, as it is backed by an inbuilt guarantee of truthfulness, the witness having suffered at the hands of the assailants.

¶90

18

¶91

43. In Abdul Sayeed v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2010) 10 SCC 259, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that the testimony of an injured witness stands on a higher pedestal and should ordinarily be relied upon unless there are strong and compelling reasons to discard it. Similarly, in Lakshman Singh v. State of Bihar, (2021) 9 SCC 191, it has been reiterated that an injured witness would not ordinarily shield the real culprit and falsely implicate another person.

¶92

44. Further, the Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and another v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 held as under:

¶93

“26. When the evidence of an injured eyewitness is to be appreciated, the under-noted legal principles enunciated by the Courts are required to be kept in mind:

¶94

(a) The presence of an injured eye-witness at the time and place of the occurrence cannot be doubted unless there are material contradictions in his deposition.

¶95

(b) Unless, it is otherwise established by the evidence, it must be believed that an injured witness would not allow the real culprits to escape and falsely implicate the accused.

¶96

(c) The evidence of injured witness has greater evidentiary value and unless compelling reasons exist, their statements are not to be discarded lightly.

¶97

19

¶98

(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot be doubted on account of some embellishment in natural conduct or minor contradictions.

¶99

(e) If there be any exaggeration or immaterial embellishments in the evidence of an injured witness, then such contradiction, exaggeration or embellishment should be discarded from the evidence of injured, but not the whole evidence.

¶100

(f) The broad substratum of the prosecution version must be taken into consideration and discrepancies which normally creep due to loss of memory with passage of time should be discarded.

¶101

(emphasis supplied)”

¶102

45. Applying the aforesaid well-settled principles to the facts of the present case, this Court finds that the testimony of the injured eyewitness, PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), is wholly reliable and inspires full confidence. Her presence at the place of occurrence stands conclusively established, not only from her own deposition but also from the medical evidence which proves that she sustained injuries in the same transaction. There is no material contradiction or inherent improbability in her statement so as to create any doubt regarding her presence or veracity. On the contrary, her testimony is consistent, cogent and firmly supported by other eyewitnesses, namely PW-01 Ku. Manisha Kurre, PW-04 Lalita Kurre and PW-06 Pinki Kurre.

¶103

20

¶104

46. It is also significant to note that nothing has been brought on record to suggest that PW-03 had any reason to falsely implicate the appellants while sparing the real culprits. The defence has failed to elicit any material in her cross-examination to probabilise such a theory. Rather, her evidence clearly demonstrates that the appellants were the very persons who initially assaulted her and thereafter proceeded to inflict fatal injuries upon the deceased. In such circumstances, the presumption that an injured witness would not shield the actual offenders squarely applies to the case at hand.

¶105

47. The minor discrepancies or alleged embellishments pointed out by the defence are of no consequence. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde v. State of Maharashtra, trivial inconsistencies or improvements, which do not go to the root of the matter, are liable to be ignored, as they are but natural variations arising from lapse of time and differences in perception. In the present case, the so-called contradictions do not in any manner affect the core of the prosecution story, namely, the unlawful assembly of the appellants, the assault on PW-03 Sharda Kurre, and the subsequent fatal attack on the deceased.

¶106

48. The broad substratum of the prosecution case remains intact and unshaken. The consistent version of the injured witness, duly corroborated by other eyewitnesses and medical evidence, clearly establishes the manner of occurrence and the role played by each

¶107

21

¶108

of the appellants. Even if certain minor exaggerations or embellishments are assumed, the same can be safely segregated without affecting the credibility of the main prosecution case.

¶109

49. In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the testimony of PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), being an injured eyewitness, carries great evidentiary weight and has rightly been relied upon by the learned trial Court. Her evidence, read in conjunction with other reliable evidence on record, forms a solid foundation for sustaining the conviction of the appellants.

¶110

50. Now, adverting to the individual offences for which the appellants have been convicted:

¶111

(i) Offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC:

¶112

51. The homicidal death of the deceased Sanjay Kurre has already been established by cogent medical evidence, particularly the postmortem report (Ex. P/14), which reveals that the deceased sustained multiple grievous injuries on vital parts of the body, especially the head. The nature of injuries, including skull fractures and extensive brain damage, clearly demonstrates that the injuries were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.

¶113

52. The ocular version of the incident is furnished primarily by PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), who is a natural and trustworthy eyewitness. She has categorically deposed that when she and her father were

¶114

22

¶115

proceeding to lodge a report, the appellants intercepted them near the shop of Kumar Bandhle. At that juncture, the juvenile coaccused first struck her father on the head with a lathi, causing him to fall. Thereafter, the present appellants, namely Gangaram Bandhle and Sukhdev Bandhle, repeatedly assaulted the deceased on his head with lathis. Her testimony clearly attributes specific overt acts to the appellants and establishes their active participation in the fatal assault.

¶116

53. The testimony of PW-01 finds substantial corroboration from the earlier part of the incident as narrated by PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), PW-04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06 (Pinki Kurre). These witnesses have consistently stated that the appellants had come armed with lathis, abused and threatened the complainant party, and brutally assaulted PW-03. This prior conduct of the appellants is highly relevant, as it demonstrates their aggressive intent and lends credence to the subsequent fatal assault.

¶117

54. The evidence of PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), being an injured eyewitness, assumes great significance. She has categorically stated that the appellants assaulted her with lathis on her head and other parts of the body. The injuries sustained by her have been duly proved by medical evidence. Her testimony establishes not only the presence of the appellants at the scene but also their participation in the violent assault, thereby forming an important link in the chain of events leading to the murder of the deceased.

¶118

23

¶119

55. The consistent and corroborative testimonies of PW-04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06 (Pinki Kurre) further strengthen the prosecution case. They have supported the version of PW-01 and PW-03 regarding the presence of the appellants, the use of lathis, and the sequence of events. Their evidence does not suffer from any material contradiction or inconsistency and inspires confidence.

¶120

56. The medical evidence fully supports the ocular testimony. The injuries described by the eyewitnesses, particularly the repeated blows on the head with lathis, are in complete consonance with the findings recorded in the postmortem report (Ex. P/14), CT Scan (Ex. P/29) and X-ray report (Ex. P/30). This harmony between ocular and medical evidence lends strong assurance to the prosecution case.

¶121

57. The manner in which the appellants acted clearly establishes the existence of common intention. They were armed with lathis, came together, first assaulted PW-03, and thereafter, when the deceased attempted to take recourse to law, they intercepted him and launched a brutal and coordinated attack. The repeated blows inflicted on the head, a vital part of the body, unmistakably indicate that the appellants shared a common intention to cause death or at least such bodily injury as was likely to result in death.

¶122

58. The conduct of the appellants before, during and after the incident also reinforces the existence of common intention. They acted in concert, targeted the victims sequentially, and fled from the scene

¶123

24

¶124

after inflicting fatal injuries, believing the deceased to be dead. Such conduct leaves no manner of doubt that the act was done in furtherance of their common intention.

¶125

59. The defence plea that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel or free fight is clearly belied by the evidence on record. The sequence of events, particularly the interception of the deceased at a different place after the initial incident, indicates a continuation of the assault and rules out any theory of sudden provocation or mutual fight. The deliberate targeting of the head with lathis further negates such a defence.

¶126

60. In view of the consistent, cogent and reliable ocular testimony of eyewitnesses, duly corroborated by medical and documentary evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the murder of Sanjay Kurre.

¶127

61. Accordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, as recorded by the learned trial Court, is hereby affirmed.

¶128

(ii) Offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC:

¶129

62. The genesis of the offence lies in the first phase of the incident, wherein the appellants, armed with lathis, came in front of the house of the complainant party, hurled abuses and issued threats,

¶130

25

¶131

and thereafter brutally assaulted PW-03 (Sharda Kurre). The testimony of PW-03, being an injured eyewitness, clearly establishes that the appellants inflicted blows on her head and other parts of the body. The nature of assault, particularly targeting the head, a vital part of the body, unequivocally indicates that the appellants acted with the requisite intention and knowledge contemplated under Section 307 IPC.

¶132

63. The version of PW-03 (Sharda Kurre) is duly corroborated by PW01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), PW-04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06 (Pinki Kurre), all of whom have consistently deposed that the appellants assaulted PW-03 with lathis in a forceful and aggressive manner. Their testimonies clearly establish that the assault was not casual or trivial, but was deliberate and directed towards causing serious harm.

¶133

64. The medical evidence further fortifies the prosecution case. The injuries sustained by PW-03, as proved by the medical witnesses, show that she suffered injuries caused by hard and blunt objects. Though she survived the assault, the nature and location of injuries, particularly on the head, demonstrate that the act of the appellants was imminently dangerous and was capable of causing death in the ordinary course of nature.

¶134

65. It is well settled that for attracting Section 307 IPC, it is not essential that the injury actually caused should be sufficient to cause death. What is required to be established is the intention or

¶135

26

¶136

knowledge of the accused to cause death, which can be gathered from the nature of the weapon used, the part of the body targeted, and the manner of assault. In the present case, all these factors clearly point towards the existence of such intention and knowledge.

¶137

66. Furthermore, the conduct of the appellants in acting in concert, armed with lathis, and jointly assaulting PW-03, establishes the existence of common intention within the meaning of Section 34 IPC. The coordinated manner in which the appellants attacked the victim leaves no room for doubt that they shared a common intention to commit the act.

¶138

67. The argument of the defence that the incident was a result of a sudden quarrel or a free fight is not borne out from the evidence. The manner in which the appellants targeted PW-03 and inflicted repeated blows on vital parts clearly indicates a deliberate and intentional act rather than a spontaneous scuffle.

¶139

68. In view of the consistent and reliable ocular testimony of injured and other eyewitnesses, duly corroborated by medical evidence, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, committed an act which squarely falls within the ambit of Section 307 IPC. ccordingly, the conviction of the appellants under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC, as recorded by the learned trial Court, is hereby affirmed.

¶140

27

¶141

(iii) Offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC:

¶142

69. The prosecution has successfully established that the appellants, in furtherance of their common intention, voluntarily caused hurt to the injured witnesses during the course of the incident. The testimony of PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), who is herself an injured witness, clearly demonstrates that she was assaulted by the appellants with lathis, resulting in injuries on her person. Her version is fully corroborated by PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), PW04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06 (Pinki Kurre), who have consistently stated that PW-03 was beaten by the appellants.

¶143

70. The medical evidence adduced by the prosecution further substantiates the injuries sustained by PW-03 and other victims. The nature of injuries, though not fatal, clearly falls within the ambit of “hurt” as defined under law. It is also evident from the evidence that the appellants acted conjointly and in a coordinated manner, thereby attracting the applicability of Section 34 IPC. The simultaneous presence of the appellants, their being armed with lathis, and their collective participation in the assault clearly establish that the act of causing hurt was done in furtherance of their common intention. Hence, the conviction under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC is well justified.

¶144

(iv) Offence under Section 341 IPC:

¶145

71. The offence of wrongful restraint is clearly made out from the evidence of PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), who has categorically

¶146

28

¶147

deposed that when she and the deceased were proceeding to lodge a report regarding the earlier incident, the appellants intercepted them near the shop of Kumar Bandhle and obstructed their movement. This act of the appellants effectively prevented the deceased from proceeding in a direction in which he had a right to proceed.

¶148

72. The said testimony has remained unshaken in cross-examination and finds support from the surrounding circumstances of the case. The act of interception was not accidental but deliberate, forming part of the continuing chain of events initiated by the appellants. Thus, the essential ingredients of Section 341 IPC, namely voluntary obstruction and prevention of lawful movement, stand fully established. The conviction recorded by the learned trial Court under this provision is, therefore, legally sustainable.

¶149

(v) Offence under Section 294 IPC:

¶150

73. The evidence on record clearly establishes that the appellants, at the time of the incident, were hurling filthy and abusive language at the complainant party in a public place. PW-01, PW-03, PW-04 and PW-06 have consistently deposed that the appellants were abusing them in obscene terms in front of their house, which is a place accessible to the public.

¶151

74. The use of such obscene language in a public place, causing annoyance to others, squarely attracts the provisions of Section 294 IPC. The testimonies of the witnesses on this aspect are

¶152

29

¶153

consistent and there is no reason to disbelieve them. The defence has not been able to bring any material contradiction or improbability in this regard. Accordingly, the ingredients of Section 294 IPC stand duly proved.

¶154

(vi) Offence under Section 506 Part-II IPC:

¶155

75. The prosecution has also proved that the appellants criminally intimidated the complainant party by issuing threats of dire consequences. The evidence of PW-01 and other eyewitnesses clearly indicates that the appellants threatened the victims with serious harm, thereby creating an atmosphere of fear and alarm.

¶156

76. The nature of threats, coupled with the conduct of the appellants in immediately carrying out violent assault, lends credibility to the prosecution case that such threats were real, serious and intended to cause alarm to the victims. The threats were not empty words but were followed by actual violence, thereby reinforcing the intention of the appellants. In such circumstances, the offence squarely falls within the ambit of Section 506 Part-II IPC, which deals with aggravated forms of criminal intimidation. The learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence in this regard and has correctly recorded the conviction.

¶157

77. In view of the aforesaid detailed analysis, this Court finds that the prosecution has successfully established the guilt of the appellants under Sections 323, 341, 294 and 506 Part-II read with Section 34 IPC beyond reasonable doubt. The findings recorded

¶158

30

¶159

by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity, warranting no interference.

¶160

78. The defence plea that the incident occurred on account of a sudden quarrel or constituted a case of free fight does not merit acceptance in light of the evidence available on record. A careful appreciation of the testimonies of PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), PW-04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06 (Pinki Kurre) clearly establishes that the incident was not a spontaneous altercation, but a deliberate and continuous sequence of acts carried out by the appellants. The evidence demonstrates that the appellants initially came armed with lathis, hurled abuses, and assaulted PW-03. Thereafter, when the deceased Sanjay Kurre attempted to lodge a report, the appellants again intercepted him and launched a second, more brutal assault. This successive conduct unmistakably shows premeditation and a continuity of action, ruling out the theory of a sudden fight. The repeated blows inflicted on the vital part of the body, i.e., the head of the deceased, further negate any suggestion of a mutual scuffle and instead establish a clear intention to cause death. Thus, the plea of sudden quarrel or free fight stands rightly rejected.

¶161

79. The contention of the defence regarding non-examination of independent witnesses is equally devoid of merit. It is well settled that the prosecution is not bound to examine independent

¶162

31

¶163

witnesses in every case, particularly when the occurrence has taken place in or near the residence of the parties, where the presence of family members is most natural. In the present case, the incident occurred in front of the house of the complainant party and subsequently on the way nearby; therefore, the presence of PW-01, PW-03, PW-04 and PW-06 at the scene is wholly natural and probable. Their testimonies have remained consistent, cogent and trustworthy, and nothing substantial has been elicited in their cross-examination to discredit them. Merely because these witnesses are related to the deceased, their evidence cannot be discarded, especially when it inspires confidence and is corroborated by medical evidence. It is a settled principle that quality of evidence prevails over quantity, and conviction can safely be based on the testimony of reliable related witnesses.

¶164

80. The alleged contradictions and omissions highlighted by the learned counsel for the appellants are minor and trivial in nature, and do not go to the root of the prosecution case. On a holistic reading of the evidence, it is evident that the core substratum of the prosecution story remains intact and unshaken. Minor discrepancies with respect to the sequence of events, exact roles, or trivial details are but natural, considering the fact that the witnesses deposed after a lapse of time and had undergone the trauma of witnessing a violent incident. Such minor variations, rather than discrediting the witnesses, lend credence to their

¶165

32

¶166

testimony by demonstrating that they are not tutored. There is no material contradiction affecting the genesis of the prosecution case or the role of the appellants in the commission of the crime.

¶167

81. The recovery of weapons (lathis) at the instance of the appellants, as proved by the Investigating Officer (PW-12) and supported by seizure memos (Ex. P/05, P/07 etc.), though not the sole basis for conviction, provides additional corroboration to the prosecution case. The said recovery assumes significance when read in conjunction with the consistent ocular testimony and the medical evidence, which clearly establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased were caused by hard and blunt objects. The medical evidence, particularly the postmortem report (Ex. P/14), conclusively proves that the death was homicidal and caused due to severe head injuries consistent with lathi blows.

¶168

82. When the entire evidence on record is appreciated in its correct perspective, it becomes evident that the prosecution has successfully established a complete and coherent chain of circumstances, supported by direct eyewitness account, which unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellants. The presence of the appellants at the scene of occurrence, their active participation in the assault, the nature of injuries inflicted, the recovery of weapons, and the corroborative medical evidence collectively establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants are the authors of the crime. The findings recorded by the learned

¶169

33

¶170

trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court.

¶171

83. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are the perpetrators of the offence, and the conviction recorded against them is fully justified.

¶172

84. In view of the foregoing detailed analysis of the entire oral as well as documentary evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered and firm opinion that the prosecution has been able to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses, particularly PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), PW-03 (Sharda Kurre), PW-04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06 (Pinki Kurre), are cogent, consistent and trustworthy, and inspire full confidence of this Court. The presence of these witnesses at the scene of occurrence is natural and stands duly established. Their version of events has remained unshaken in cross-examination and is fully corroborated by the medical evidence, including the postmortem report (Ex. P/14), which conclusively proves that the death of the deceased Sanjay Kurre was homicidal in nature and caused due to multiple injuries inflicted by hard and blunt objects like lathis.

¶173

85. Further, the evidence of the injured witness PW-03 (Sharda Kurre) carries great evidentiary value and lends strong assurance to the

¶174

34

¶175

prosecution case. The recovery of weapons at the instance of the appellants, the proved motive arising out of the land dispute, and the consistent chain of circumstances collectively establish the involvement and active participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence. The prosecution has also successfully demonstrated that the appellants acted in furtherance of their common intention, thereby attracting the applicability of Section 34 IPC.

¶176

86. This Court finds that the learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence on record and has arrived at findings which are well-reasoned, legally sound and based on proper analysis of facts. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court neither suffer from any perversity nor are they contrary to the evidence on record. The defence has failed to create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case, and the pleas raised by the appellants have rightly been rejected.

¶177

87. Consequently, this Court finds no infirmity in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.). The conviction of the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 341, 294, 506 Part-II, 307, 323 and 302 read with Section 34 IPC is hereby affirmed. The sentence imposed upon them is also found to be proportionate to the gravity and nature of the offences committed and calls for no interference.

¶178

35

¶179

88. Accordingly, the criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is liable to be and is hereby dismissed . It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are reported to be in custody, they shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.

¶180

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

¶181

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

¶182

Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice

¶183

Anu

Ganga Ram Bandhle v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Ganga Ram Bandhle v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Xyz Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Abhishek Dulani @ Raja Dulani Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Abhishek Dulani @ Raja Dulani Vs the New India Assurance Company Ltd.

Vikas Thakur Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Saurabh Soni Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Manjeet @ Maujiram Khute Vs State of Chhattisgarh