Chattisgarh High Court
Ratiram Majhwar vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 28 April, 2025
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2025:CGHC:19050-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1537 of 2024
1 - Ratiram Majhwar S/o Shri Runga Ram Majhwar Aged About 50
Years R/o Village Sitkalo, Chowki Kedma, Police Station Udaipur, Dis-
trict Sarguja (C.G.)
2 - Premsai @ Vidur S/o Shri Ratiram Majhwar Aged About 35 Years
R/o Village Sitkalo, Chowki Kedma, Police Station Udaipur, District Sar-
guja (C.G.)
3 - Dhanmoti @ Ganeshwari W/o Ratiram Majhwar Aged About 48
Years R/o Village Sitkalo, Chowki Kedma, Police Station Udaipur, Dis-
trict Sarguja (C.G.)
4 - Ganeshi Bai W/o Shri Prem Sai Aged About 30 Years R/o Village
Sitkalo, Chowki Kedma, Police Station Udaipur, District Sarguja (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police
Chowki Kedma, Police Station - Udaipur, District Sarguja (C.G.)
----Respondent
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Arun Kumar Shukla, Advocate
For Respondent/State : Mr. Hariom Rai, P.L.
———————————————————————————————-
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice and
Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
Per Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge
28.04.2025
1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of Bhartiya
Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita 2023 is directed against the impugned
2
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.07.2024
passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge,
Ambikapur District Sarguja in Sessions Trial No. 106/2021
whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as
follows:-
Conviction Sentenced to
u/s Section R.I. for Life Imprisonment (on two
302/34 of IPC to counts) with fine of Rs. 1000/- (two
each appellants counts) in default of payment of fine,
additional R.I. for 2 months (two
counts) to each appellants.
2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that complainant Ruben Toppo
has lodged an oral report before the Chowi Kedma, Thana Udaipur
against the appellants alleging therein that he had gone along with
his father Ghuneshwar Toppo and Grandmother Tuli Bai to make
bund in the Sitkalo Jokpara field. At the same time, at about 02:30
pm, Ratiram Majhwar of the village came to the field along with his
son Premsai alias Vidur, wife Ganeshwari and daughter-in-law
Ganeshi Bai and started stopping them from making the bund and
started saying that this land is theirs on which father of the
complainant told them that the said land is their leased land. On
this, the accused Ratiram started abusing him and threatening to
kill him and the accused Ratiram snatched the shovel from his
father’s hand (Ghuneshwar Toppo) and hit him on the head and
injured him, due to which his father Ghuneshwar Toppo died on
spot and his grandmother Tuli Bai was injured by accused Premsai
3
Alias Vidur by hitting her with a spade and she also died. On the
report of the complainant, Merg Intimation was registered under
Section 174 of CrPC by Kedma Chowi (Exp- 25), and the Police
has registered First Information Report as Crime No. 51/2021
(Ex.P-4) under Section 294, 506, 302, 34 of IPC. Thereafter,
Investigation Officer left for scene of occurrence and after
summoning the witnesses (Ex. P-6), inquest report was prepared
(Ex. P-2). During the investigation, Spot map was prepared vide
Ex.P-01, and thereafter shovel and blood stained on the handle of
shovel was recovered, 161 and 164 of Cr.P.C. statements were
recorded, articles were sent for FSL.
3. After investigation, it was found that Ghuneshwar Toppo died on
account of injuries sustained on head by the accused/appellant No.
1 Ratiram Majhwar and Tuli Bai died on account of injuries
sustained on parietal bone by the accused/appellant No. 2 Premsai
and the appellants No. 3 & 4 held the deceased persons. The
accused/appellants were arrested for offence under Section 302 of
the IPC and arrest/court surrender memo was prepared vide Ex.P-
31 to 34. Thereafter, charge-sheet was filed before the learned
JMFC, Ambikapur (C.G.) for hearing and disposal in accordance
with law.
4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined as
many as 31 witnesses and exhibited 40 documents. The accused
has not examined witness in his defence.
5. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary
4
evidence on record and considering that it is the appellants who
have committed the murder of deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo and
Tuli Bai, convicted and sentenced them under Section 302 of the
IPC, against which the instant appeal under Section 415(2) has
been preferred.
6. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that
conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of
Ruben Toppo (PW-14) who is the eye witness and son of the
deceased but his evidence does not inspire confidence and not
trustworthy, his evidence is not safe for placing reliance in absence
of any corroboration from independent source as he has clearly not
stated anywhere in his statement that he saw the whole incident of
murder committed by the accused persons. Learned counsel for
the appellant submits that according to the prosecution, from the
spot, the officer had only collected the blood contained soil,
whereas the axe (fawra) has been collected from the house of
accused Ratiram Majhar, it seems all the chain has been
completed by the prosecution only to implicate the appellants in
such crimes. The accused/appellants was not directly involved in
causing the incident but rather they themselves are the aggrieved
party. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is
suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that
too for conviction of the appellants for commission of heinous
offence of murder, therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of
doubt.
5
7. On the other hand, learned counsel for Panel Lawyer, appearing
for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and
submits that Ruben Toppo (PW-14), who is the son of the
deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo and accused/appellant, has stated
in his evidence that on the date of incident the appellants assaulted
the deceased with Fhawda upon the vital part of the body i.e. head
when the deceased Tuli Bai tried to help the deceased
Ghuneshwar Toppo, the appellants/accused also assaulted her by
giving many blows on the vital part of the body and owing to the
injuries both the deceased received grievous injuries and
succumbed to death. The accused/appellant has failed to explain
the death of the Ghuneshwar Toppo and Tuli Bai. The FIR of the
incident was lodged by Ruben Toppo (PW-14) son of the
accused/appellant. He contended that the prosecution has been
able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the
trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under
Section 302 of the IPC and therefore, the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
8. 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 and
carefully as well. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on
behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on
behalf of the prosecution.
9. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial
6
Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Ghuneshwar
Toppo and Tuli Bai was homicidal in nature ?
10. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-
11) and R. Arpit Singh (PW-4), who have conducted postmortem of
the deceased- Ghuneshwar Toppor and Tuli Bai vide Ex.P-23 and
Ex.P-16, clearly came to the conclusion that the death of
deceased- Ghuneshwar Toppor and Tuli Bai were homicidal in
nature due to injury sustained by them. 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 appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding.
11. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial
Court has rightly held that the appellants are author of the crime by
relying upon the following circumstances:-
(i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per
postmortem report (Ex.P-23 and 16) of Dr. B.M. Kamre
(PW-11) and R. Arpit Singh (PW-4) who conducted
autopsy.
(ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death of
deceased Ghuneshwar Toppor and Tuli Bai was within the
knowledge of the appellants, however, there was no any
explanation given by the appellants in their statement
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC. Thus, onus of
proof was on the appellants to explain such circumstance
7but he failed to explain the same.
12. In the present case, homicidal death as a result of injury on the
head of the deceased has not been substantially disputed on
behalf of the appellants. On the other hand, it is also established
by the evidence of Ruben Toppo (PW-14), Investigating Officer
Ram Nageena (PW-25), FIR (ExP-04), Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-11)
and R. Arpit Singh (PW-4) and autopsy report (Ex.P-16 and 23)
that the death of deceased Ghuneshwar Toppor and Tuli Bai was
homicidal in nature.
13. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question,
conviction of the appellants is substantially based on the evidence
of Ruben Toppo (PW-14), Investigating Officer Ram Nageena
(PW-25), Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-11) and R. Arpit Singh (PW-4).
14. Ruben Toppo (PW-14) has stated in his evidence who is eye
witness that the Ghuneshwar Toppo was his father and the
deceased Tuli Bai was his grandmother. The incident took place on
14.03.2021, the accused Premsai alias Vidur and Ratiram
Majhwar and accused Dhanmoti and Ganeshi Bai killed his father
and grandmother Tuli Bai. On the said date of the incident, his
father Ghuneshwar and grandmother Tuli Bai had gone to the field
to make bund, when at around 02:30pm, the accused Premsai and
Ratiram Majhwar and accused Dhanmoti ad Ganeshi Bai came
there and started abusing and saying that the field is theirs. When
his father said that field is ours and we have got it on lease, then
Premsai and Ratiram started saying that they will kill and throw him
8
away. Ruben says that accused Ratiram snatched the shovel from
his hand and hit his father on the head due to which his father got
seriously injured. During that time, accused Dhanmoti and Ganeshi
Bai were holding his father, when his grandmother Tuli came to
save his father then accused premsai hit his grandmother with a
stick, due to which his grandmother fell down, then accused
Dhanmoti and Ganeshi Bai caught hold of his grandmother. In the
meanwhile accused Ratiram ran after him to hit him, then he ran
away from there, Ratiram chased him for some distance, but could
not catch him. Thereafter, his elder father kewal kispotta and the
villagers reached the spot of the incident, and took his father and
grandmother Tuli Bai to the government hospital in Kedma in a
Bolero car. There it was found that his father Ghuneshwar had
died. His grandmother was breathing, she was referred to the
hospital in Udaipur and On the way, hi grandmother Tuli Bai died.
15. Ramnageena Yadav Investigating Officer (PW-25) has stated in his
evidence that on 14.03.2021, Ruben Toppo along with his mother
Sungeti Toppo and his elder father has lodged an oral information
against the appellants. On the oral report of the complainant, a
crime was registered. He stated that as per memorandum (Ex.P-
13) statement of Ratiram Majhwar, the accused-Ratiram had kept
the shovel in his house which was used during the time of incident
and as per memorandum statement (Ex.P-14) of Premsai, a Sarai
Wooden stick was seized and both are having blood stain and they
were sent for FSL and after receiving of FSL report, it was found
9
human blood.
16. Dr. B.M. Kamre (PW-11) conducted autopsy of Ghuneshwar
Toppo vide Ex.P-23 and found above stated injuries on the body
of the deceased and opined that cause of death was due to
haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury and as a result of
hard and blunt edge force trauma and the death was homicidal in
nature. Dead body of the deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo was sent
for autopsy to PHC Kedma, District Surguja vide Ex.P-22. Dr. B.
M. Kamre (PW-11) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-23 and found
following injuries :-
(i) Lacerated wound in chine 5x 1 cm and
lacerated wound in occipital region of head in
size of 10×2, 5×1, 4×2 cm in which blood had
accumulated.
(ii) both the bones of right wrist were broken and
lacerated wound in the middle finger of the right
hand in the size of 2x½.
(iii) Abrasion in the right leg in the size of 2×2 and
4×2
He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in naturecaused by sharp and hard object. It has been opined by the
Doctor that the cause of death due to haemorrhage and
shock as a result of head injury and the death was homicidal
in nature.
17. Dr. Arpit Singh (PW-14) conducted autopsy of Tuli Bai vide Ex.P-
23 and found above stated injuries on the body of the deceased
and opined that cause of death was due to Subdural and
subarachnoid haemorrhage and shock as a result of head injury
10
and as a result of hard and blunt edge force trauma and the death
was homicidal in nature. Dead body of the deceased Tuli Bai was
sent for autopsy to PHC Udaipur vide Ex.P-15. Dr. Arpit Singh
(PW-14) conducted autopsy vide Ex.P-16 and found following
injuries :-
(i) Lacerated wound of dimension 2.5x1x0.1
cm over mid forehead with underlying hematoma
(ii) Lacerated wound of dimension 4x 1.5x 2.5
cm over right parietal bone, 13cm upward to right
mastoid with underlying subgaleal hematoma
(iii) Lacerated wound of dimension 3×1.5x 1.5
cm over occiput, with underlying subgaleal
hematoma.
He opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem in nature
caused by sharp and hard object. It has been opined by the
Doctor that the cause of death due to Subdural and
subarachnoid haemorrhage and shock as a result of head
injury and the death was homicidal in nature.
18. Now, the question is, whether the prosecution has discharged its
initial or general burden or primary duty of proving the guilt of the
accused/beyond reasonable doubt?
19. So far as conviction of the Appellant No. 1 & 2 are
concerned, in this regard, the findings of the trial Court observed
in the operative part of the judgment that it is proved that the
deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo and Tuli Bai died due to the injury
caused by Ratiram and Premsai with fhawda and wooden blog,
which is of homicidal nature. Thus it is proved that the death of the
deceased was caused by the accused Ratiram and Premsai and
that the accused Dhanmoti and Ganeshi Bai caught hold the
11
deceased. The death of the deceased by the accused does not fall
under any of the exceptions 1 to 5 of Section 300 of IPC.
Therefore, it is proved that the accused Ratiram Majhwar injured
the deceased by hitting them with Fhawda and wooden stick with
the intention of causing their death, regarding which they knew that
their said act would result into the death of the deceased. Thus, the
prosecution has succeeded in proving that on the date of the
incident, the accused Ratiram Majhwar and Premsai killed the
deceased by hitting them with Fhawda and wooden stick with the
intention of killing them
20. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial
Court would show that the prosecution has established that,
1. death of deceased Ghuneshwar Toppo & Tuli Bai was
homicidal in nature;
2. It is the appellant No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No 2
Premsai who have murdered Ghuneshwar Toppo & Tuli Bai
by hitting on their parietal region/head with fhawda and
wooden stick.
21. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the
finding recorded by the trial Court in operative part of its judgment,
the fact that the the appellant No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant
No 2 Premsai have not offered any explanation under Section 313
of the CrPC and considering the statement of Ruben Toppo (PW-
14) and other witnesses, who have clearly stated that
Ghuneshwar Toppo & Tuli Bai were killed by appellant No. 1
12
Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No 2 Premsai, we are of the
considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case
beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted
the appellant No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No 2
Premsai for offence under Section 302/34 of the IPC. We do not
find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial
Court. Accordingly, the criminal appeal so far as appellant No. 1
Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No 2 Premsai is concerned, is
hereby dismissed. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant No. 1
and appellant no. 2 is in jail since 15.03.2021, he shall serve out
the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.
So far as conviction of the appellant No. 3 Dhanmoti @
Ganeshwari and appellant No. 4 Ganeshi Bai for the offence
under Section 302/34 is concerned.
22. From the statement of the witness Ruben Toppo (PW-14) and
other prosecution witnesses, it shows that at the time of incident,
the appellant No. 1 and appellant No. 2 assaulted the deceased due
to which his father got seriously injured and during that time,
accused appellant No. 3 Dhanmoti and appellant No. 4 Ganeshi Bai
were holding his father, when his grandmother Tuli came to save his
father then accused premsai hit his grandmother with a stick, due to
which his grandmother fell down, then accused Dhanmoti and
Ganeshi Bai caught hold of his grandmother, which shows that
there is no active participation of the appellants No. 3 & 4.
23. From the evidence which has come before the Court below,
13
nowhere does it disclose that the appellant No. 3 & 4 (Dhanmoti
and Ganeshi Bai) did the aforesaid act for which he would be guilty
for the offence punishable under Section 302/34. Further, when the
arguments are taking place between the deceased and the
appellants, suddenly the appellant No. 1 & 2 snatched the Fhawda
from the Ruben Toppo (complainant) and assaulted the deceased,
this goes to show that the appellant No. 3 Dhanmoti and appellant
No. 4 Ganeshi Bai were not knowledge about the incident. Further,
there was also no occasion or act on the part of the appellant No. 3
& 4 or the behavior of the appellant No. 3 & 4 by which it could be
said that the appellant No. 3 & 4 had instigated or for that matter
intentionally aided the appellant No. 1 & 2 to the extent to which the
appellant No. 1 & 2 was pushed into a position of having no other
option but to take a decision of ending their life by hitting the
deceased with Fhawda.
24. Looking to the role played by the appellant No. 3 & 4 that they were
not knowledge of act committed by the appellant No. 1 & 2 and
also considering the fact that they have not made any assault or
participated in the said crime and no any witnesses examined
before the trial Court has stated against them, we are of the
considered view that the prosecution has not proved its case
beyond reasonable shadow of doubt against the appellant No. 3 &
4 for the offence punishable under Section 302/34 of IPC.
Therefore, the appellants No. 3 & 4 (Dhanmoti @ Ganeshwari and
Ganeshi Bai) are liable to be and are hereby acquitted of the
charges framed against them under Section 302/34 by the court of
14
Second Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja
(C.G.) in Session Trial No. 106/2021. The appellants No. 3 & 4 are
in jail since 15.03.2021. They shall be set at liberty forthwith if not
required in any other criminal case.
25. In the result, as regards criminal appeal in respect of the appellant
No. 1 Ratiram Majhwar and appellant No. 2 Premsai @ Vidur is
dismissed and as regards criminal appeal in respect of the
appellant No. 3 Dhanmoti @ Ganeshwari and appellant No. 4
Ganeshi Bai is allowed.
26. Accordingly, the present Criminal Appeal is partly allowed.
27. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted
to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and
compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Jyoti