Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Shamsher vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 June, 2026
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 81 OF 2017
SHAMSHER … APPELLANT
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH … RESPONDENT
O R D E R
1. The present appeal arises out of the final
judgment and order dated 05.03.2013 (Impugned
Judgement) passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh
at Bilaspur (High Court) in Criminal Appeal No.
348/2003. The High Court, vide the Impugned
Judgement, upheld the appellant’s conviction under
Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) and
Sections 25/27 of the Arms Act, 1959, and confirmed
the sentence of life imprisonment imposed upon him.
However, while doing so, the co-accused, i.e.
Yashwant
Signature Not Verified Nagwanshi (Accused No. 2) and Mohandas
Digitally signed by
NITIN TALREJA
Date: 2026.07.15
Manikpuri (Accused No. 3), were acquitted of the
16:47:43 IST
Reason:
charges framed under Section 302/34 of the IPC.
Page 1 of 13
Instead, their conviction was modified to one under
Section 323 of the IPC, and they were sentenced to
one year of rigorous imprisonment. Since they had
already served the specified period and were already
on bail, their bail bonds were continued for six
months thereafter.
2. To understand the substance of the challenge
raised, we must first advert to the background of the
case. Arvind Kumar (Complainant/PW-4) lodged FIR No.
74/2001 on 06.08.2001 against the appellant under
Section 302 of the IPC and under Sections 25/27 of
the Arms Act, 1959, and against the two co-accused
under Sections 302/34 of the IPC, for the murder of
Shatrughan @ Gudda (deceased).
3. As per the prosecution case, the deceased, the
Complainant, Chintu @ Prashant Kumar (PW-3),
Roopendra Kumar (PW-8), and the three accused were
close friends. At around 6:00 pm on 06.08.2001, the
deceased, the Complainant, Chintu, and Mahendra met
at Roopendra Kumar’s house. Shortly thereafter,
Accused No. 2 also came and informed them that the
Page 2 of 13
appellant had a dispute with the deceased and was
planning to assault him. He suggested that they
accompany him to the house of the appellant to
amicably resolve the matter. Thereafter, the
Complainant, Mahendra, and Chintu proceeded to the
house of the appellant alongwith the deceased and
Accused No. 2, where Accused No. 3 was already
present.
4. It was claimed that, as soon as they arrived,
Accused No. 2 lifted the deceased and knocked him
down. Then, Accused No. 2 and 3 dashed the deceased
on the floor and began assaulting him. In the midst
of the scuffle, the appellant took out a knife, which
he had concealed behind his back, and stabbed the
deceased twice, due to which the deceased started
bleeding. Alarmed, the Complainant called his
brother, who then informed the police. In the
meantime, the three accused persons fled from the
scene, while the deceased was taken to the hospital.
5. Once the police arrived at the scene of the
occurrence, they promptly recorded the Dehati Nalishi
Page 3 of 13
(Zero FIR) based on the statement given by the
Complainant and thereafter, FIR No. 74/2001 was
registered. It is pertinent to note that the Dehati
Nalishi records the entire case of the prosecution as
well as the names of the three accused persons.
6. At the hospital, the deceased was examined by Dr.
H. Shah (PW-13), who found two stab wounds: (i) a
deep stab wound measuring 4 cm x ½ cm on the left
side of the chest; and (ii) a stab wound measuring 3
cm x ½ cm on the right thigh. When the police arrived
at the hospital, in the opinion of Dr. H. Shah, the
deceased was unfit to give any statement. Thereafter,
despite medical treatment, the deceased succumbed to
his injuries and passed away at about 7:45 pm on the
same day. As per the postmortem report, which was
prepared by Dr. S. K. Fating (PW-16), the cause of
death was shock on account of haemorrhage as a result
of the above-mentioned injuries, and the death was
homicidal in nature.
7. After the accused persons were taken into
custody, an iron-made skewer-shaped knife with a
Page 4 of 13
handle, measuring 13 inches, was recovered at the
instance of the appellant. Certain blood-stained
clothes and other articles were also seized at the
behest of the co-accused.
8. At this juncture, it is necessary to note
particular aspects of the depositions given by the
relevant eyewitnesses before the 7th Additional
Sessions Judge (FTC), Durg (Trial Court) in Sessions
Trial No. 327/2001. In this regard, Chintu deposed
that two days prior to the incident, the deceased had
beaten up the appellant at the latter’s house. Chintu
further deposed that on the day of the incident,
Accused No. 2 approached him and suggested that a
compromise be effected between the deceased and the
appellant. It was only thereafter that the incident
in question took place, which resulted in the
deceased’s demise. His testimony was corroborated by
the Complainant. The injuries mentioned during the
deposition are also in consonance with the postmortem
report.
Page 5 of 13
9. Roopendra Kumar, notably, did not fully support
the prosecution case and was declared hostile.
However, he corroborated part of the other
eyewitnesses’ statements regarding the quarrel that
took place between the appellant and the deceased two
days prior to the incident. He also confirmed that
all three accused had hit the deceased with their
fists.
10. Pashupatinath Singh (PW-7), Roopendra Kumar, and
Jagadish Ram (PW-12/father of the deceased) deposed
that on the night before the incident, the three
accused as well as four other persons came to the
deceased’s house, enquired about his whereabouts, and
threatened to kill him.
11. Dr. H. Shah was also examined during the trial,
where he categorically stated that when the deceased
was brought to him at the hospital, he was not in a
condition to speak. He further deposed that though
the sizes of the two wounds on the deceased’s body
were different, there was a possibility of both
wounds being caused by any sharp and hard object. The
Page 6 of 13
testimonies of Dr. H. Shah and Dr. S. K. Fating prove
that the deceased died as a result of grievous
antemortem injuries, which caused severe damage and
lacerations to his internal organs.
12. The accused examined Dharmendra as a defence
witness, who deposed that the deceased was talking
for about one hour while at the hospital.
13. The Trial Court, on a detailed examination of the
facts and evidence, concluded that the prosecution
had succeeded in proving, beyond all reasonable
doubt, that the death of the deceased was homicidal
in nature and was caused by the accused persons in
pursuance of a common intention. Consequently, they
were all sentenced to imprisonment for life.
14. Aggrieved by his conviction, the appellant filed
Criminal Appeal No.348/2003, while the two co-accused
filed Criminal Appeal No. 342/2003 before the High
Court. In his appeal, the appellant argued that the
evidence of eyewitnesses was inconsistent and,
therefore, the conviction based on their testimonies
Page 7 of 13
ought not to be sustained. In the alternative, it was
contended that since the appellant had dealt only one
blow to the deceased, it could not be said that he
had the intention to commit murder. Thus, he ought to
be convicted of a lesser offence. The two co-accused
also argued that they did not share a common
intention with the appellant and, therefore, their
convictions could not be sustained.
15. Upon detailed consideration, the High Court
upheld the conviction and sentence imposed by the
Trial Court as far as the appellant was concerned.
However, the High Court set aside the conviction of
the two co-accused under Section 302/34 of the IPC as
they had no prior knowledge that the appellant was
carrying a weapon during the assault. They came to
know of the same only when the appellant pulled out
the knife and attacked the deceased. As a result, it
could not be held that the two co-accused intended to
commit murder of the deceased or cause grievous
injury to him. Thus, the overt act leading to the
deceased’s death was an individual act attributable
Page 8 of 13
to the appellant, and the co-accused could only be
convicted of the lesser offence under Section 323 of
the IPC for assaulting the deceased with their fists.
16. Assailing his concurrent conviction, the
appellant has approached this Court.
17. We have heard the learned counsel for the
parties. The counsel for the appellant submitted that
the offence took place in the midst of a sudden brawl
and was caused by the heat of the moment. He
contended that since the offence was not perpetrated
with the intention of causing death or with the
knowledge that death would be caused, it could not be
classified as murder under Section 300 of the IPC,
and therefore, a lesser sentence ought to be imposed
as against him. Additionally, it was contended that
the evidence of the prosecution witnesses was shaky
and the testimony of the defence witness ought to be
taken as a dying declaration.
18. It is clear that the eyewitnesses have
consistently deposed to the incident. After examining
Page 9 of 13
Dr. H. Shah’s testimony, the time of the incident as
recorded in the FIR, and the time of death, all in
conjunction with the testimony of the defence
witness-Dharmendra, it is evident that when the
deceased was brought to the hospital, he was not in a
condition to speak. The time of the incident is 6:20
pm, and the death occurred at 7:45 pm. In these
circumstances, the testimony of the defence witness
that the deceased was talking for one hour after
being brought to the hospital and was able to give a
statement does not inspire confidence. Further, the
doctor clearly recorded that he was not in a
condition to speak when he was admitted. It is also
to be noted that there was no mention of such a
statement even in the cross-examination of PWs 3, 4,
7, and 12. Hence, the appellant’s argument that the
statement of the deceased ought to have been recorded
must be rejected.
19. In the light of the above facts and
circumstances, the background of the incident, and in
view of the conduct on the part of the appellant,
Page 10 of 13
though it could be held that he had the intention to
cause injury to the deceased, the other attending
aspect which may be relevant is that he had no
knowledge that the injury would result in the death
of the deceased. Considering the nature of the
evidence and the fact that it was a fight amongst
friends, we are of the view that the Criminal Appeal
needs to be allowed in part so as to modify the
conviction of the appellant from one under Section
302 of the IPC to one under Section 304(1) of the
IPC. Consequently, the sentence is reduced to the
period already undergone by the appellant. Since the
appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds stand
discharged.
20. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed in part.
…………………………………,CJI.
[SURYA KANT]
………………………………………,J.
[V. MOHANA]
Page 11 of 13
NEW DELHI;
JUNE 18, 2026
Page 12 of 13
ITEM NO.109 COURT NO.1 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Criminal Appeal No(s). 81/2017
SHAMSHER Appellant(s)
VERSUS
THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
MR. RAJAN K CHOURASIA, Adv. (A.C.)
Date : 18-06-2026 This appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM : HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE
HON’BLE MRS. JUSTICE V. MOHANA
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Rajan K. Chourasia, AOR
Ms. Satyama Dubey, Adv.
Mr. Nibas Kumar Mishra, Adv.
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. The appeal is allowed in part in terms of the signed
order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand closed.
(NITIN TALREJA) (PREETHI DILEEP KUMAR)
ASTT. REGISTRAR-cum-PS DEPUTY REGISTRAR
Page 13 of 13
