Chattisgarh High Court
Ganga Ram Bandhle vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 23 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by 2026:CGHC:13645-DB
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
2026.03.24
NAFR
10:47:33
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1208 of 2023
1 - Ganga Ram Bandhle S/o Shri Sukhdev @ Guput Aged About 20
Years R/o Village- Daukapa, Police Station - Jarhagaon, District :
Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
2 - Sukhdev Bandhle @ Guput S/o Shri Jhangalu Aged About 50 Years
R/o Village- Daukapa, Police Station - Jarhagaon, District : Mungeli,
Chhattisgarh
... Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police
Station- Jarhagaon, District : Mungeli, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellants : Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government
Advocate
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
23.03.2026
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.
2
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 :-
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 Rigorous imprisonment for 06
of the Indian Penal Code, months with fine of Rs.500/-,
1860 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/-,
3
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 sentences were run concurrently.
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.
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.
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
4
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.
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.
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.
5
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.
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).
9. The medical evidence of PW-10 (Dr. Nilofar Hirani), PW-11 (Dr.
Ravi Shankar Prasad Devangan), PW-13 (Dr. Anurag Singh), PW-
14 (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.
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,
6
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.
11. The prosecution, in order to substantiate the charges levelled
against the accused persons, examined in all 15 witnesses (PW-
01 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.
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).
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.
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
7
Kurre and the subsequent attack on the deceased. Their
testimonies are consistent.
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.
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.
17. The medical evidence has been adduced through PW-10 (Dr.
Nilofar Hirani), PW-11 (Dr. Ravi Shankar Prasad Devangan), PW-
13 (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.
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.
8
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).
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.
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.
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
9
persons, in furtherance of their common intention, committed the
murder of Sanjay Kurre and caused injuries to other victims.
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.
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.
24. Mr. Shriwas further submits that the conduct of the prosecution
witnesses is unnatural and improbable, which creates serious
10
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.
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.
11
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.
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
12
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.
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
13
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.
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.
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.
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
14
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.
32. The medical evidence adduced by PW-10 (Dr. Nilofar Hirani), PW-
11 (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 self-
inflicted, 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.
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).
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
15
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.
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.
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.
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.
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
16
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.
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.
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
17
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.
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.
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.
18
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.
44. Further, the Supreme Court in Balu Sudam Khalde and another
v. State of Maharashtra, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 355 held as
under:
“26. When the evidence of an injured eye-
witness is to be appreciated, the under-noted
legal principles enunciated by the Courts are
required to be kept in mind:
(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.
(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.
(c) The evidence of injured witness has
greater evidentiary value and unless
compelling reasons exist, their statements
are not to be discarded lightly.
19
(d) The evidence of injured witness cannot
be doubted on account of some
embellishment in natural conduct or minor
contradictions.
(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.
(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.
(emphasis supplied)”
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.
20
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.
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.
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
21
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.
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.
50. Now, adverting to the individual offences for which the appellants
have been convicted:
(i) Offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC:
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.
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
22
proceeding to lodge a report, the appellants intercepted them near
the shop of Kumar Bandhle. At that juncture, the juvenile co-
accused 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.
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.
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.
23
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.
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.
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.
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
24
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.
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.
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.
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.
(ii) Offence under Section 307 read with Section 34 IPC:
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,
25
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.
63. The version of PW-03 (Sharda Kurre) is duly corroborated by PW-
01 (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.
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.
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
26
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.
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.
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.
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.
27
(iii) Offence under Section 323 read with Section 34 IPC:
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), PW-
04 (Lalita Kurre) and PW-06 (Pinki Kurre), who have consistently
stated that PW-03 was beaten by the appellants.
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.
(iv) Offence under Section 341 IPC:
71. The offence of wrongful restraint is clearly made out from the
evidence of PW-01 (Ku. Manisha Kurre), who has categorically
28
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.
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.
(v) Offence under Section 294 IPC:
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.
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
29
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.
(vi) Offence under Section 506 Part-II IPC:
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.
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.
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
30
by the learned trial Court are based on proper appreciation of
evidence and do not suffer from any illegality or perversity,
warranting no interference.
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.
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
31
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.
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
32
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.
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.
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
33
trial Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and do
not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference
by this Court.
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.
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.
85. Further, the evidence of the injured witness PW-03 (Sharda Kurre)
carries great evidentiary value and lends strong assurance to the
34
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.
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.
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.
35
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.
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.
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.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
