Punimati vs The State Of Chhattisgarh

2025 INSC 1454 REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

(CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION)

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3647 OF 2025

PUNIMATI & ANR. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH & ORS. RESPONDENTS

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 3648 OF 2025

DAYALU & ORS. APPELLANTS

VERSUS

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH RESPONDENT

JUDGMENT

VIPUL M. PANCHOLI, J.

1. Both these appeals arise out of the common judgment and

order dated 17.02.2021 rendered by the Chhattisgarh High

Court in Criminal Appeal No. 904 of 2012 and Criminal Appeal

No. 931 of 2012. The present Criminal Appeal No. 3647 of 2025 Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by PRIYANKA MALIK has been filed by original accused no. 2 and accused no. 3, Date: 2025.12.18 15:36:52 IST Reason:

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 1 of 14 whereas the Criminal Appeal No. 3648 of 2025 has been filed

by original accused no. 6, accused no. 7 and accused no. 5.

2. In both these appeals, the appellants-accused persons have

challenged the judgment and order rendered by the High Court

by which the appeals preferred by the appellants came to be

dismissed. The High Court has thereby affirmed the order of

conviction and sentence dated 01.09.2012 passed by IInd

Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District Raipur,

Chhattisgarh.

3. Factual Matrix of the present case is as under:

i. It is a case of the prosecution that on 14.07.2010, the

informant, i.e. Parasbai, was cooking the food inside her

house. Her son, Goreylal, had gone to take bath in the

pond. At about 09:00 A.M., granddaughter of the

informant, Indu Bai, came and informed the informant

that persons belonging to caste-Teli were assaulting her

father. On hearing the same, the informant came out of

her house and went near the pond. At that time, she saw

that in front one Maya Ram Sahu’s house, the accused

persons, namely, Sonaibai, Punimati, Punibai, Shyambai,

Dayalu, Gajadhar and Dayanidhi Sahu, were assaulting

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 2 of 14 her son with lathi/stick and even stones were pelted at

him. It is also stated that they tied the hands of her son at

the back side. Thereafter, she went back to her house and

came out of it after some time, and she found that her son

had died.

ii. Thereafter, the F.I.R. was lodged before the concerned

Police Station for commission of the offence punishable

under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal

Code, 1980, (hereinafter to be referred as “the IPC”) against

the accused persons.

iii. After the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed the

chargesheet against the accused persons.

iv. Charges were framed under Section 302 read with Section

148 and 149 of the IPC against the accused persons.

Additional charge was framed against accused no. 5 for

committing offence under Section 506 B of the IPC for

giving threat to Parasbai, PW-4.

v. During the course of the trial, the prosecution examined

ten witnesses and produced documentary evidence.

Thereafter, statement of the accused under Section 313 of

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 3 of 14 the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, came to be

recorded.

vi. After conclusion of the trial, the Trial Court convicted the

accused persons for committing the offences punishable

under Section 302 read with Section 149, and 148 of the

IPC.

vii. Accordingly, under Section 302 read with 149 of the IPC,

accused persons were sentenced to life imprisonment and

a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, and in default, further imprisonment

for 6 months was awarded. And under Section 148 of the

IPC, accused persons were sentenced to rigorous

imprisonment for 2 years and a fine of Rs. 200/- was also

imposed, and in default, further imprisonment of 6

months was awarded.

viii. Being aggrieved with the judgment and order rendered by

the Trial Court, the accused persons preferred separate

criminal appeals, being Criminal Appeal Nos. 904 of 2012

and 931 of 2012, before the High Court.

ix. The High Court vide impugned judgment and order dated

17.02.2021 dismissed both the appeals preferred by the

accused persons.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 4 of 14 x. Thus, the appellants-accused persons have filed the

present appeals.

4. Learned Counsel for the appellants mainly contended that:

i. PW-4, i.e. the informant, is an interested/related witness.

She is mother of the deceased and therefore her deposition

is required to be scrutinized closely. It is contended that

the Courts below, simply relying upon the deposition given

by the so-called eyewitness (PW-4), have convicted the

accused persons. In fact, PW-4 is a chance witness and

there are material contradictions in the deposition given

by PW-4.

ii. The Granddaughter of PW-4, i.e. Indu Bai, who had given

information to the informant regarding the assault being

made by the accused persons on the deceased, has not

been examined by the prosecution.

iii. Independent witnesses, i.e. PW-1 and PW-9, have turned

hostile and they have not supported the case of the

prosecution. However, the said witnesses have specifically

stated that the accused persons were not seen assaulting

the deceased.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 5 of 14 iv. PW-2 and PW-3, who are also independent witnesses and

signatory of the seizure memo have also turned hostile.

v. The medical evidence also does not support the version

given by the so-called eyewitness, i.e. PW-4.

vi. Learned Counsel, therefore, urged that the prosecution

has miserably failed to prove the case against the

appellants-accused persons beyond reasonable doubt,

despite which the Courts below have recorded the order of

conviction. Hence, the impugned orders are liable to be set

aside.

5. The learned Advocate General (“AG”) for the respondent-State

has opposed the present appeals and submits as under:

i. In the present case, PW-4, mother of the deceased, is an

eyewitness to the occurrence of offence in question. She

has narrated in detail about the manner in which the

incident took place. It is further submitted that PW-7, Dr.

Chain Singh Painkara, has conducted post-mortem on the

dead body of the deceased and has supported the version

of eyewitness. Thus, the medical evidence corroborates the

version of the eyewitness.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 6 of 14 ii. It is further contended that from the deposition given by

PW-8, the Investigating Officer (hereinafter to be referred

as “the I.O.”), it transpires that all the accused persons had

produced all the weapons before the I.O., i.e. a stone and

sticks (lathis). It is also contended that PW-7, the doctor,

has specifically deposed that the injury sustained by the

deceased can possibly be caused by the aforesaid

weapons.

iii. Learned AG also contends that there was no reason for the

informant, i.e. PW-4, to falsely implicate the accused

persons. At this stage, it is further submitted that merely

because PW-4 is an interested/related witness, her

deposition cannot be discarded. Learned AG, therefore,

urged that the Trial Court has rightly convicted the

accused persons for committing the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the IPC read with Section 149 and

148 of the IPC.

iv. Similarly, the High Court has also rightly dismissed the

appeals preferred by the accused persons, thereby

confirming the judgment and order of conviction recorded

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 7 of 14 by the Trial Court. He, therefore, urged that no

interference is required with the impugned orders.

Discussion:

6. We have heard learned Counsels for the respective parties and

have perused the evidence laid by the prosecution and the

other material placed on record.

7. It transpires from the material placed on record that PW-4,

informant, lodged the F.I.R. on 14.07.2010 at 12:40 hours, for

the incident which took place on 09:00 A.M. It is her specific

case that her son, Goreylal, had gone to the pond to take a

bath. Her granddaughter, Indu Bai, was playing in the lane in

the front of the house and at about 09:00 A.M, the

granddaughter came and told that the people belonging to

caste-Teli were assaulting her father. On hearing about said

occurrence, PW-4 came out of the house and when she reached

the place of occurrence, she saw the accused persons were

assaulting her son with lathis and stone, while his hands were

tied at the back side.

8. Now, at this stage, if we examine the deposition of PW-4 given

before the Trial Court, it is revealed that she has stated in her

examination-in-chief that Indu Bai is Goreylal’s daughter. Indu

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 8 of 14 Bai came and told her that accused persons - Sonai Bai, Puni

Bai, Punimati, Shyam Bai, Gajadhar, Dayalu and Dayanidhi,

present in the Court, have killed Goreylal. On being informed

by Indu Bai, she went near to the pond and the accused

persons were present there. The accused persons had also

tried to assault her.

9. Thus, there are major contradictions in the deposition given by

PW-4. It is pertinent to note that the granddaughter of the

informant has not been examined by the prosecution. It is also

pertinent to note that in cross-examination, PW-4 has

admitted that when she reached at the place, the accused

persons were standing there and Goreylal was injured. She has

also stated that she cannot tell which accused’s lathi (stick)

and which accused’s stone had hit Goreylal. From paragraph

17 of her cross-examination, it is further revealed that she

stated that PW-1, Ram Gulal, had not seen the incident and he

had come later and had covered Goreylal with a cloth. Thus,

from the evidence laid by the prosecution, it can be said that

PW-1 did not see as to who had tied the hands of the deceased

and why the deceased was in a naked state.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 9 of 14

10. It is pertinent to note that the independent witnesses have not

supported the case of the prosecution and that they have

turned hostile. However, from the deposition of PW-1, it is

revealed that police had seized one stone from the place of

incident. PW-2 (Sarpanch) and PW-3 have also turned hostile.

As per PW-2, the police had prepared the inquest of dead body

of the deceased in his presence. However, the said witness has

specifically stated that none of the accused persons had given

any memorandum statement to the police in his presence. He

has also stated that police have not seized anything from the

accused persons in his presence. Thus, PW-2 did not support

the case of the prosecution. Similarly, PW-3 has also not

supported the case of the prosecution and has turned hostile.

11. PW-8, the I.O., has deposed before the Court that he had

recorded memorandum of statement of the accused persons

wherein the accused persons produced lathis/sticks, details

are given in paragraph 3 of his deposition. It is pertinent to

note that as per his deposition, Sonai Bai had stated about

lathi and stone. From the deposition of the I.O., it transpires

that total seven sticks were produced before the said witness

and one stone was seized from the place of occurrence.

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 10 of 14

12. Keeping in view the aforesaid deposition, the deposition given

by PW-7, Dr. Chain Singh Painkara, is carefully examined. It

is revealed that the doctor found multiple injuries on the dead

body of the deceased, out of which three injuries were incise

wounds. Though, the said witness has stated that the injury

sustained by the deceased could possibly be caused by the

stone which was shown to him by the Constable as well as the

sticks shown to him. It is pertinent to observe that the said

witness admitted, during cross-examination, that he has not

mentioned in post-mortem report that the lacerated and

incised wounds were caused by which weapon. He has further

admitted that he has not mentioned in the report as to which

wounds were caused by which weapon.

13. It is a well-settled law that merely because the witness is an

interested or related witness, his/her deposition cannot be

discarded. Further, deposition of such witnesses is required to

be scrutinized closely. As such, we have closely scrutinized the

deposition given by PW-4, who is the mother of the deceased.

As observed hereinabove, there are material contradictions in

her deposition regarding the manner in which the incident took

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 11 of 14 place and with regard to which the information about the

incident was given by her granddaughter.

14. Further, the prosecution has failed to examine Indu Bai who

had given the information to the informant/PW-4. Further,

from the cross-examination of PW-4, it is revealed that when

she reached the place of occurrence, the deceased was already

injured, and the accused persons were standing there. It is also

revealed that she was not in a position to state as to which

accused’s stick and which accused’s stone had hit the

deceased.

15. Thus, simply relying upon the deposition given by PW-4,

conviction cannot be recorded. Further, PW-2 and PW-3, the

independent witnesses did not support the case of the

prosecution, and therefore the recovery/production of the

weapons from/by the accused persons through their

memorandum of statement also cannot be believed.

16. Furthermore, PW-7, the doctor, who had conducted the post-

mortem of the dead body of the deceased specifically stated

that three incise wounds were found on the dead body of the

deceased. However, from the evidence laid by the prosecution,

it is revealed that one stone was seized, which was shown to

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 12 of 14 the said doctor by the police constable for taking his opinion

whether the injury from the said stone is possible or not. It is

difficult to believe that three incise wounds have been caused

by one stone. It is not the case of the informant/PW-4 that the

accused persons have used the same stone which hit the

deceased repeatedly. It is also pertinent to note that PW-7, the

doctor, has specifically stated that one stone was shown to him

which was triangular in shape. In his cross-examination, it

was deposed that he has not mentioned in the query report as

to which injury to the deceased has been caused by the said

stone.

Conclusion:

17. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the view that the

prosecution has failed to prove the case against the appellants-

accused persons beyond reasonable doubt, despite which the

Trial Court has recorded the judgment and order of conviction

and order of sentence, which has been confirmed by the High

Court vide the impugned judgment.

18. The present appeals are accordingly allowed and the impugned

judgment and order passed by the High Court, affirming the

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 13 of 14 order of conviction and sentence passed by the Trial Court, is

hereby set aside.

19. All the appellants were recently released on bail by this Court

vide order dated 30.07.2025. Accordingly, their bail bonds

stand discharged.

20. Pending applications, if any, shall stand disposed of.

.......……….…………………….J. [PRASHANT KUMAR MISHRA]

..….....………………………….J. [VIPUL M. PANCHOLI]

NEW DELHI, 18th DECEMBER, 2025

_________________________________________________________________________________________ Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 14 of 14