Full Judgment Text
REPORTABLE
2025 INSC 1454
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
J U D G M E N T
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 has been filed by original accused no. 2 and accused no. 3,
PRIYANKA MALIK
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,
th
18 DECEMBER, 2025
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 14 of 14
2025 INSC 1454
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
J U D G M E N T
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 has been filed by original accused no. 2 and accused no. 3,
PRIYANKA MALIK
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,
th
18 DECEMBER, 2025
_________________________________________________________________________________________
Crl. Appeal Nos. 3647-3648 of 2025 Page 14 of 14