1

REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1421 OF 2015

NAND LAL AND OTHERS ...APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

THE STATE OF CHHATTISGARH ...RESPONDENT(S)

WITH

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1470 OF 2017

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS. OF 2023

(Arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos. 6134-6135 of 2019)

J U D G M E N T

B.R. GAVAI, J.

1. Leave granted in SLP(Criminal) Nos. 6134-6135 of 2019.

2. These appeals assail the judgment and order dated 11

th

November 2014 passed by the Division Bench of the High

Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, thereby dismissing the

appeals filed by the appellants herein and confirming the

judgment and order dated 24

th May 2008 passed by the

Second Additional Sessions Judge, Baloda Bazar, District

2

Raipur, Chhattisgarh (hereinafter referred to as “the trial

court”), convicting the appellants along with other accused

for the offences punishable under Section 302 of the Indian

Penal Code, 1860 (for short, “IPC”) along with other offences

and sentencing them to undergo life imprisonment.

3. The prosecution story, in brief, as could be gathered

from the material placed on record, is thus:

On the night of 3

rd November 2006, at around 07.30

PM, Naresh Kumar, accused No. 11 had assaulted Atmaram

(PW-1). After the said assault, Atmaram (PW-1) went to the

Police Station, Suhela for lodging a report. Thereafter,

Naresh Kumar, accused No.11 along with other accused, who

were armed with deadly weapons, formed an unlawful

assembly, entered the house of deceased Kartikram and

assaulted him as well as Mangtin Bai (PW-2) and Khomlal

(PW-9). As a result of the said assault, Kartikram died on the

spot. Thereafter, Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and

Purnima Bai (PW-13), wife, son and daughter-in-law of

deceased Kartikram respectively, along with neighbours

Baliram Sahu (PW-3) and Jeevan Lal Sahu (PW-6) went in a

3

tractor to Baloda Bazar to see a doctor, who refused to treat

them unless a report was lodged at the police station.

Thereafter, a jeep was hired and they went to the Police

Station, Suhela. On the basis of the oral report (Ex. P-9), a

merg report (Ex. P-10) came to be registered. Subsequently,

the First Information Report (for short, “FIR”) came to be

registered.

4. On the basis of the said FIR, Inspector Kamal Singh

(PW-14), Investigating Officer (IO) conducted the

investigation. After conclusion of the investigation, a charge-

sheet came to be filed against 12 accused persons before the

Judicial Magistrate First Class, Baloda Bazar. Since the case

was exclusively triable by the Sessions Judge, the same was

committed to the Sessions Court.

5. The learned Trial Judge, vide judgment and order dated

24

th May 2008, convicted all the accused persons as

aforesaid. The Division Bench of the High Court, vide

judgment and order dated 11

th November 2014, dismissed

the appeals filed by the accused persons. Challenging the

same, four appeals were filed before this Court , being

4

Criminal Appeal No. 1421 of 2015 by Nand Lal, Bhagwat and

Ramdular, accused No. 8 to 10 respectively; Criminal Appeal

No. 1422 of 2015 by Paltan Jangde, accused No. 12;

Criminal Appeal No. 1470 of 2017 by Charandas Jangde,

Chhannu Jangde and Charnu Jangde, accused Nos. 5 to 7

respectively; and appeals arising out of SLP (Criminal) Nos.

6134-6135 of 2019, which were filed by Tulsi Jangde, Suresh

Jangde, Dinesh Jangde, Rupesh Jangde and Naresh Kumar,

accused Nos. 1 to 4 and 11 respectively.

6. During the pendency of the appeals, Paltan Jangde,

accused No.12 has died and as such, the said appeal, being

Criminal Appeal No. 1422 of 2015 , has abated, vide this

Court’s order dated 13

th January 2023. Tulsi Jangde,

Suresh Jangde, Dinesh Jangde , Rupesh Jangde, Channu

Jangde and Charnu Jangde , appellants in appeals arising

out of SLP(Criminal) Nos.6134-6135 of 2019, and Charandas

Jangde, appellant in Criminal Appeal No. 1470 of 2017, have

already been released on completion of their sentence. As

such, we are concerned with the appellants in Criminal

Appeal No. 1421 of 2015 and Naresh Kumar, one of the

5

appellants in appeals arising out of SLP(Criminal) Nos.6134-

6135 of 2019.

7. We have heard Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel

appearing on behalf of accused Nos. 8 to 10, Shri Renjith B.

Marar, learned amicus curiae and Shri Sumeer Sodhi,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

8. Shri Upadhyay submits that the names of accused Nos.

8 to 10, i.e., Nand Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular, have not

been mentioned in any of the contemporaneous documents

like the merg panchnam a, inquest panchnama and spot

panchnama. He submits that , whereas the names of all

other accused have been specifically mentioned in the

aforesaid documents, there is no mention of the names of

accused Nos. 8 to 10 in these documents. It is for the first

time that the names of these three accused appear in the

FIR. The learned counsel submits that though the incident

had occurred at 08.30 PM on 3

rd November 2006, the FIR

was alleged to have been lodged at 03.10 AM on 4

th

November 2006, which creates a doubt that the FIR is a

fabricated document and the original FIR has been

6

suppressed by the prosecution. He further submits that the

inordinate delay in registering the FIR has also not been

explained by the prosecution. The learned counsel submits

that all the three witnesses i.e., Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal

(PW-9) and Purnima Bai (PW-13) are interested witnesses. It

is further submitted that the evidence of these three

witnesses is also inconsistent. The learned Counsel ,

therefore, submits that the conviction was purely on the

basis of such interested witnesses, whose testimony is not

cogent and trustworthy, and is not sustainable unless there

is some corroboration of their testimony.

9. Shri Upadhyay submits that, in any case, all the three

eye witnesses, i.e., Mangtin Bai (PW-2), Khomlal (PW-9) and

Purnima Bai (PW-13) have made only omnibus allegations

against the appellants herein and no specific overt act

attributable to the present appellants is mentioned. The

learned counsel further submits that the incident happened

at night and it is also admitted that there was a power cut.

As such, the testimonies of all the three witnesses that they

had seen the incident in the moonlight and in the light of a

7

lamp cannot be said to b e trustworthy. It is further

submitted that, since PW-9 himself had admitted that he had

hidden himself in a grain-store (kothi), it is improbable that

he has witnessed the incident.

10. Shri Marar submits that as a matter of fact, Naresh

Kumar, accused No. 11 has received grievous injuries. It is

submitted that PW-14, IO has admitted that Naresh Kumar,

accused No. 11 had injuries on his head, ankle of left leg and

the middle finger of his right hand. He submitted that even

the Trial Court has found that accused No.11 Naresh Kumar

had received grievous injuries and that he had gone to Police

Station, Suhela to lodge the report. He lodged the report at

the said Police Station and, thereafter, he was sent to

Bhatapara Hospital for treatment. It is submitted that the

prosecution has not explained the injuries received by

accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. It is submitted that, in any

case, the prosecution has suppressed the information

received from accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. It is further

submitted that it is improbable that accused No. 11 Naresh

Kumar, after receiving such grievous injuries, could have

8

taken part in the assault against the deceased and PWs 2, 9

and 13.

11. Shri Sodhi, on the contrary, submits that all the three

eye witnesses have clearly implicated all the appellants. It is

submitted that PWs 2 and 9 have specifically implicated the

present appellants. It is submitted that all the three

witnesses are rustic villagers. Therefore, merely because

there are some discrepancies in their evidence cannot be a

ground to reject their testimonies. He further submits that

merely because the witnesses are interested witnesses

cannot be a ground to discard their testimonies , if their

evidence is found to be trustworthy, reliable and cogent.

Shri Sodhi submits that, in any case, the witnesses are

injured witnesses and as such, their presence at the spot

cannot be disputed. It is further submitted that merely

because there is some delay in lodging the FIR, it cannot be a

ground to discard the prosecution case, which has been

proved beyond reasonable doubt.

12. Shri Sodhi, relying on various judgments of this Court,

submits that for a conviction under Section 302 of the IPC

9

with the aid of Section 149 of the IPC, what is relevant is

whether the accused was a member of unlawful assembly ,

and not whether he actually took active part in the crime or

not. He further submits that mere non -explanation of

injuries on the person of the accused would not be fatal to

the prosecution case.

13. With the assistance of learned counsel for the parties,

we have examined the material placed on record.

14. From the medical evidence, it cannot be disputed that

the death of deceased Kartikram is homicidal. The injuries on

PWs 2 and 9 are also not serious ly disputed by the

appellants.

15. From the evidence of prosecution witnesses, it can be

seen that the incident has taken place in two parts. The first

part is with regard to the assault on Atmaram (PW-1) by

accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, whereas the second part is

with regard to the assault by the accused persons on the

deceased and PWs 2, 9 and 13. Atmaram (PW-1), in his

evidence, states that on 3

rd November 2006, when he was at

his house, accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar came to his home

10

and started abusing him. PW-1 stated that accused No. 11

Naresh Kumar was under the influence of liquor. Accused

No. 11 Naresh Kumar told PW-1 that he had gone to his

house to make a complaint and he had extorted an amount

of Rs.5,000/- from him after plying him with alcohol.

Thereafter, accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar started assaulting

PW-1 with the lathi in his hand. Then, PW-1 states that

accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar left his place with a threat

that he would return along with other members of his family.

It is further stated by Atmaram (PW-1) that, thereafter, he

went to lodge a report to Suhela Police Station along with his

wife, son and daughter.

16. Atmaram (PW-1) further stated that when he returned

from the Police Station, his son came and told him that PW-

1’s father was murdered and PW-1 again went to the Police

Station to lodge the report. As such, it is clear that PW-1 is

not an eye witness to the second incident.

17. Mangtin Bai (PW-2) is the wife of the deceased

Kartikram. She, in her evidence, stated that all the accused

persons had entered her house and started abusing them.

11

Her husband was in the TV room. All the accused persons

started assaulting her husband in the said TV room.

Thereafter, they came to the second room where nobody was

there. Her son had hidden himself in a dhan kothi. The

accused persons went there and started assaulting her son.

Thereafter, she went to inform her neighbour, Jeevan Lal

Sahu (PW-6). She, along with PWs 9 and 13, then went by a

tractor to Baloda Bazar. They could not get treatment there

since no report had been lodged with the police. They took a

jeep from there and went to Suhela Police Station. From

there, they were taken to Bhatapara Hospital for treatment.

18. In the cross-examination of Mangtin Bai (PW-2), on

being asked as to whether she knows the relatives of the

accused persons present in the court, she stated that she

knows them but she cannot name them.

19. Khomlal (PW-9) is the injured son of the deceased

Kartikram. His evidence is also of similar nature. He, too,

testifies about the earlier incident pertaining to Atmaram

(PW-1). He states that after Atmaram (PW-1) went to the

Police Station at around 08.30 PM, all the accused persons

12

came to his house. He states that all the accused persons

entered the room of his father and started assaulting his

father. He, therefore, went to hide himself in the dhan kothi.

The accused persons came ther e and assaulted him and

thus, he received severe injuries. Thereafter, they went to

Baloda Bazar for treatment. However, the doctor refused to

treat them. As such, they went to Suhela Police Station and

lodged the report. In his cross-examination, he admits that

in the merg report lodged by him, there is no mention of

Nand Lal, Bhagwant and Ramdular , i.e., accused Nos. 8 to

10 respectively. Though he states that he had informed the

police of all the details, it is only the police who can say why

the names of the aforesaid three appellants are not there.

20. Purnima (PW-13), wife of Khomal (PW-9), also states

that Atmaram (PW-1) was going to the Police Station to lodge

a report at around 7:00 PM. She states that, between 8:00

PM to 8:30 PM, the accused persons, viz. Charandad Jangde,

Tulsi Jangde, Charnu Jangde, Bhagwat and others, came to

their house, where they first assaulted her mother-in-law,

Mangtin Bai (PW-2), with a stick. Thereafter she repeats the

13

same version as given by Mangtin Bai (PW-2) and Khomlal

(PW-9).

21. In his statement recorded under Section 313 of the

Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, “Cr. P.C.”),

accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar specifically stated that he had

received grievous injuries after he was assaulted by Atmaram

(PW-1) and, thereafter, he went to the Police Station with

accused No. 7 Charnu Jangde, accused No. 12 Paltan

Jangde, Ashwini and Vinod, from where he was sent to

Bhatapara Hospital for treatment.

22. It will be pertinent to refer to the medical examination of

accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar conducted by Dr. Anita Verma

(PW-10). The injuries sustained by him are thus:

• “Lacerated wound of 6x1x0.5 cm on the left

parietal region of scalp.

• Multiple contusions on the back, left shoulder,

left arm, varying in size from 5 to 20 cm in

length and 2 to 4 cm in breath.

• Abrasion of 3x0.5 cm on left leg.

• Swelling, tenderness and deformity on prox.

Phalanx of right middle finger.

• Abrasion of 2x0.2cm on the forehead.

14

• Abrasion of 1 x0.2 cm on the left side of

forehead.

• Abrasion of 2x0.5 cm on the right ankle.

• Fracture of left parietal bone,

• Fracture in left shoulder.

• Fracture of proximal phalanx of middle ring

finger.

• Fracture of shaft of fibula at junction upper

1/3

rd & middle 1/3

rd.”

23. PW-14, IO admits that in the merg intimation report,

the names of Nand Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular, i.e., accused

Nos. 8 to 10 respectively are not mentioned. He further

admits that in the spot panchnama also, their names are not

mentioned. He admits in his cross-examination that in Ex.

D-9, the incident with accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar is

mentioned to have happened at 08.30 PM on 3

rd November

2006. He further admits that accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar

had grievous injuries on his head, ankle of left leg and the

middle finger of the right hand. He further admit s that

Naresh Kumar was taken from Police Station to the doctor for

examination at 11.45 PM.

15

24. It can thus be seen from the evidence of PW-14, IO that

the police had information about the incident at least prior to

11.45 PM on 3

rd November 2006. No doubt that mere delay

in registering FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case.

The effect of delay in lodging the FIR would differ in the facts

and circumstances of each case. In the present case,

admittedly, accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar had received

grievous injuries which have not been explained by the

prosecution. A specific defence has been taken by accused

No. 11 Naresh Kumar that when he was coming after

consuming liquor, he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW-1).

Thereafter, he went to the Police Station along with accused

No. 7 Charnu Jangde, accused No. 12 Paltan Jangde,

Ashwini and Vinod, whereafter he was referred for medical

treatment. Looking at the injuries of accused No. 11 Naresh

Kumar, it appears difficult that he could have taken part in

the second part of the incident. The prosecution has

suppressed the first report lodged by Atmaram (PW-1) as well

as by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. If Naresh Kumar was

examined at 11.45 PM, the police must have had some

information about the incident at least by 11.00 PM. As

16

such, there is a delay of at least four hours in lodging the

FIR.

25. Believing the contents of the FIR that the incident has

taken place at around 08.30 PM and that the injured persons

had reached Baloda Bazar at around 10-11 PM where they

were informed that they could not be treated unless a report

was lodged, a further delay of around four to five hours in

lodging the FIR has not been explained. The distance

between Baloda Bazar and Suhela Police Station is

approximately 15 Kms. It has come on record that there is

an all-weather road connecting the two places. As such, at

the most, it would take around 30-40 minutes to reach

Suhela Police Station from Baloda Bazar. This delay of four

hours in lodging the FIR is not at all explained.

26. We will first consider the issue with regard to non-

explanation of injuries sustained by accused No. 11 Naresh

Kumar. In the case of Lakshmi Singh and Others v. State

of Bihar

1, which case also arose out of a conviction under

Section 302 read with Section 149 of the IPC, this Court had

an occasion to consider the issue of non-explanation of

1

(1976) 4 SCC 394

17

injuries sustained by the accused. This Court, after referring

to the earlier judgments on the issue, observed thus:

“12. …….It seems to us that in a murder case,

the non-explanation of the injuries sustained by

the accused at about the time of the occurrence

or in the course of altercation is a very important

circumstance from which the court can draw the

following inferences:

“(1) that the prosecution has

suppressed the genesis and the origin

of the occurrence and has thus not

presented the true version;

(2) that the witnesses who have denied

the presence of the injuries on the

person of the accused are lying on a

most material point and therefore their

evidence is unreliable;

(3) that in case there is a defence

version which explains the injuries on

the person of the accused it is rendered

probable so as to throw doubt on the

prosecution case.”

The omission on the part of the prosecution to

explain the injuries on the person of the accused

assumes much greater importance where the

evidence consists of interested or inimical

witnesses or where the defence gives a version

which competes in probability with that of the

prosecution one. In the instant case, when it is

held, as it must be, that the appellant Dasrath

Singh received serious injuries which have not

been explained by the prosecution, then it will be

difficult for the court to rely on the evidence of

PWs 1 to 4 and 6, more particularly, when some

of these witnesses have lied by stating that they

did not see any injuries on the person of the

accused. Thus neither the Sessions Judge nor the

High Court appears to have given due

18

consideration to this important lacuna or

infirmity appearing in the prosecution case. We

must hasten to add that as held by this Court

in State of Gujarat v. Bai Fatima [(1975) 2 SCC 7 :

1975 SCC (Cri) 384] there may be cases where

the non-explanation of the injuries by the

prosecution may not affect the prosecution case.

This principle would obviously apply to cases

where the injuries sustained by the accused are

minor and superficial or where the evidence is so

clear and cogent, so independent and

disinterested, so probable, consistent and

creditworthy, that it far outweighs the effect of

the omission on the part of the prosecution to

explain the injuries. The present, however, is

certainly not such a case, and the High Court

was, therefore, in error in brushing aside this

serious infirmity in the prosecution case on

unconvincing premises.”

27. A similar view with regard to non-explanation of injuries

has been taken by this Court in the cases of State of

Rajasthan v. Madho and Another

2, State of M.P. v.

Mishrilal (Dead) and Others

3 and Nagarathinam and

Others v. State (Represented by Inspector of Police)

4.

28. Undisputedly, in the present case, the injuries

sustained by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar cannot be

considered to be minor or superficial. The witnesses are also

interested witnesses, inasmuch as they are close relatives of

2

1991 Supp (2) SCC 396

3

(2003) 9 SCC 426

4

(2006) 9 SCC 57

19

the deceased. That there was previous enmity between the

two families, on account of election of Sarpanch, has come on

record. As observed by this Court in the case of Ramashish

Ray v. Jagdish Singh

5, previous enmity is a double-edged

sword. On one hand, it can provide motive and on the other

hand, the possibility of false implication cannot be ruled out.

29. We have already seen herein above the injuries

sustained by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar. Much prior to

lodging of the FIR at 03.15 AM on 4

th November 2006 by

Khomlal, the Police had taken accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar

for medical examination. The memo forwarding accused No.

11 Naresh Kumar for medical examination to Medical Officer

mentions that accused No. 11 had informed the police that at

around 08.30 PM, he was assaulted by Atmaram (PW -1).

Undisputedly, the prosecution has suppressed information

with regard to the said incident. The prosecution has also

suppressed the FIR lodged by Atmaram (PW -1). It is thus

clear that the prosecution has attempted to suppress the real

genesis of the incident. Taking into consideration this aspect

of the matter, coupled with the non-explanation of the

5

(2005) 10 SCC 498

20

injuries sustained by accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar, we are

of the considered view that accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar is

entitled to benefit of doubt.

30. That leaves us with the appeal of the other 3 accused,

namely accused No. 8 Nandlal, accused No. 9 Bhagwat and

accused No. 10 Ramdular. For considering their case we will

have to take into consideration the delay in lodging the FIR.

No doubt that in each and every case, delay in lodging the

FIR would not be fatal to the prosecution case. It will depend

upon facts and circumstances of each case. In the present

case, as already discussed hereinabove, assuming that the

incident had taken place at 08.30 PM and the injured

persons were at Baloda Bazar between 10-11 PM, and taking

into consideration that the distance between Baloda Bazar to

Suhela Police Station is 15 Kms., a delay of four hours in

lodging the FIR would cast a serious doubt on the

genuineness of the prosecution case. It becomes more

glaring since accused No. 11 Naresh Kumar had, in any case,

informed the police about the incident prior to 11.45 PM.

The suppression of the FIR lodged by him with respect to the

21

attack on him by Atmaram (PW-1), so also the suppression of

the FIR lodged by Atmaram (PW-1) against accused No. 11

Naresh Kumar, adds to the doubt.

31. We may gainfully refer to the following observations of

this Court in the case of Ramesh Baburao Devaskar and

Others v. State of Maharashtra

6:

“19. In a case of this nature, enmity between two

groups is accepted. In a situation of this nature,

whether the first information report was ante-

timed or not also requires serious consideration.

First information report, in a case of this nature,

provides for a valuable piece of evidence although

it may not be a substantial evidence. The reason

for insisting on lodging of first information report

without undue delay is to obtain the earlier

information in regard to the circumstances in

which the crime had been committed, the name

of the accused, the parts played by them, the

weapons which had been used as also the names

of eyewitnesses. Where the parties are at

loggerheads and there had been instances which

resulted in death of one or the other, lodging of a

first information report is always considered to be

vital.”

As held by this Court, the FIR is a valuable piece of

evidence, although it may not be substantial evidence. The

immediate lodging of an FIR removes suspicion with regard

to over implication of number of persons, particularly when

6

(2007) 13 SCC 501

22

the case involved a fight between two groups. When the

parties are at loggerheads, the immediate lodging of the FIR

provides credence to the prosecution case.

32. Undisputedly, the present case rests on the evidence of

interested witnesses. No doubt that two of them are injured

witnesses. This Court, in the case of Vadivelu Thevar v.

The State of Madras

7, has observed thus:

“11. ……Hence, in our opinion, it is a sound and

well-established rule of law that the court is

concerned with the quality and not with the

quantity of the evidence necessary for proving or

disproving a fact. Generally speaking, oral

testimony in this context may be classified into

three categories, namely:

(1) Wholly reliable.

(2) Wholly unreliable.

(3) Neither wholly reliable nor wholly unreliable.

12. In the first category of proof, the court should

have no difficulty in coming to its conclusion

either way — it may convict or may acquit on the

testimony of a single witness, if it is found to be

above reproach or suspicion of interestedness,

incompetence or subornation. In the second

category, the court equally has no difficulty in

coming to its conclusion. It is in the third

category of cases, that the court has to be

circumspect and has to look for corroboration in

material particulars by reliable testimony, direct

or circumstantial……”

7

[1957] SCR 981

23

33. It could thus be seen that in the category of “wholly

reliable” witness, there is no difficulty for the prosecution to

press for conviction on the basis of the testimony of such a

witness. In case of “wholly unreliable” witness, again, there

is no difficulty, inasmuch as no conviction could be made on

the basis of oral testimony provided by a “wholly unreliable”

witness. The real difficulty comes in case of the third

category of evidence which is partly reliable and partly

unreliable. In such cases, the court is required to be

circumspect and separate the chaff from the grain, and seek

further corroboration from reliable testimony, direct or

circumstantial.

34. Undisputedly, in the present case, PWs 2 and 9 are

injured witnesses. As such, their presence cannot be

disputed. However, as already observed hereinabove, in case

of proven previous enmity, a possibility of false implication

cannot be ruled out. In the present case, it would be seen

that the entire family of accused No. 12 Paltan Jangde has

been roped in. Though PW-2 has identified and named the

accused in her cross-examination, she has stated that,

24

though she recognized the relatives of the accused persons,

she does not remember their names. As such, the possibility

of implicating the entire family of Paltan cannot be ruled out.

35. As already discussed hereinabove, the names of Nand

Lal, Bhagwat and Ramdular are not mentioned in the merg

report, which was lodged prior to the lodging of FIR, so also

their names are not found in the inquest panchnama and

spot panchnama. Taking into consideration the delay in

lodging the FIR, with the circumstance of their names not

being mentioned in the contemporaneous documents, the

possibility of the said accused being falsely implicated cannot

be ruled out. In our view, the conviction of these accused

purely on the basis of oral testimony of the interested

witnesses, without sufficient corroboration, would not be

sustainable.

36. The prosecution has examined Baliram Sahu (PW-3),

Inder Sahu (PW-5), Jeewan Lal (PW-6) and Budheram (PW-8),

none of whom have supported the prosecution case.

According to PWs 2, 9 and 13, it was the witness Baliram

Sahu (PW-3) who had arranged for the tractor to take the

25

injured persons to Baloda Bazar. However, he has stated that

though Mangtin Bai (PW-2) came to his place to inform him

about the incident, she had not informed him as to which of

the accused had assaulted the deceased and the injured

persons. In our view, therefore, the said appellants would

also be entitled to benefit of doubt.

37. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the

appellants Nand Lal, Bhagwat, Ramdular and Naresh Kumar

are entitled to benefit of doubt.

38. In the result, we pass the following order:

(i) The appeals are allowed;

(ii) The judgment and order dated 11

th November 2014

passed by the Division Bench of the High Court of

Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, and the judgment and

order dated 24

th May 2008 passed by the trial court

are quashed and set aside; and

(iii) The appellants are acquitted of the charges charged

with and are directed to be set at liberty forthwith, if

not required in any other case.

39. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.

26

40. Before we part with the judgment, we must place on

record our appreciation for the valuable assistance rendered

by Shri Vikas Upadhyay, learned counsel appearing on

behalf of accused Nos. 8 to 10 and Shri Sumeer Sodhi,

learned counsel appearing on behalf of the respondent-State.

A special mention needs to be made of the painstaking efforts

taken by Shri Renjith B. Marar, learned counsel, who was

appointed through the Supreme Court Legal Services

Authority as an amicus curiae for accused No. 11.

…..….......................J.

[B.R. GAVAI]

…….........................J.

[VIKRAM NATH ]

…….........................J.

[SANJAY KAROL ]

NEW DELHI;

MARCH 14, 2023.