1

2026:CGHC:2137-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 336 of 2022

Surendra Banjare S/o Late Tarachand Banjare, Aged About 28 Years

R/o Village Rani Bagicha, Pandariya, P.S. Gandai, District Rajnandgaon

Chhattisgarh

... Appellant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh, through the District Magistrate, District

Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh

... Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. M.P.S. Bhatia, Advocate

For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

1 4 . 01 .202 6

1.This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C.

is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 14.01.2022 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon in Sessions

Case No. 11 of 2019, by which the appellant has been convicted

2

for offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for

life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional

rigorous imprisonment for 06 months.

2.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 18.02.2019 at

06.00 pm, the accused, after consuming alcohol, quarreled with

his wife Lalita Bai and set her on fire by pouring kerosene oil on

her. On receiving information in this regard from Community

Health Centre, Gandai to Police Station, Gandai over telephone,

the Inspector in-charge of Police Station Gandai, Alexander Kiro,

immediately went to Community Health Centre, Gandai and got

the injured examined and considering the condition of the injured

during treatment and the possibility of death, her dying declaration

Ex.P-1 was taken. After taking the dying declaration, a memo was

issued by Police Station in-charge Gandai which is Ex.P-9. On

finding the commission of a crime against the accused / appellant

on the basis of the said statement of the injured, Police Station

Gandai registered a First Information Report against the accused/

appellant bearing Crime No. 52/2019 under Section 307 of the

IPC and taken into investigation. Soil, plain soil, hair from the

victim's head were recovered from the scene of incident and on

the production of the accused, a plastic kerosene oil container

filled with about 50 ml, a matchbox and on the production of

Hirabai, the victim's half burnt saree and petticoat were seized in

front of witnesses as per seizure memo Ex.P-5. A site map of the

3

scene Ex.P-3 and panchnama Ex.P-4 were prepared. The seized

items were sent to FSL Raipur for chemical examination. The

statements of the witnesses were recorded in the case. After the

entire proceedings, a charge sheet was filed against the

accused/appellant under Section 307 of the IPC before the Court

of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Ghuikhadan, District-

Rajnandgaon (Chhattisgarh) and thereafter, as the case was

exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, it was ultimately handed

over to the Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Khairagarh,

District – Rajnandgaon for trial.

3.During the trial of said case, the injured, Smt. Lalita Banjare, died.

Gandai Police Station submitted a supplementary challan in

Crime No. 51/2019. Following the deceased's death, inquest was

prepared vide Ex.P11 after giving notices to the witnesses vide

Ex.P-10. The deceased's medical record, which was seized, is

Ex.P12. During the supplementary investigation, the Tehsildar

conducted inquest proceedings, Ex.P13. The body was sent to

CHC Chhuikhadan for examination. The autopsy application is

Ex.P14 and the postmortem report is Ex.P15, both of which are

signed on Part A and B. During the investigation, Tehsildar Kumari

Mamta Tawri (PW4) conducted the Panchnama proceedings

before the deceased's postmortem. Following the supplementary

investigation, Gandai Police Station submitted a supplementary

challan before the Court of Additional Sessions Judge,

Khairagarh, District – Rajnandgaon.

4

4.When the charges were framed against the accused under

sections 307 and 302 of the IPC and read to him, he denied the

crime and sought a defense. The accused was tried under section

313 of the CrPC. He pleaded not guilty and has not examined the

witness in his defence, stating that he is falsely implicated.

5.The prosecution has examined a total of 5 witnesses in support of

its case under Section 307 of the IPC and 06 witnesses in the

form of authentication under Section 302 of the IPC. The

prosecution has examined the deceased Smt. Lalita Banjare

(PW1), Hirabai Mahilarge (PW2), Sajeevan Mandle (PW3), Indal

Mahilange (PW4), Divya Mahilange (PW5) under Section 307 of

the IPC. After the death of deceased Smt. Lalita Banjare the

accused was charged under Section 302 of the IPC as death was

caused as a result of the said incident. Charges have been

framed, in relation to which the prosecution has got statements of

prosecution witnesses Devbati Mandel (PW1), Ubaran Mandle

(PW2), Miludas Tandon (PW3), Tehsildar Kumari Mamta Tawari

(PW4), Dr. Abhinav Panchari (PW5), Assistant Sub-Inspector

Tohanlal Sahu (PW6) recorded in support of its case.

6.The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence on record and considering that it is the appellant who

has committed the murder of his wife deceased Smt. Lalita

Banjare, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the

IPC, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the

Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the appellant.

5

7.Mr. MPS Bhatia, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the

impugned judgment and findings of the learned trial Court are

contrary to law and the facts of the case and therefore deserve to

be set aside. The prosecution has failed to prove the essential

ingredients of Section 302 of the IPC beyond reasonable doubt,

as no trustworthy or independent witness was examined, and the

evidence relied upon is neither conclusive nor credible. He further

submits that the incident took place on 18.02.2019 and the

deceased died on 27.07.2019 i.e. after more than 5 months and 9

days due to septicemia, as such, the trial Court erred in continuing

the proceedings under Section 302 IPC after the death of the

injured eye witness, Lalita Banjare (PW-1), without adequately

considering that the case initially pertained to Section 307 IPC. He

further submitted that given the presence of reasonable doubts,

the appellant is entitled to the benefit of such doubts and should

be acquitted, or at the very least, be convicted under Section 307

IPC.

8.On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government

Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State, submitted that the

appeal is without merit and the impugned judgment of the trial

Court deserves to be upheld. It is contended that the prosecution

has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused/appellant

intentionally caused the death of his wife, Smt. Lalita Banjare, by

setting her on fire after consuming alcohol, which directly led to

her fatal injuries. He further submitted that the delay between the

6

incident (18.02.2019) and the death of the deceased (27.07.2019)

does not break the chain of causation, as the medical evidence

clearly establishes that her death was the direct consequence of

the injuries sustained in the assault. It is also submitted that the

trial Court correctly considered the evidence, including the dying

declaration (Ex.P-1), seizure of material evidence (Ex.P-5), and

the statements of witnesses recorded during the investigation,

which together form a reliable and sufficient basis for conviction

under Section 302 IPC. The argument regarding the lack of

independent witnesses is misplaced, as the law recognizes the

value of dying declarations and corroborative evidence, which

have been duly considered by the trial Court. He also submits that

the appellant’s conviction and sentence under Section 302 IPC

are legally sound and must be maintained.

9.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered

their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through

the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.

10.The question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court

has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime.

11.From perusal of the record, it transpires that initially an FIR was

registered against the accused/appellant under Section 307 of

IPC for attempting to murder his wife Smt. Lalita Banjare by

pouring kerosene on her and burning her with the intention of

killing her and a challan was presented under Section 307 of the

7

IPC. During the trial of the said case by trial Court, the evidence

of the injured Smt. Lalita Banjare (PW-1) was taken on

24.07.2019, along with her, the statements of 5 other witnesses

were also taken by the prosecution. Meanwhile, the prosecution

has submitted an application under Section 216 CrPC dated

04.10.2019, drawing attention to the death of the injured Smt.

Lalita Banjare on 27.07.2019, and sought trial against the

accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Before this,

Gandai police station had submitted a supplementary challan in

which the postmortem application of the deceased, postmortem

report, panchnama, notice and statements of witnesses were

presented. Thereafter, considering the circumstances of the case,

the said application was accepted. The prosecution evidence has

been initiated by framing charges against the accused under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and calling for the evidence

list again from the prosecution.

12.In such a situation, it becomes necessary to closely examine the

statements of the prosecution witnesses regarding the crime

against accused / appellant under Section 307 of the IPC before

Section 302 of the IPC. In this regard, Lalita Banjare (PW1), the

injured/deceased woman, stated in her Court statement that she

knew accused Surendra Banjare because he was her husband.

She had married accused Surendra Banjare in a love marriage.

She further stated that on 18.02.2019, while she was at home, her

husband returned home drunk at 4-5 p.m. She said, "He was not

8

feeling well, he got an injection this morning and then came back

drunk. He create a drama every day after drinking. She won't stay

with him. She is going to her parents' house." Saying this, she put

her clothes in her bag.

13.The injured/deceased Lalita Banjare (PW1) has further stated in

her court statement that then her husband snatched the bag from

her hand and took it out in the courtyard and said that he would

set it on fire and threw the clothes on the ground. Then the

accused fought with her and brought a can of kerosene oil from

the room and poured kerosene on her body and went inside and

brought a matchstick from inside and lit the matchstick and threw

it on her body due to which her body caught fire. Then her body

started burning, then her husband poured water on her, then her

brother-in-law immediately took her to Gandai Hospital. The

injured/deceased Lalita Banjare (PW1) further stated in her Court

statement that the accused used to assault her under the

influence of alcohol. The villagers witnessed the incident. Her

husband, the accused, used to borrow money and drink alcohol.

She also stated that while she was hospitalized, the Naib

Tehsildar Gandai came to the hospital and recorded her dying

declaration, in which she stated that her husband, under the

influence of alcohol, had attempted to kill her by pouring kerosene

on her and burning her. Her signature is on Part A of Ex.P.1, the

dying declaration.

14.As the injured did not support the prosecution on some points,

9

with the permission of the Court, when leading questions were

asked, she told that she had given her police statement Ex.P2 to

the police. Thus, the injured has told in her court statement that

on the incident date 18.02.2019, the accused came in the evening

under the influence of alcohol and beat her, brought matchsticks

and kerosene from home, poured it on her and burnt her with the

matchstick, due to which she got seriously burnt.

15.The injured (deceased) has accepted in paragraph 8 of her cross-

examination that her husband, the accused, comes home drunk

everyday, on the said date of incident there was a dispute

between the two, due to which she was taking her bag to her

maternal home, which the accused stopped her, she has denied

then the accused said that she used to go to her maternal home

again and again, saying this he snatched the bag and took it

inside the house, she has voluntarily said that he threw it there

itself after snatching it. In paragraph 9, she has voluntarily stated

that the accused snatched her bag, took kerosene from the

kerosene can kept inside the house, poured it on her and set it on

fire with a matchstick, she has denied that due to a dispute

between the two she poured kerosene on herself and set herself

on fire, she has also denied that her husband came to save her

and admitted her to the hospital.

16.In cross-examination, the injured (PW1) denied the defense's

suggestion that she herself had poured kerosene and set herself

on fire, and that the dying declaration (Ex.1) was not given by her;

10

her parents were present when the Tehsildar took the dying

declaration. Thus, this witness completely rejected all the

defense's suggestions and by giving a statement against the

accused, it has been said that the accused himself, under the

influence of alcohol, poured kerosene and set the body on fire,

which supports the prosecution's story.

17.However, other prosecution witness Hirabai Mahilange (PW-2)

who is the grandmother of the accused, did not support the

prosecution's story and only proved that during the investigation

the Patwari came to prepare the site map and the site map

(Ex.P.3) was prepared in her presence and the Panchnama Ex.P.4

of the site was prepared and she said that there is thumb

impression on the seizure memo Ex.P.5. Similarly, other

prosecution witnesses Indal Mahilange (PW-4), Divya Mahilange

(PW-5) also did not support the prosecution, Indal (PW-3) only

certified the site map Ex.P.9.

18.Besides this, another important witness of the case Sajeevan

Mandle (PW-3) has stated in his court statement that the accused

is his son-in-law, the inured Lalita Bai is his daughter, who died on

27.07.2019. He further stated that the accused and his daughter

had a love marriage, the accused had eloped with her, at the time

of the incident he had gone to work in a furniture shop in

Narmada, then his son-in-law Surendra called and said that "He is

burning her daughter by setting her on fire, if he want to save her

then save her". Then he said to his son-in-law with folded hands

11

on the phone itself, do not kill his daughter by setting her on fire.

Then he was preparing to leave, at that very moment Surendra

Banjare (accused) called and said, "Papa, he had burnt Lalita by

setting her on fire, if he want to save her then save her". Then he

and his nephew Bedaram went to his daughter Lalita's house in

Pandariya, there they met Lalita's grand father-in-law Indal and

grand mother-in-law Hira Bai, then on asking where is his

daughter Lalita, he was told that she has been taken to Gandai

Hospital, then he came to Gandai Government Hospital, where

his daughter was found in a burnt condition.

19.This witness further stated in paragraph 3 of his court statement

that the doctors advised him to take his daughter Lalita to

Rajnandgaon District Hospital. Accordingly, he took Lalita to the

hospital and asked her what had happened. Lalita stated that her

husband, Surendra, had come home after drinking alcohol. She

further said that, despite him being unwell, he had returned after

drinking, and she would not live with him and intended to go to her

parents’ house. She packed her clothes into a bag, which her

husband snatched from her, took it to the courtyard, and began

throwing the clothes on the ground, threatening to set her on fire.

When she refused, the accused slapped her, brought a kerosene

can from the room, poured kerosene over her body, and set her

on fire. Her daughter also stated that when she to drink alcohol,

her husband burned her with the intention of killing her.

20.The witness further stated that he had his daughter treated at

12

Rajnandgaon Hospital for 10 days, and after bringing her home,

continued her treatment at home for five months. During the same

period, he also admitted her to Om Hospital in Raipur for 10 days

for further treatment. The defence did not substantially refute his

examination-in-chief; therefore, his statement is credible. This

witness corroborated the statement given by his daughter, Smt.

Lalita Bai (PW-1), as per the prosecution story, and clearly stated

that the accused, under the influence of alcohol and with the

intention of killing her, poured kerosene on her and set her on fire,

resulting in her death after 04 days of recording her statement.

21.The proposition which has been laid down by the Supreme Court

in the matter of Md. Jabbar Ali and Others Vs. State of Assam

{2022 SCC OnLine SC 1440} stated that it is the well-settled

principle that just because the witnesses are

related/interested/partisan witnesses, their testimonies cannot be

disregarded, however, it is also true that when the witnesses are

related/interested, their testimonies have to be scrutinized with

greater care and circumspection. The Court in para 55 & 56 has

held has under:-

55. It is noted that great weight has been attached to

the testimonies of the witnesses in the instant case.

Having regard to the aforesaid fact that this Court has

examined the credibility of the witnesses to rule out

any tainted evidence given in the court of Law. It was

contended by learned counsel for the appellant that

the prosecution failed to examine any independent

13

witnesses in the present case and that the witnesses

were related to each other. This Court in a number of

cases has had the opportunity to consider the said

aspect of related/interested/partisan witnesses and

the credibility of such witnesses. This Court is

conscious of the well-settled principle that just

because the witnesses are related/interested/partisan

witnesses, their testimonies cannot be disregarded,

however, it is also true that when the witnesses are

related/interested, their testimonies have to be

scrutinized with greater care and circumspection. In

the case of Gangadhar Behera v. State of Orissa

(2002) 8 SCC 381, this Court held that the testimony

of such related witnesses should be analysed with

caution for its credibility.

56. In Raju alias Balachandran v. State of Tamil

Nadu (2012) 12 SCC 701, this Court observed:

“29. The sum and substance is that the evidence

of a related or interested witness should be

meticulously and carefully examined. In a case

where the related and interested witness may

have some enmity with the assailant, the bar

would need to be raised and the evidence of the

witness would have to be examined by applying

a standard of discerning scrutiny. However, this

is only a rule of prudence and not one of law, as

held in Dalip Singh [(1953) 2 SCC 36: AIR 1953

SC 364] and pithily reiterated in Sarwan Singh

[(1976) 4 SCC 369] in the following words:

(Sarwan Singh case [(1976) 4 SCC 369, p. 376,

para 10)

14

“10. … The evidence of an interested witness

does not suffer from any infirmity as such, but

the courts require as a rule of prudence, not

as a rule of law, that the evidence of such

witnesses should be scrutinised with a little

care. Once that approach is made and the

court is satisfied that the evidence of

interested witnesses have a ring of truth such

evidence could be relied upon even without

corroboration.”

22.Similar view has been reiterated by the Supreme Court in the

matter of Manikandan Vs. State By Inspector of Police {AIR

2024 Supreme Court 1801} and Bhupatbhai Bachubhai

Chavda and Another Vs. State of Gujarat {AIR 2024 Supreme

Court 1805} .

23.The Supreme Court in the matter of Balu Sudam Khalde and

another Vs. State of Maharashtra {AIR 2023 Supreme Court

1736: AIROnline 2023 SC 229} has discussed the value to be

given to the injured witnesses. Wherein at para 26 the Court has

laid down the following principles:-

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.

15

(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.

(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.

24.Apart from this, now it is necessary to consider the offence under

Section 302 of the IPC against the accused in the case. In this

regard, the witnesses examined by the prosecution, Devbati

Mandle (PW1), Ubaran Mandle (PW2) have stated in their Court

statement that they know the accused, the accused is their son-in-

law, the deceased Lalita was their sister, about 6-7 years ago

Lalita was married to the accused Surendra Banjare, she lived

with her husband in village Pandariya, about 3 years ago the

accused Surendra Banjare called on Sajeevan Mandle's mobile

and told that he had burnt the deceased Lalita Banjare by pouring

16

kerosene oil on her, after that her father-in-law/father Sajeevan

Mandle went to the Government Hospital Gandai Hospital, seeing

the serious condition of the deceased she was referred to

Rajnandgaon District Hospital, when she was not treated there,

she was taken to Raipur Hospital, after recovery the deceased

returned to her maternal home in village Basawar. When the

deceased came to her parents' house, she told that her husband,

the accused, poured kerosene on her and burnt her. She used to

stop him from drinking alcohol, due to which the accused beat her

and burnt her. After some time, Lalita died.

25.In addition, another prosecution witness, Tehsildar Kumari Mamta

Tawari (PW-4), stated in her Court statement that she was posted

as Naib Tehsildar in Khairagarh from 2018 to January 2021. On

27.07.2019, the Tehsildar received a report from Chhuikhadan

police station for the Panchnama proceedings of the deceased

newly married woman, Smt. Lalita Banjare. In the absence of the

Tehsildar, she prepared the report, Ex.P.15. On the same date,

she issued a notice under Section 175 of the CrPC to the

witnesses regarding their presence in the Panchnama, which is

Ex.P.10, of which her signatures are on parts b to c. The entire

proceedings of the Panchnama were conducted, which is Ex.P.11,

of which her signatures are on parts c to c. The defence has not

substantially refuted the examination-in-chief of the said witness.

26.Dr. Abhinav Panchari (PW5), who had conducted postmortem

over the dead body of deceased Lalita Banjare and given a report

17

vide Ex.P-14, has specifically stated that after conducting the

autopsy, he opined that Lalita died as a result of septic shock,

infection, and burn injuries. The autopsy was conducted within 24

hours of her death. Thus, in his statement, this witness stated that

the deceased's death was due to extensive burns, which has not

been substantially refuted.

27.Upon an overall reappreciation of the entire oral and documentary

evidence on record, this Court finds no infirmity, illegality, or

perversity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The

prosecution has been able to establish, beyond reasonable doubt,

that the accused/appellant is the author of the crime. The

testimony of the injured/deceased Lalita Banjare (PW-1), recorded

during her lifetime, is clear, cogent, consistent, and inspires

confidence. Her statement before the Court as well as her dying

declaration (Ex.P-1) unequivocally attribute the act of pouring

kerosene and setting her on fire to the accused, under the

influence of alcohol, with the intention to kill her. The defence has

failed to elicit any material contradiction or infirmity in her

testimony so as to discredit the same.

28.The evidence of Sajeevan Mandle (PW-3), father of the deceased,

duly corroborates the version of PW-1. His testimony explains the

entire sequence of events, the motive, the manner of commission

of the offence, and the subsequent treatment of the deceased.

Merely because he is a related witness, his testimony cannot be

discarded, particularly when it stands corroborated by medical and

18

documentary evidence, and has withstood cross-examination. The

law on appreciation of evidence of related and injured witnesses is

well settled by the Supreme Court in Md. Jabbar Ali (supra),

Manikandan (supra), Bhupatbhai Bachubhai Chavda (supra)

and Balu Sudam Khalde (supra), wherein it has been consistently

held that such evidence carries greater evidentiary value and

cannot be discarded unless serious infirmities are found.

29.The contention of the appellant that the delay between the date of

incident and the date of death snaps the chain of causation is

wholly untenable. The medical evidence of Dr. Abhinav Panchari

(PW-5) clearly establishes that the deceased died due to septic

shock and infection resulting from burn injuries. Septicemia is a

known complication of burn injuries, and the passage of time does

not, by itself, absolve the accused when the death is a direct

consequence of the injuries inflicted. The principle that an

assailant cannot escape liability merely because the victim

survived for some time before succumbing to injuries is well

recognised in criminal jurisprudence.

30.The argument regarding the absence of independent witnesses

also does not advance the case of the appellant. In offences

occurring within the four walls of a matrimonial home, the

presence of independent witnesses is often improbable.

Conviction can be safely based on the testimony of the injured

witness, dying declaration, and corroborative medical and

circumstantial evidence. The trial Court has rightly relied upon

19

such evidence after due scrutiny.

31.The submission that at best the offence would fall under Section

307 IPC is also devoid of merit. The act of pouring kerosene and

setting the victim on fire clearly demonstrates intention and

knowledge sufficient to attract Section 300 IPC. The subsequent

death of the victim as a direct consequence of those acts squarely

brings the offence within the ambit of Section 302 IPC. The trial

Court has correctly applied the law in altering the charge after the

death of the injured and in convicting the appellant for the offence

of murder.

32.In view of the aforesaid discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the prosecution has successfully proved its case

against the accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The

findings recorded by the learned trial Court are based on proper

appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law and do not

warrant any interference by this Court.

33.Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby

dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the

appellant under Section 302 of the IPC by the learned trial Court

are hereby affirmed. The appellant shall continue to undergo the

sentence as awarded by the trial Court.

34.Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted

to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and

compliance.

20

35.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.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Chandra