In a significant judgment, the Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirmed that the testimony of related witnesses should not be dismissed merely due to their relationship with the victim, as long as it remains consistent and credible. The court upheld the life sentence awarded to four individuals convicted of a triple murder that took place in Village Ranbod, District Bemetara, Chhattisgarh.
Case Background
The case (CRA No. 1026 of 2024) arose from a gruesome murder incident that occurred on January 29, 2020, over a land dispute. The appellants, Kejuram Sahu (72), Johan Sahu (35), Mohan Sahu (37), and Vishal Sahu (36), were convicted for the murder of three family members – Santu Sahu, Nirmala Sahu, and Khuban Sahu. They were found guilty under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment by the Sessions Court, Bemetara, on February 24, 2024. Additionally, they received a 10-year rigorous imprisonment sentence under Section 307 IPC for attempting to murder Komal Sahu.
The trial court’s verdict was challenged by the accused before the High Court, arguing that the prosecution witnesses were biased as they were related to the deceased and that there was no direct evidence conclusively proving the crime.
Legal Issues and Arguments
The case revolved around two primary legal questions:
Whether the deaths of the deceased were homicidal in nature?
Whether the conviction was based on credible evidence, including testimonies from related witnesses?
The appellants, represented by Senior Advocate Ms. Sharmila Singhai, contended that the prosecution’s key witnesses – Kunti Bai (PW-1), Bhuneshwari Sahu (PW-2), and Komal Sahu (PW-7) – were interested parties whose testimonies should not be relied upon. They also argued that the injuries inflicted were a result of a sudden quarrel and should not be classified as murder but as culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Exception 4 to Section 300 IPC.
On the other hand, Government Advocate Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, appearing for the State, emphasized that the case involved a deliberate attack with weapons such as axes and sticks, proving a clear intention to kill. He further argued that the CCTV footage, forensic evidence, and testimonies of multiple independent witnesses corroborated the sequence of events as narrated by the prosecution.
Court’s Decision and Observations
The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, after thoroughly examining the evidence, upheld the Sessions Court’s ruling. The court ruled that the deaths were indeed homicidal in nature, as established by the postmortem reports and testimony of Dr. L.D. Thakur (PW-21), who conducted the autopsies.
Regarding the credibility of related witnesses, the court cited the Supreme Court’s precedent in Dalip Singh v. State of Punjab (1954 SCR 1453), which states that a close relative is usually the last person to falsely implicate an innocent individual. The judgment also referenced Mohd. Rojali Ali v. State of Assam (2019) 19 SCC 567, emphasizing that a witness is termed ‘interested’ only if they derive personal benefit from a conviction, which was not the case here.
The court observed:
“A ‘related’ witness, who may be naturally present at the scene of the crime, his testimony should not be dismissed simply because of his relationship to the victim. The Court must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of his statement rather than labelling him as untrustworthy.”
The High Court further noted that the presence of accused persons at the crime scene was established through independent witness statements, forensic reports confirming bloodstains on weapons, and CCTV footage from a nearby cooperative society, which showed the accused moving towards the crime scene armed with weapons.
Dismissing the appeal, the court concluded that the prosecution had proven the case beyond a reasonable doubt. The trial court’s conviction and sentencing were upheld, and the accused were ordered to continue serving their sentences.
