Supreme Court – Daily Orders
Nokhelal Sahu vs The State Of Chhattisgarh on 18 June, 2025
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
EXTRA-ORDINARY CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
SPECIAL LEAVE PETITION (CRIMINAL) NO. 009154/2025
NOKHELAL SAHU ….PETITIONER (S)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …RESPONDENT(S)
ORDER
1. By way of present SLP, the petitioner (original-accused) Nokhelal
Sahu challenges the judgment and order dated 18.04.2024 passed by
the High Court of Chhattisgarh, Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No. 2110
of 2023, whereby the judgment and order passed by the Trial Court
i.e. the Ld. Sessions Judge Rajnandgaon was upheld. The Ld. Sessions
Judge convicted the petitioner for commission of offence under Section
302 of IPC and awarded him sentence of life imprisonment with
Rigorous Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 5,000/- and in default
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
INDU MARWAH
an additional six months Rigorous Imprisonment.
Date: 2025.06.23
17:34:46 IST
Reason:
1
2. It is the case of the prosecution that the accused Nokhelal Sahu
was residing at village Jarahi, District Rajnandgaon with his
grandmother Jhunabai and he used to pick up quarrels with his
grandmother for the demand of money to consume liquor. On
28.06.2021, around 5-6 PM, other grandson, Arvind Sahu visited his
grandmother with biscuits, and saw that the accused Nokhelal Sahu
was demanding money for alcohol and when his grandmother refused
to give money, the accused abused her and threatened to kill her. He
grabbed her hair, strangled her with one hand and repeatedly
slammed her head against the wall. Due to repeatedly slamming of her
head against the wall, Jhunabai fell down and became unconscious.
Arvind Sahu made a phone call to his father Daniram Sahu and
informed about the incident. The accused Nokhelal Sahu then fled
away from the spot. The neighbours rushed to the spot, i.e., the house
of Jhunabai when they checked the physical condition of Jhunabai
they found that she was unconscious. One of the neighbours Chiman
Sahu called an ambulance by dialling 112. Jhunabai was then taken
to District Hospital Rajnandgaon by the neighbours namely Purnima
Sahu, Chiman Sahu and Arvind Sahu. When she was admitted for
2
treatment. The information was sent to Basantpur Police Station and
in turn it was forwarded to the S.H.O. of Somni Police Station. On
receipt of the information, the First Information Report was lodged
against Nokhelal Sahu for commission of offence under Section 307 of
IPC. On lodgement of the report, the investigation was set in motion.
One Shivendra Singh Rajput, Police Inspector attached to Somni
Police Station took charge of the investigation. On 30.06.2021,
Jhunabai died, and information was forwarded to the Basantpur
Police Station. Accordingly, the offence against accused was altered to
Section 302 of IPC. Meantime, the investigation was handed over to
Sub-Inspector H. P. Devta. Mr. Devta then by completing the
formalities of investigation namely, recording the statement of
witnesses, drawing the necessary punchnama (s) etc. filed
chargesheet, before the Ld. Judicial Magistrate. The Ld. Judicial
Magistrate committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon.
The accused was put to trial. The defence of the accused was of denial.
On the appreciation of the evidence, the Ld. Sessions Judge,
Rajnandgaon arrived at the conclusion that the prosecution proved its
case against the accused beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly
the conviction and sentence was recorded against the accused. In the
3
appeal filed before the High Court, the High Court could not find any
error in the judgment and order of the Trial Court and accordingly,
affirmed the conviction of the petitioner and the sentence awarded to
him by the trial court.
3. Ld. Counsel for the petitioner made an attempt before this Court
to submit that there is no evidence against the accused and both the
courts namely the Trial Court and the High Court only on the basis of
the conjectures and surmises held the accused guilty. It was
submitted by Ld. Counsel, though the prosecution claimed witness
Arvind Sahu as an eye-witness, his testimony and particularly the
cross-examination clearly show that when Arvind Sahu reached the
spot Jhunabai was lying in an unconscious condition, as such he was
not an eye-witness to the incident.
4. Thus, the Ld. Counsel, prayed for allowing the Special Leave
Petition and to quash and set aside the judgment of the High Court of
Chhattisgarh.
4
5. We have heard the Ld. Counsel for the petitioner at length and
have gone through the material placed on record. It is true that the
prosecution, though claimed Arvind Sahu to be an eye-witness, in his
cross-examination he admitted that he had not seen the accused
slamming the head of Jhunabai against the wall and when he reached
the house of Jhunabai, she was lying unconscious.
6. In our opinion, though there is no direct evidence in the present
case, the other evidences in the form of circumstantial evidence, dying
declaration and medical evidence clearly established the case of
prosecution. The version of witnesses proves the following facts :
1. The accused Nokhelal Sahu was residing with his
grandmother Jhunabai;
2. The accused used to pick up frequent quarrels with his
5
grandmother Jhunabai for demand of money to buy liquor;
3. While the witness Arvind Sahu reached on the spot,
Jhunabai was lying in unconscious condition and accused
Nokhelal Sahu fled away from the spot;
4. By calling an ambulance, Jhunabai was immediately shifted
to District Hospital.
7. Now we may refer to the important evidence supporting the case
of the prosecution namely the testimony of PW-11 Doctor Sweta
Komarya. As stated above, the neighbours gathered on the spot and
called the ambulance and Jhunabai was shifted to District Hospital,
Rajnandgaon. Dr. Sweta Komarya (PW-11) attached to District
Hospital Rajnandgaon found following injuries on the person of
Jhunabai and she issued the injuries certificate Ex. P-10. The injuries
mentioned in the said Ex. P-10 are as follows:
i. Bruises over chin 5×4 cm approx by blunt and hard object.
ii. Swelling over chin 3×3 cm approx by blunt and hard object.
iii. Abrasion 1×0.5 cm approx over chin by rough surface.
iv. Bruise 4×3 cm approx around left eyes by blunt and hard
object.
v. Bruise 2×2 cm approx around right eyes by blunt and hard
object.
8. On the death of Jhunabai, an autopsy was conducted and the
6
autopsy surgeon Dr. Madhulika Manoj (PW-8) who has issued the
post-mortem report referred to the external injuries in her testimony
as follows:
1. Abrasion over left forehead (1 cm above left eyebrow) – 1 x
1cm.
2. Right eye periorbital ecchymosis seen.
3. Abrasion over right side of nose (1×0.5cm).
4. 3 contusions over chin (lacerated towards left (a) 2×1 cm-(b) 1x
lcm (c) 1.5 x1cm
5. Contusion over left shoulder tip 3×2.5 cm.
6. There was a blue colour mark at two places on the left side in the
upper part of the chest (a) 2×2 cm (b) 2.5 x 2 cm.
7. A blue mark on the right side of the chest 3×2 cm.
9. She further referred to the internal injuries, which are as follows:
“5. During the postmortem examination, I found internal
examination of the body of the deceased in the following
cases: 1 – Skull, Cranial and Vertebrae (a) Linear fracture
was found in the temporoparietal region on the right side,
Under scalp contusion was found which was 10×8 cm. (b)
Seal-subdual hemorrhage. 100 ml of blood was collected in
temporooccipital part, subarachnoid hemorrhage was also
found. (c) Blood was collected on the right side of the brain,
whose size was 1×1 cm. (d) Blood was collected on both
sides in upper part of rib, there was no fracture in rib, there
was no injury in lung, larynx and windpipe.(e) There were no
injuries in heart and pericardium (f) There was no injury in
membrane, intestinal membrane. No other injuries were
found in the rest of the internal examination.”
10. The cause of death as stated by PW-8 Dr. Madhulika Manoj is
due to the external injuries no.(s) 1-7 and internal injury on her body
and she further states that this injury was caused by hard and blunt
7
object. In her testimony before the court, she further states that the
cause of death of deceased is due to serious injury on her head and
may be of homicidal nature.
11. Thus, the prosecution clearly established its case that the death
of deceased Jhunabai is Homicidal one and the authorship of the
crime by the accused is established by the dying declaration.
Jhunabai was brought to the District Hospital on 29.06.2021 at 12:00
PM and Sub-Divisional Magistrate / Tehsildar and Executive
Magistrate, Rajnandgaon was called upon to record the dying
declaration. In her dying declaration, Jhunabai clearly states that
when she was alone in her house at the time of incident, her grandson
Nokhelal Sahu son of Pokhak beat her and tried to strangle her due to
which her health was deteriorated. She further stated that her
grandson i.e. accused Nokhelal Sahu often used to beat her. The dying
declaration of Jhunabai, in our opinion is trustworthy, reliable and
free from any doubt.
12. The detailed reference is made to the testimony of PW-6 Komal
Singh Dhurwe i.e. the tehsildar who recorded the dying declaration in
8
the judgment of the High Court (para 14). The High Court also
recorded that as the accused was residing with his grandmother and
on the day of the incident he was alone in the house along with his
grandmother, as such a burden lay upon on the accused to provide an
explanation for the unnatural death of Jhunabai, as proved under
Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The High Court found that there was
no plausible and convincing explanation provided by the accused so
as to discharge his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
13. Thus, considering these aspects, the High Court could not find
any error in the judgment and order of the Trial Court and ultimately
the same was confirmed by the High Court.
14. We see no reason to take a different view than the view adopted
by the High Court in its well-reasoned Judgment. As such the Special
Leave Petition being devoid of any merit deserves to be dismissed.
Accordingly, the same is dismissed.
.
………………………………….J.
[SANDEEP MEHTA]
9
…………………………………..J.
[PRASANNA B. VARALE]
NEW DELHI;
JUNE 18, 2025.
ITEM NO.14 COURT NO.12 SECTION II-C
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
Petition(s) for Special Leave to Appeal (Crl.) No(s). 9154/2025
[Arising out of impugned final judgment and order dated 18-04-2024
in CRA No. 2110/2023 passed by the High Court of Chhatisgarh at
Bilaspur]
NOKHELAL SAHU Petitioner(s)
VERSUS
STATE OF CHHATTISGARH Respondent(s)
IA No. 140098/2025 – CONDONATION OF DELAY IN FILING
IA No. 140099/2025 – EXEMPTION FROM FILING O.T.
10
Date : 18-06-2025 This matter was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SANDEEP MEHTA
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRASANNA B. VARALE
(PARTIAL COURT WORKING DAYS BENCH)For Petitioner(s) : Ms. E. R. Sumathy, AOR
For Respondent(s) :
UPON hearing the counsel the Court made the following
O R D E R
1. Delay condoned. The special leave petition is dismissed in
terms of the signed order.
2. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand disposed of.
(INDU MARWAH) (SAPNA BANSAL)
AR-CUM-PS COURT MASTER (NSH)
11