The High Court of Chhattisgarh set aside a 2016 acquittal and convicted two men for the 2013 murder of Dashrath Lal Khandelwal, finding that eyewitness testimony, a test identification parade, extra-judicial admissions and forensic evidence together established their guilt. The court sitting before Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru held that the trial court had erred in discarding unimpeached and corroborative material and ordered life sentences for the accused along with concurrent terms for attempted murder of the injured witness.
According to the High Court’s judgment, the attack took place on November 22, 2013 at the home of the Khandelwal family in Bilaspur. The prosecution’s case, as recounted by the court, was that two masked assailants forced entry, threatened the elderly couple and stabbed Dashrath Lal Khandelwal multiple times. He died of hemorrhagic shock from multiple stab wounds, while his wife, Vimla Devi, sustained serious abdominal injuries and later identified the accused. The police investigation included a test identification parade, seizure of blood-stained clothing and a knife, and forensic testing that confirmed human blood on seized items. The High Court accepted the injured eyewitness’s testimony and the corroborative forensic and discovery evidence when overturning the earlier acquittal.
In reviewing the appeal, the High Court applied established authority on the weight to be given to injured eyewitnesses and to Section 27 of the Evidence Act, which allows proof of facts discovered as a consequence of information received from an accused. The court concluded that the trial judge had relied excessively on conjecture and had wrongly rejected reliable evidence, including the injured witness’s in-court testimony, the test identification parade record, and recoveries made following admissions. On that basis the court found the acquittal perverse and interfered to do justice.
The court convicted the two respondents for murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced them to rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 1,000 each. For attempting to murder Vimla Devi, the court convicted them under Section 307 read with Section 34 and imposed ten years’ rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 200 each. Both sentences are to run concurrently. The accused were directed to surrender before the trial court within one month, failing which the court ordered that they be taken into custody for service of sentence.
The judgment reiterates that while appellate interference with an acquittal is limited, it is proper where the lower court’s approach is manifestly illegal or where unimpeached and convincing material is unjustifiably discarded. The High Court relied on precedent emphasizing the evidentiary value of injured eyewitnesses and the confirmatory value of recoveries and forensic results to support its view that the prosecution had met the standard of proof in this case. Legal practitioners will note the court’s careful application of Section 27 and its discussion of identity evidence and test identification parades.
Case Details : In ACQA No. 84 of 2016, titled Anil Khandelwal vs. State of Chhattisgarh and Others, the appellant is represented by Mr. Vimlesh Bajpai, Advocate. The respondent No.1–State is represented by Mr. S. S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Respondent No.2 is represented by Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate, and respondent No.3 is represented by Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate.
In ACQA No. 31 of 2017, titled State of Chhattisgarh vs. Vickey @ Manohar Singh and Another, the appellant–State is represented by Mr. S. S. Baghel, Deputy Government Advocate. Respondent No.1 is represented by Mr. Samrath Singh Marhas, Advocate, and respondent No.2 is represented by Mr. Arvind Singh, Advocate.