From Murder to Culpable Homicide: A Study of the Goverdhan vs. State of Chhattisgarh Case


Court: Supreme Court of India.

Case Name: Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation: 2025 INSC 47. [PDF]

Introduction

The Supreme Court of India's judgment in Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh is a significant case that addresses the complexities of criminal law, specifically concerning the assessment of witness testimony and the determination of culpability in homicide cases. The case revolves around an appeal against the conviction of two brothers, Goverdhan and Rajendra, initially found guilty of murder.

The judgment delves into the legal principles surrounding the standard of proof, the evaluation of evidence, and the differentiation between murder and culpable homicide. It highlights the significance of the trial court's observations, particularly regarding the demeanor of witnesses and the importance of practical considerations in applying legal principles.

This case also provides valuable insights into the treatment of hostile witnesses, the relevance of the First Information Report (FIR), and the impact of social contexts on witness testimonies. The Supreme Court's decision emphasizes the need for a balanced approach to criminal justice, ensuring the protection of the accused's rights while maintaining the efficacy of the legal system.

Case Summary

  1. The case originated from an incident on September 23, 2001, where Suraj was assaulted with an axe and iron pipe by Goverdhan, Rajendra, and their father, Chintaram. Suraj later died from his injuries.
  2. The prosecution's case rested primarily on the testimony of Santosh Kumar Mandle (PW-6), who filed the initial FIR, and Lata Bai (PW-10), Suraj's mother, who claimed to be an eyewitness. The FIR stated that the three accused attacked Suraj and also mentioned a previous altercation between Suraj and Chintaram about ganja.
  3. The Sessions Court convicted all three accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) for murder with common intention. However, the High Court upheld the conviction of Goverdhan and Rajendra but acquitted Chintaram.
  4. Goverdhan and Rajendra appealed to the Supreme Court, arguing that the High Court's decision to acquit their father on the same evidence should also apply to them. They also challenged the reliability of Lata Bai's testimony and other aspects of the prosecution's case.
  5. The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal, modifying the conviction of Goverdhan and Rajendra from murder (Section 302 IPC) to culpable homicide not amounting to murder (Section 304 Part I IPC). The court reduced their sentence to the period already served (10 years 3 months) and imposed a fine of Rs. 50,000 each.

Study guide

  1. Concurrent Findings: Understand the principle that the Supreme Court is hesitant to interfere with concurrent findings of fact by lower courts unless they are "perverse" or made "in ignorance of material evidence".
  2. Article 136: Recognize that Article 136 of the Constitution grants the Supreme Court wide powers, but these must be used sparingly for the sake of justice.
  3. Standard of Proof: Explain the standard of "proof beyond reasonable doubt" in criminal cases. It doesn't mean proof beyond all doubt, but rather proof beyond reasonable doubt, based on reason and common sense and free from speculation.
  4. Reasonable Doubt in Indian Context: Explore how the concept of reasonable doubt should be interpreted within the Indian social context, avoiding a cynical view of the law.
  5. Evidentiary Value of FIR: Analyze the value of an FIR, noting that while it's not substantive evidence, it is a relevant circumstance when proven by other witnesses, even if the complainant becomes hostile.
  6. Discrepancies in Testimony: Discuss why minor discrepancies in witness testimonies are natural and shouldn't invalidate otherwise credible testimony.
  7. Rustic Witnesses: Understand that the court must appreciate evidence from rural witnesses within the context of their environment and that they may have different patterns of observation.
  8. Hostile Witnesses: Explain that the court may consider parts of a hostile witness's testimony that are credible and consistent with other evidence.
  9. Interested vs. Related Witness: Explain the distinction between "related" witnesses and "interested" witnesses, emphasizing that a "related" witness isn't automatically considered "interested".
  10. Demeanor of Witnesses: Recognize the weight the appellate court gives to the trial court's assessment of a witness's demeanor.
  11. Recovery of Weapons: Understand that the recovery of the weapon of offense is not essential for conviction, especially with reliable eyewitness testimony.
  12. Testimony of Police Personnel: Recognize that the testimony of police personnel should be treated the same as that of any other witness.
  13. Realities of Life: Appreciate that courts must consider the realities of human behavior and the context of a case, avoiding technical and idealistic approaches.

Rationale

  1. The Supreme Court upheld the concurrent findings of the lower courts, recognizing the evidence against Goverdhan and Rajendra was beyond a reasonable doubt. The acquittal of Chintaram was not sufficient grounds for the acquittal of the appellants.
  2. The court acknowledged that Santosh Kumar Mandle (PW-6) turned hostile, but the FIR lodged by him was still relevant and his denial of seeing the accused was not believable. The FIR was considered a relevant circumstance and was proved by the SHO (PW-14).
  3. Lata Bai's (PW-10) testimony was deemed credible despite her being related to the deceased. The court found that she was not an "interested" witness with a motive to falsely implicate the accused. Her testimony was deemed natural and trustworthy. The trial court's assessment of her demeanor was also given weight.
  4. The court found that minor inconsistencies in the evidence were not sufficient to undermine the credibility of witnesses. Evidence from rustic witnesses must be understood within the context of their environment.
  5. Although the seizure witnesses turned hostile, the Investigating Officer proved the seizure memos which were admitted to be signed by those witnesses.
  6. The court converted the offense to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 Part I of IPC, determining that there was an intention to cause bodily harm, but not necessarily with the intention to kill.
  7. The court considered the realities of life, avoiding technical and idealistic approaches, while making its judgement.

FAQ

Q.1. What was the initial charge against Goverdhan and Rajendra?

Answer: Goverdhan and Rajendra were initially charged with murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), based on allegations of their involvement in Suraj's death with a common intention.

Q.2. What is the significance of concurrent findings by the Sessions Court and the High Court, according to the Supreme Court?

Answer: The Supreme Court stated that it would be cautious in interfering with concurrent findings by the Sessions Court and High Court. It would only reverse their decisions if the findings were perverse or rendered in ignorance of material evidence.

Q.3. How did the prosecution describe the events leading to Suraj's death?

Answer: According to the prosecution, Santosh Kumar Mandle (PW-6) witnessed Goverdhan, Rajendra, and Chintaram assaulting Suraj with an axe and an iron pipe. Santosh then informed Suraj’s parents about the assault.

Q.4. What key evidence was recovered based on the disclosure statements of Goverdhan and Rajendra?

Answer: Goverdhan’s disclosure statement led to the recovery of two blood-stained axes, while Rajendra’s disclosure statement led to the recovery of an iron pipe. Both items were recovered from Chintaram's room.

Q.5. Why was Santosh Kumar Mandle (PW-6) declared a hostile witness?

Answer: Santosh Kumar Mandle (PW-6) was declared hostile because his testimony in court contradicted his earlier statements in the FIR and under Section 161 CrPC. In court, he did not identify the accused as the assailants of Suraj.

Q.6. What was the main defense argument regarding the testimony of Lata Bai (PW-10)?

Answer: The main defense argument regarding the testimony of Lata Bai (PW-10) was that her version was inconsistent, and therefore, she was not a reliable witness. They also argued that her statement was recorded belatedly.

Q.7. How did the Supreme Court define "reasonable doubt" in this case?

Answer: The Supreme Court defined "reasonable doubt" as a doubt based on reason and common sense, not on mere speculation or possibilities. It is a fair doubt arising from the evidence or lack of it, and not an imaginary or trivial one.

Q.8. Why did the court state that minor discrepancies in witness testimony should not necessarily invalidate the testimony?

Answer: The court stated that minor discrepancies are normal due to varying human powers of observation, retention, and reproduction. It recognized that witnesses in a criminal trial are not expected to recall details with perfect accuracy.

Q.9. How did the court view the testimonies of Shatrughan Sharma (PW-5) and Verma (PW-9)?

Answer: The court viewed the testimonies of Shatrughan Sharma (PW-5) and Verma (PW-9) as influenced and untruthful. PW-5 was seen as being won over by Chintaram, and PW-9 was seen as having been influenced for similar reasons.

Q.10. What was the final verdict of the Supreme Court and under what section of the IPC were Goverdhan and Rajendra convicted?

Answer: The Supreme Court partially allowed the appeal and converted the conviction of Goverdhan and Rajendra from Section 302 to Part I of Section 304 of the IPC. They were convicted of culpable homicide not amounting to murder.

Conclusion

The Goverdhan & Anr. v. State of Chhattisgarh case provides a crucial understanding of the nuances of criminal jurisprudence, particularly in cases involving homicide. The Supreme Court's judgment reiterates the importance of established legal principles, such as the standard of proof beyond reasonable doubt and the careful assessment of witness testimony. The court's approach underscores the need for a balanced and practical application of the law. It also emphasizes the importance of considering the social context and the realities of human behavior when evaluating evidence. This case serves as a valuable guide for understanding the complexities of criminal trials, especially when dealing with conflicting evidence and hostile witnesses, thereby ensuring the fair and effective administration of justice.

Popular posts from this blog

SARFAESI Act and Civil Court Jurisdiction: A Landmark Judgment

Court: Supreme Court of India Case Name: Central Bank Of India vs. Smt. Prabha Jain Citation: 2025 INSC 95  (Reportable) Background of the Case The Supreme Court of India addressed a series of civil appeals concerning the interplay between the Securitisation and Reconstruction of Financial Assets and Enforcement of Security Interest Act, 2002 (SARFAESI Act) and the jurisdiction of civil courts. The central issue was whether civil courts can adjudicate on the validity of sale deeds and mortgage deeds when the properties are under SARFAESI Act proceedings. This was particularly in the context where a third party, not the borrower, claimed an independent ownership right over the secured asset. The lead case involved Smt. Prabha Jain, who sought to reclaim her share of family land, arguing that her brother-in-law illegally sold the land which was later mortgaged to the Central Bank of India. The bank argued that the civil court's jurisdiction was barred by Section 34 of the SARFAE...
Read more

Navigating Partnership Disputes in Arbitration: Bombay High Court Upholds Minimal Judicial Intervention, Tasking Arbitral Tribunal to Determine Privity Amidst Partner Succession and a Substitute Presiding Arbitrator Appointment

The High Court of Judicature at Bombay recently addressed a contentious arbitration petition,  2025:BHC-AS:11467 , arising from a dispute concerning the exit of the Petitioner, Darshan Mahendra Nibjya, from a partnership firm where Respondent No. 2, Jayantilal Tarachand Oswal & Ors., subsequently became a partner.  The core legal question revolved around the maintainability of the arbitration against Respondent No. 2, who contended that no arbitration agreement existed between him and the Petitioner. This issue came before the Court in the context of an application for the appointment of a substitute presiding arbitrator, necessitated by the resignation of the previously appointed arbitrator following allegations from Respondent No. 2. The genesis of the matter lies in the inability of the arbitrators nominated by the Petitioner and Respondent No. 1 to agree on a presiding arbitrator, leading to the initial appointment by a Learned Single Judge, an order upheld by the Sup...
Read more

Upholding Governmental Prerogative to Rectify Flawed Recruitment: Supreme Court Settles Assam Forest Constable Appointment Saga

Court: Supreme Court of India. Case Name: STATE OF ASSAM vs. ARABINDA RABHA. Citation: 2025 INSC 334 (Reportable) Background of the Disputed Recruitment The Principal Chief Conservator of Forest & Head of Forest Force, Assam, initiated recruitment for 104 Constable posts in 2014. The selection process involved a physical endurance test followed by interviews, notably without a written examination. A select list was prepared and submitted for government approval. Intervention and Cancellation by the Successor Government A new political regime assumed power in Assam in May 2016. The incumbent PCCF subsequently submitted a note highlighting serious anomalies in the selection process, including disproportionate district-wise representation and reservation policy violations. Based on this note, the Government cancelled the select list in July 2016 without any further inquiry. A fresh advertisement for 132 constable posts was issued in April 2017. High Court's Scrutiny a...
Read more