Injured Witness Testimony Cannot Be Discarded Solely Due To Relationship With Victim If Found Reliable & Coherent: Chhattisgarh High Court
The Court upheld the life imprisonment for father-son duo in brutal triple murder case, over a land dispute.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has held that the testimony of a related witness, particularly one who was also injured during the same transaction, should not be dismissed merely because of their familial connection to the deceased. The Court noted that if such a witness is naturally present at the scene of the crime and their statement is found to be reliable, consistent, and coherent, it carries significant evidentiary weight.
Accordingly, the Division Bench affirmed the conviction and sentence of two men found guilty of a horrific attack that left three family members dead and four others seriously injured. The Bench noted that the brutal nature of the assault, involving the slitting of throats and the use of chili powder to incapacitate victims, clearly indicated a premeditated intent to kill rather than a sudden impulse driven by a ‘heated passion’.
Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal concluded in the headnote, “A ‘related’ witness, who is also an injured 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 and the Court must assess the reliability, consistency, and coherence of his statement rather than labeling him as untrustworthy”.
Advocate H.S. Ahluwalia appeared for the appellants and Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer appeared for the respondent.
As per the facts, the incident occurred on September 11, 2020, between 4:00 a.m. and 5:00 a.m. in Village Joba, Mahasamund. The appellants, Parasram Gayakwad and his son Brijsen, entered the house of Oskumar Gaikwad armed with daggers, a crowbar, and chili powder. Following a long-standing land division dispute, the duo attacked the sleeping family, throwing chili powder in the eyes of Osram and his wife Jagriti before stabbing them. Jagriti Gaikwad, along with her children Tina and Manish, died on the spot after having their throats slit. Four other family members, including the complainant Oskumar and three children, sustained life-threatening injuries.
The appellants were originally convicted by the 1st Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, on June 18, 2025. They were sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302/34 of the IPC and 10 years of imprisonment under Sections 459 and 307/34 of the IPC.
They challenged this before the High Court, primarily arguing that the case was one of culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC, claiming the act was a "spur-of-the-moment" consequence of a land dispute and that they were falsely implicated to usurp property.
Considering the overwhelming medical and forensic evidence that corroborated the testimonies of the injured survivors, the Bench observed that the appellants had broken down locked doors to reach the sleeping children, which negated the "heat of passion" defense.
Medical reports from the Doctors confirmed multiple incised wounds and severed carotid arteries, proving homicidal death and clear murderous intent. Furthermore, the recovery of blood-stained daggers based on the appellants' memorandum statements provided a direct link to the crime.
“…The prosecution has successfully proven the charge of housebreaking, armed assault, and murder, supported by reliable witness testimonies and forensic evidence, including the seizure of 24 bloodstained weapons linked directly to the crime. The defense's arguments, including claims of a false implication due to a land dispute, have not been substantiated by any credible evidence or witnesses. Therefore, the appeal is devoid of merit and must be dismissed. The conviction and sentence of the accused are upheld”, the Bench observed.
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the criminal appeal, upholding the judgment of conviction and the order of sentence passed by the trial court. It directed that the appellants serve out their sentences concurrently as ordered. The Registry was further instructed to provide a copy of the judgment to the appellants in jail and inform them of their liberty to appeal this decision before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with legal aid assistance.
Cause Title: Parasram Gayakwad and Another v. State of Chhattisgarh (Neutral Citation: 2026:CGHC:18927-DB)
Appearances:
Appellants: H.S. Ahluwalia, Advocate.
Respondents: Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.