1 2025:CGHC:31471-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 725 of 2021 Yamuna Pandey W/o Ishwar Pandey Aged About 31 Years R/o Ward No. 06, Lalpur, Bagbahara, Police Station Bagbahara, District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bagbahara, Civil And Revenue District Mahasamund Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr.Ravi Bhagat, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Saumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Justice Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 8/7/2025 1. The present criminal is presented by the appellant under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the impugned judgment dated 18.03.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, in Sessions Case No.34/2018, by which she has been convicted for offence under Section 302 (two counts) and Section 309 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2025.07.09 18:12:41 +0530 2 imprisonment for life (two count) and fine of Rs.2000-2000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month and simple imprisonment for one year and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo imprisonment for one month. 2. The prosecution story, in brief, is that on 20.12.2017 at 17.30 P.M., a first information report was lodged by complainant Janakram Sahu in the Police Station Bagbahra (Ex.P-3) to the effect that he is posted as a teacher in Middle School in village Lamkeni and in his house Ishwar Pandey lives with his family which includes his wife Yamuna, daughter Kumari Yamini and Kumari Leena since 2013. On 20.12.2017 the complainant had gone from his home in the morning to school at village Lamkeni. When he was returning home after school leave, his wife Shashiprabha called him from his mobile and informed that Ishwar Pande’s wife Yamuna Pandey and his daughters Yamini and Leena, who lived in his rented house, were lying in a blood soaked state in the bedroom inside the room of his house. On receiving this information, he immediately reached his home and went inside the house and saw Ishwar Pandey’s wife Yamuna Pandey, his elder daughter Yamani and younger daughter Leena Pandey all three were lying on the bed in a blood soaked state and Yamuna Pandey was breathing, there were cut marks on both her wrists and on her stomach. There were cut wound and the stomach of his younger daughter Leena was visible and splashes of blood were visible on 3 her body. Yamuna’s elder daughter Yamini had cut marks on her neck and hands and blood was visible at many places on her body. A mobile phone and a knife were lying on the bed. The bed was soaked in blood and splatters of blood were visible under the bed and a bottle of phenyl was lying there. In the hope that Leena and Yamini would be alive, they were brought to the Government Hospital Bagbahra for treatment where the doctor declared them dead. On the basis of above information of the complainant, FIR in Crime No.293/2017 for offence under Section 302 IPC was registered against unknown accused in Bagbahra Police Station and the case was taken under investigation. 3. Inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Exs.P-6 and P-7. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-8. Memorandum statement of appellant Yamuna Pandey was recorded vide Ex.P-9. Clothes were seized at the instance of the appellant vide Ex.P-10. Application written by the appellant was seized vide Ex.P-11. One diary was seized vide Ex.P-12. One steel knife black in colour, one steel knife red in colour, one bedsheet, blanket, bloodstained soil, plain soil, one mobile, two nos. steel blade, empty packet of popat namkin, suicidal note, latch of the door and charger were recovered from the spot vide Exs.P-13 and P-14. Postmortem of body of deceased Yamini was conducted by Dr.Yogank Chandrakar (PW-8) vide Ex.P-15 and found following injuries:- 4 “1. He did not open the skull, cranium, vertebrae, brain and spinal cord of the deceased because there were no injury marks or signs of disease in them. 2. There was a cut injury to the trachea which was caused by a sharp weapon. 3. There was symptoms of anemia in the right and left lungs and penitoneum percussium. 4. Small amount of blood was present in the right ventricle of the heard. 5. Symptoms of anemia were also found in the membrane of the curtain and intestines, due to which they had turned yellow. 6. A blood clot was found in the oral cavity. 7. Half-digested food was found in the stomach and a cut injury was found in the stomach, the size of which was 03 cm by 02 cm. 8. The large intestine was protruding from the abdominal incision. 9. Symptoms of anemia were found in liver, spleen and kidneys. 10. The urinary bladder was empty, no injury was found in the internal and external genitals. 11. None of the bones of the dead body were found broken.” The doctor has opined that cause of death was excessive bleeding and asphyxia which was caused due to cut injury in 5 huis trachea and vital body organ (stomach). The nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. 4. Postmortem of body of deceased Kumari Leena was conducted by the same doctor vide Ex.P-16 and found following injuries:- “1. He did not open the skull, cranium, vertebrae, brain or spinal cord of the deceased because there were no injury marks or signs of disease in them. 2. There were no cracks in the veil and ribs of the deceased, but they were pale. 3. There was a cut wound in the neck of the deceased, which was not on the trachea but was deep only up to the muscle layer whose size was 3 cm long and 2 cm wide. 4. The right and left lungs of the deceased were pale because due to bleeding both the lungs had been drained of blood. 5. The perion percarcinium of the corpse was also pale. 6. The right ventricle of the heart was filled with blood. 7. The old vessels was empty. 8. Abdominal curtain was pale. The intestinal membrane was pale and the sigmoid and cecum areas were damaged. 9. Blood clots were seen in the oral cavity of the deceased. 10. Half-digested food was present in the stomach of the dead body. 6 11. The small intestine of the deceased protruding due to cut injuries in the abdominal cavity. 12. There was a cut wound of size 3 by 02 cm in the sigmoid region of the large intestine of the deceased and a cut wound of size 02 x 02 cm in the cecum area. 13. The liver, spleen, and kidneys of the deceased were pale and the urinary bladder was empty, her internal and external genitals were normal. 14. None of the bones in the deceased’s body were broken.” As per opinion of the doctor, cause of death of deceased Leena Pandey was excessive bleeding, which was caused due to cut injury in a vital part of her body. The nature of death of the deceased was homicidal. Patwari also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-25. Clothes of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-30. The appellant was arrested on 10.02.2018 vide arrest memo Ex.P-36. Dying declaration of the appellant was recorded vide Exs.P-39 and P-40. Suicidal note written by the appellant was seized vide Ex.P-42. Suicidal note was sent for examination by the doctor vide Ex.P-43 where it was found that suicidal note was written by the appellant herself vide Ex.P-51. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report Ex.C-1, human blood was found on knife (Article A), knife (Article B), Bedsheet (Article C), blanket (Article D), cotton (Article E), top of deceased 7 Yamini (Article H-1), scart of deceased Yamini (Article H-2), gown (Article I-2) and scarf of the appellant (Article K). 5. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Sections 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short ‘the Code’) and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed in the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Mahasamund, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Mahasamund, from where the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund received the case on transfer for trial. 6. In order to prove the guilty of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses. Statement of the accused/appellant were recorded under Section 313 of the Code where she denied the circumstances appearing against him and claimed innocence and false implication in the crime in question and stated that her mental status is not good. 7. After affording an opportunity of hearing to the parties, learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above. Hence, this criminal appeal. 8. Mr.Ravi Bhagat, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment passed by learned trial Court is contrary to the facts and evidences available on record, hence, the same is liable to be set aside. Learned trial Court failed to overlook that present appellant Yamuna Pandey is mother of deceased Leena and Yamini and during incident, Yamuna Pandey was also found 8 in unconscious condition in the room, then how can be committed murder of her minor daughters deceased Leena and Yamani by mother Yamuna Pandey. Only on the basis of mere suspicion, the appellant has involved in a false case, which is illegal and unfair and hence the appellant may be acquitted. He also submits that perusal of suicidal note and dying declaration of the appellant goes to show that her mental condition was not good and he was suffering from mental illness on the date of incident. There is no eyewitness in the present case, who had seen the appellant killing the deceased. Learned trial Court convicted the appellant only on the basis of circumstantial evidence and chain of circumstantial evidence is not connected to each other, hence, the impugned judgment is not sustainable in the eyes of law. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 9. On the other hand, Mr.Saumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer appearing for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submits that conviction of the appellant / accused is based on circumstantial evidence. The prosecution during investigation recovered suicidal note of the appellant and also recovered dying declaration in which she has clearly stated that she has committed murder of the deceased. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and 9 proper and does not call for any interference by this Court and as such, criminal appeals deserve to be dismissed. 10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 11. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Ku.Yamini Pandey and Ku.Leena Pandey was homicidal in nature ? 12. The trial Court relying upon the statements of Dr.Yogank Chankarkar (PW-8), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Ku.Yamini Pandey and Ku.Leena Pandey vide Exs.P-15 and P-16, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Ku.Yamini Pandey and Ku.Leena Pandey was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby affirm the said finding. 13. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 14. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: 10 “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 15. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 11 16. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 17. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 18. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the 12 Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 19. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by 13 referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link 14 theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 21. In the present case, dying declaration of the appellant (Exs.P-39 and P-40) was recorded by Dr. Vivek Pandey (PW-17) and Dr.Seema Lata Binkar (PW-20). Dr.Vivek Pandey (PW-17) has stated in his evidence before the Court that on 21.12.2017 patient Yamuna Pandey was admitted in their V. Care Hospital, there was injuries on her stomach, both her hands and her neck. An application was presented to him by Sub Inspector Vivekanand Patel and Head Constable Bhuwneshwar Mishra to record dying declaration of Yamuna Pandey, which is Ex.P-38. As per Yamuna Pandey’s statement, her dying declaration was recorded by him in front of witnesses Pawan Kumar Pandey and Feerilal Pandey in which she told that due to family depression for last six years, her married life was not happy and due to mental depression, on 20.12.2017 at 12:30 A.M. she killed both her children with knife and then attacked herself on her stomach, hands and neck with the intention of committing suicide. Yamuna Pandey put her signature on parts B to B of Ex.P-39. Witnesses Pawan Kumar Pandey and Ferrilal Pandey had signed their respective signatures. 22. Dr.Seema Lata Binkar (PW-20) has stated in para 2 of her evidence that on 20.12.2017 she had received an application from the Station House Officer Bagbahara to record the dying declaration of Yamuna Pandey W/o Ishwar Pandey, on the same date, she was admitted to Yamuna Pandey to Community Health 15 Center, Bagbahara. Dying declaration of Yamuna Bai was recorded by her on the same day at 6.15 P.M. as per her statement. Before recording her statement, she was in a healthy mental state and was able to speak and understand. While recording her dying declaration, Yamuna Pandey had told that she herself had killed both her children Yamini and Leena with knife and had also injured herself with knife, but when asked the reason, she did not tell anything. She had recorded the above dying declaration of Yamuna Pandey in front of hospital employee Khemlal Sahu. 23. Dying declaration of the appellant states as under:- "मैं डॉ विेक पाण्डेय ने दोपहर 2 बजे ी के यर हास्पिपटल में थाना बागहरा जिजला महासमुन्द के उप विनरिरक्षक विेकानंद पटेल एं दुनेशर विमश्रा जी के कहने पर मरीज यमुना पांडे 30 र्ष) का बयान लिलया है। मरीज का कहना है विक परिरारिरक असाद विगत 6 र्ष/ से था। उसके पतित और उसका ैाविहक जीन सुखमय नही था। मरीज का कहना है विक उसका पतित उससे और उसके बच्चों से प्रेम करता था और ताने मरता था ऐसे मानजिसक असाद से पीवि7त होकर दोपहर 12:30 को विदनांक 20/12/17 को मरीज ने अपने दोनों बच्चों को चाकू से मार डाला (यं) एं आत्महत्या करने के इरादे से यं के पेट, दोनो हाथ और गले पर ार विकया। सही Dr. Vivek Pandey 16 मैंने यं से चाकू से दोनो बच्चो को याविमनी एं लीना को चाकू से मारा है और यं को भी चाकू से चोट पहुंचाया है. कारण कु छ नही बताया। यमुना पांडे अंगूठा विनशान सही Dr. S. Binkar" 24. Suicidal note of the appellant (Ex.P-42) was seized by the prosecution, which was sent for examination to the expert and the same was examined by Prakashchandra Trivedi (PW-21). Prakashchandra Trivedi (PW-21) vide Ex.P-51 has opined that questioned writings and signature have been freely smoothly written and there is nothing to suggest any sign of simulation in their production. The occurrence of these similarities in the writing characteristics cannot collectively be found in the writing of a person other than the writer of standards. These stated writing characteristics also cannot occur as due to accidental coincidence. He also do not find any material divergences in the writing characteristics between both the sets. Above mentioned similarities in the writing characteristics are significant and sufficient and when considered collectively prove his opinion of common authorship between the two sets. 25. During the examination of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC, she stated in question No.180 that she had lost her mental balance at the time of the incident. However, considering the information available on record in this context, it appears that on the date of 17 incident i.e., 20.12.2017, the appellant, who was a teacher, had sent a leave application to her school, purchased two knives from the local market and was alone at home with her two children when the incident occurred around 12:00-1:00 P.M. Given these circumstances, including her prior preparation and actions, it seems unlikely that her mental balance was disturbed. Instead, her actions suggest a calculated and deliberate approach to commit the crime, including writing a suicide note. 26. In the present case, the doctor has opined that death of deceased Ku.Yamini Pandey and Ku.Leena Pandey was homicidal in nature. The first circumstance shown by the prosecution against the appellant in this case is that the appellant was found with self- inflicted injuries on her neck, stomach and wrist in an attempt to commit suicide in the same bed with deceased Kumari Yamini and Kumari Leena in the room at the place of incident. The second circumstance shown by the prosecution against the appellant is the seizure of suicide note of the appellant and knife, blade and other property used in the incident from the room where the incident took place. The third circumstance shown by the prosecution against the appellant is the dying declaration of the appellant. The said statement of the appellant has been found to be in the category of extra-judicial confession and it has been found to be supported by evidence Dr.Vivek Pandey (PW-17) and Dr.Seema Lata Binkar. The fourth circumstance shown by the prosecution against the appellant 18 is the memorandum statement of the appellant and seizure based on it which has been found proved. 27. All the above circumstances shown by the prosecution against the appellant have been proved from the evidence available on record and it is found that when the above circumstances are taken together, their chain is found to be so completely constituted that under all human possibilities, the crime has been committed by the appellant. Evidence in this case shows that the deceased was given fatal injuries on neck and stomach with a sharp knife which resulted in their death. 28. Taking into the facts in totality and considering the facts and circumstances of the case, in our considered view the prosecution was able to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Learned trial Court has observed all incriminating circumstances against the appellant, which connect her with the instant crime and chain of circumstances are fully linked and completed with each other. Thus, the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the judgment of the trial Court is just and proper and does not call for any interference by this Court. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is just and proper warranting no interference of this Court. 29. In the result, the appeal being devoid of merit is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 19 30. It is stated at the Bar that the the appellant is in jail, she shall serve out the sentence as ordered by learned trial Court. 31. The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 32. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing her jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing her that she is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Bablu