1 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 2025:CGHC:28092-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 888 of 2021 Devan Singh S/o Parasram Aged About 50 Years R/o Village Shankargarh, Bhadapara, Police Station Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh --- Appellant (s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station In Charge, Police Station Manendragarh District Korea Chhattisgarh --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 1136 of 2025 Shiv Prasad Gond Alias Maitu S/o Late Shiv Charan Aged About 45 Years R/o Village Khairbana, Ahirapara, Police Station Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (Old District Korea ) Chhattisgarh ---Appellant (s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Sation House Officer, Police Station Manendragarh, District M.C.B. (Old District Korea) Chhattisgarh ---- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal, Advocate in CRA No.888/2021. Mr. Saurabh Dangi, Advocate in CRA No.1136 of 2025. For Respondent/State : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.06.27 18:16:32 +0530 2 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 26.06.2025 Challenge in both these appeals is to the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 20-07-2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya, in Sessions Case No.73/2018 whereby learned Court below convicted and sentenced the appellants as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 302/34 IPC Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.200/-, in default of fine, R.I. for one month 1. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 22.04.2018, Ram Singh(PW-1), who is neighbour of the deceased/Chandrabhan, informed the Manendragarh police station that in the night of 21.04.2018, Chandrabhan was murdered by an unknown person. On the said information, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1. Crime details form was prepared vide Ex.P-3. On 28.04.2018, in village Khairbana Sarpanchpara, when Devan and Shivprasad(appellants) were questioned by the police in front of witnesses Ram Singh and Janesh Singh, they accepted that they have killed Chandrabhan. On the basis of the memorandum of appellant/Devan Singh, the weapon 3 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 i.e. Tangi, which was used in crime was seized vide Ex.P-11 and on the basis of memorandum of appellant/Shivprasad, a plash was seized vide Ex.P-9. The Seized articles were sent to chemical examination to FSL. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/14), Dr. O.L. Barman (PW-6) opined that the cause of death is hemorrhagic shock, cardio-respiratory failure and the nature of death is homicidal. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 2. In course of trial the prosecution examined as many as 11 witnesses and exhibited 31 documents. to bring home the charges. The accused persons abjured the guilt; pleaded innocence; and false implication. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant- accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Mr. Hemant Kumar Agrawal & Ms. Saurabh Dangi, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that 4 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 there is absolutely no evidence against any of the appellant conclusively connecting them with the commission of crime. They submit that there is no eye witness in the case and no blood stain was found in the alleged weapon i.e. tangi, which has been seized. Learned counsel would further submit that the circumstantial evidence does not complete the chain nor an inference of guilt can be drawn on the basis of such evidence as has been brought on record by the prosecution. They further submit that the feature and ingredients of Section 302/34 of the IPC are not available in the present case. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be partly allowed. 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of 5 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. O.L. Barman (PW-6). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/14) and the statement of Dr. O.L. Barman (PW-6) that the nature of death of deceased was homicidal in nature, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 8. Now the next question would be whether the accused- appellants herein are the author of the crime in question ? 9. PW-1, Ram Singh, stated in his evidence that he know the accused Devan Singh and Shivprasad and also the deceased/Chandrabhan, who has died. He stated that on the date of the incident, at about 12.30 in the night, Dinesh who is the neighbor of deceased/Chandrabhan woke me up and asked me to go to see Chandrabhan/deceased. Thereafter, he went to the spot and saw Chandrabhan suffered injuries on his head caused by a tangi, due to 6 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 which, he died. However, in para 3 of his statement, he stated that the police did not take memorandum statement from the accused/appellants in front of him. 10. PW-2, Janesh Singh, stated in his evidence that he know both the appellants and also the deceased/Chandrabhan who died; and he know Ramvati who is his sister. On the date of the incident at about 12-1 a.m. in midnight, Ramvati (wife of deceased) came to his house and told him that Chandrabhan/deceased is not well. Thereafter, when he went to the house of Chandrabhan/deceased, he saw that Chandrabhan was lying dead in the verandah and blood was spilled there. After that, they narrated the incident to the villagers. However, in para 3 of his statement, he stated that the police did not take memorandum statement from the accused/appellants in front of him. However, in para 3 of his statement, he stated that the police did not take memorandum statement from the accused/appellants in front of him. 11. PW-11, Ramwati, who is the wife of deceased/Chandrabhan stated in her evidence that the deceased Chandrabhan was her husband. Accused Devan Singh is her brother-in-law and the accused Shivprasad is a resident of her village Khairbana. On the night of the incident, she was sleeping inside the house and her husband was sleeping outside the 7 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 house. She stated that on hearing the mumbling of her husband/Chandrabhan at about 12-1 a.m. she opened the door and saw that the her husband lying below the bed and suffering from pain. There was a cut mark on the ear to mouth of deceased. Thereafter, she called her neighbor Ramesh, but he did not wake up, then she went to call Dinesh, then Dinesh said to call her elder brother Ram Singh and told him that her husband had died and there were blood stains on the wall. 12. In the FSL report vide Ex.P-31, blood stains was found in the clothes of the appellant, however, no blood stain was found in the weapon seized on the basis of memorandum of appellant/Devan. 13. Admittedly, there is no ocular version of the crime, as no witness has seen the appellants committing the crime. Case of the prosecution, therefore, rests on circumstantial evidence. The principle as to when an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been propounded by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein it has underlined the conditions, which must be fulfilled for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and held in para-153 as under : 8 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the following observations were made: ‘certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’ (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 9 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 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.” 14. In a recent judgment in Nathiya Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore, (2016) 10 SCC 298, the Supreme Court has reiterated the above principles. 15. In Jonh Pandian v State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2010) 14 SCC 129 the Supreme Court has held that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be proved to be done in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. A systematic role played by each accused has to be highlighted. Similarly each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and such circumstances proved must form a chain of events 10 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 from which the only irresistible conclusion is about the guilt of the accused which can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis of the guilt is possible. Since the evidence of conspiracy is very hard to find and the prosecution would always have great difficulty in proving the conspiracy and, therefore, the conspiracy has to be inferred from circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. 16. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Sherimon v State of Kerala, (2011) 10 SCC 768 and held thus in paras 17 & 18 : 17. The gist of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two and more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. There must be meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding commission of the crime. In this case, no such evidence has come on record. PW-5 Biju, the employee of City Auto Finance at Moovattupuzha was the only witness examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged meeting between the appellant and the other accused. He has turned hostile. Therefore, there is nothing on record to establish meeting of minds between the appellant and the other accused. 18. Assuming that the appellant had 11 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 produced certain documents pertaining to the said auto rickshaw, it cannot be concluded on the basis thereof that he had entered into a conspiracy with A-1 to A-3 to repossess the said auto rickshaw because the loan amount was not repaid and in pursuance thereof A-1 to A-3 murdered the driver of the said auto rickshaw. The evidence on record is totally inadequate to come to such a conclusion. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the impugned judgment. 17. In the case at hand, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, as there is no ocular version of the crime. Except the memorandum statement, there is no other evidence against the appellants. Witnesses of memorandum statement have also turned hostile. Ramwati, PW-11, who is the wife of deceased, in her evidence, she stated that she was sleeping and on hearing the voice of her husband, she woke and went to the varanda, where the deceased lying dead and blood was oozing out from ear and face. She also did not see the person who assaulted the deceased. And, in the FSL report, no blood stain was found in the weapon alleged to have been seized on the basis of memorandum statement. Thus, this evidence alone is not sufficient to establish that the appellants were present at the place of occurrence. 18. In view of the above, there is absolutely no evidence against the appellants. There is no FSL report with respect to recovery of plas recovered from the memorandum 12 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 statement of appellant/Shiv Prasad, there is no other evidence of conclusive nature by which their guilt of committing murder of the deceased can be proved. In the state of evidence on record, the appellants are entitled for the benefit of doubt. 19. Accordingly, conviction and sentence imposed on all the appellants are hereby set aside and they are acquitted of the said charges. 20. In the result, both the criminal appeals are allowed. The appellants are in jail. They be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 21. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 13 CRA Nos.888/2021 & 1136/2025 22. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep