1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Reserved for orders on : 11.09.2025 Order passed on : 23.09.2025 CRA No. 421 of 2016 1 - Bhupendra Andhare S/o Joharlal Andhare Aged About 27 Years R/o Village - Bazarpara, Otekasa, Police Station - Kodekursey, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh 2 - Johar Lal Andhare S/o Late Sadaram Andhare Aged About 60 Years R/o Village - Bazarpara, Otekasa, Police Station - Kodekursey, Distt. Uttar Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh , District : Kanker, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Kanker, Distt. Kanker Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Ms. Indira Tripathi, Advocate and Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate For State : Mr. Afroj Khan, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench) Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C.A.V. Judgment Per; Amitendra Kishore Prasad, Judge 1. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.02.2016, passed in S.T. No. 68 of 2015, whereby learned Digitally signed by SHAYNA KADRI 2 Additional Session Judge, Uttar Bastar, Kanker, District – Kanker (C.G.) convicted each of appellants for offences as under : Conviction Sentence U/s 302 of the I.P.C. Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. U/s 201/34 of the I.P.C. Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-. In default of payment of fine amount, three months Additional Rigorous imprisonment. Note : Both the sentence shall run concurrently. 2. Facts relevant for disposal of this appeal are, that on the evening of 08.01.2015, at approximately 6:30 PM, the deceased, Niyaik Lal Sahare, a young boy aged about 17 years, left his home without informing any of his family members regarding his destination or plans. His sudden disappearance alarmed his family, who began searching for him late into the night and over the following days, extending their search efforts until 15.01.2015, but all attempts to trace him proved futile. The family was left in deep distress, not knowing what had happened to Niyaik Lal. On the morning of 16.01.2015, around 10:00 AM, Ganbhir Singh Sahare, a fellow villager, visited the family of deceased with tragic news, he had spotted a dead body floating in the old pond near the village. Upon receiving this information, the father of deceased immediately rushed to the site and was devastated to identify the body as that of his missing son. Following this grim discovery, the family lodged an unnatural death report at the local police station, Kodekursey. The police took prompt action, preparing an inquest panchnama and conducting a post-mortem examination to determine the cause of death. The post-mortem report revealed suspicious circumstances that led to the registration of a First 3 Information Report (FIR), officially treating the matter as a case of murder and initiating a full-scale investigation. 3. During the investigation, law enforcement officials uncovered critical information revealing that the deceased had been engaged in a secret love affair with the sister of appellant No. 1, Bhupendra Andhare, who was also the daughter of appellant No. 2, Johar Lal Andhare. It was further discovered that this relationship was opposed by the appellants, providing a possible motive for the crime. According to the case of prosecution, on the very day Niyaik Lal went missing, 08.01.2015, the appellants allegedly confronted the deceased and murdered him by strangling him with his own gamchha. After committing this brutal act, the appellants initially disposed of the body of deceased in a nearby new pond, but subsequently, with the assistance of Johar Lal Andhare (father of appellant Bhupendra), they transferred the corpse from the new pond to an old pond, presumably to mislead investigators and cover up their involvement. 4. The police seized the gamchha from the pond as crucial physical evidence. During the investigation, statements were recorded from witnesses Sagnu Ram Waddey and Nagesh Kumar. Initially, these witnesses denied having witnessed the crime when their statements were taken on 19.02.2015. However, on the following day, they altered their versions and claimed to have seen the murder take place. Their statements were also recorded under Section 164 of the Criminal Procedure Code (Cr.P.C.), lending them formal legal weight. The culmination of the investigation saw the police filing a charge sheet against the appellants under Sections 302/34 (murder with common 4 intention) and 201/34 (causing disappearance of evidence with common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). 5. When the matter came before the Sessions Court, the charges were duly framed, but the appellants pleaded not guilty and opted for trial. Throughout the trial, the prosecution presented evidence through examination of 14 witnesses and submission of 24 documentary exhibits. The trial Court placed significant reliance on the recovered gamchha, which was linked to appellant Bhupendra Andhare, as well as on the testimony of the two so-called eyewitnesses, Sagnu Ram Waddey and Nagesh Kumar, to establish the guilt of the appellants. Ultimately, the Sessions Court convicted the appellants for the murder of Niyaik Lal Sahare and the related offenses, sentencing them as mentioned above. Displeased with the verdict and the manner in which the evidence was evaluated, the appellants filed the present appeal, contesting the credibility of the prosecution witnesses, the legitimacy of the seizure, and the overall findings of guilt rendered by the trial Court. 6. Learned counsel for the appellants submit that the appellants are innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case purely on the basis of suspicion and without any concrete or legally admissible evidence linking him to the alleged offence. The entire prosecution case rests solely on circumstantial evidence, and it is a well- established principle of criminal jurisprudence that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances must be complete, consistent, unbroken, and should point only towards the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the chain is riddled with glaring gaps and inconsistencies. Notably, there is no eyewitness to the actual commission of the offence. The prosecution attempts to rely on the 5 testimonies of Saganuram Vadde (PW-4) and Nagesh Kumar (PW-5), who are dubious witnesses, their credibility being seriously undermined due to contradictions, omissions, unnatural conduct, and unexplained delay in disclosure. Specifically, with respect to Saganuram Vadde (PW-4), it is alleged that he saw the accused persons dragging the deceased toward the field on the relevant date. However, PW-4 is a chance witness, and his presence at the scene is highly suspicious and uncorroborated. The story of prosecution, as deposed by PW-4, that he recognized the deceased while driving his motorcycle due to the light from his vehicle, is untenable and unsupported by any technical or physical evidence. The motorcycle in question was never seized, and no mechanical report was placed on record to establish that its headlight was in working condition at the relevant time. Furthermore, PW-4 himself admitted in paragraph 11 of his Court statement that he could not see the face of the deceased and identified him merely on the basis of his jersey (half green and half red in color). However, as per the inquest report (Ex. P/3), the deceased was wearing a black T- shirt and black pants at the time his body was recovered from the pond, rendering version of PW-4 factually incorrect and contradictory. Additionally, PW-4 claimed that he was taking his daughter, aged 7-8 years, to the house of a Baiga in village Kondabudi at the time he allegedly saw the incident. Yet, the Baiga has not been examined by the prosecution, nor daughter of PW-4 has been produced or examined to support his claim, making his presence at the scene further doubtful. 7. Even more critically, as per the testimony of Lankesh Kuldip (PW-6) in paragraph 6 of his Court statement, PW-4 is not a married person and has no children, which directly contradicts claim of PW-4 of being 6 accompanied by a daughter. This contradiction strikes at the root of the version of prosecution and renders entire testimony of PW-4 untrustworthy and false. Furthermore, the conduct of PW-4 is unquestionably unnatural and inconsistent with human behavior. As per the statement of Prem Lal (PW-1), the father of the deceased, in paragraphs 10 to 13, a Panchayat meeting was held on 14.01.2015 – 15.01.2015 to discuss the missing status of the deceased. PW-4 and others were present at this meeting, yet he did not disclose that he had seen the deceased being dragged by the accused. This inexplicable silence on such a crucial matter, despite being in the presence of family and village elders, further indicates that story of PW-4 was a later fabrication, possibly after the arrest of the appellants. If he had truly witnessed such a grave act, he would have had no reason to withhold the information. The same applies to Nagesh Kumar (PW-5), who also did not disclose anything to the family of deceased or at the Panchayat meeting, though he later claimed to be an eyewitness. Both PW-4 and PW-5 were interrogated by police on 19.02.2015, and at that time, they did not claim to be eyewitnesses. However, on the very next day, i.e., 20.02.2015, their statements changed dramatically, and they claimed to have seen the incident. This sudden change, without any explanation, renders their testimony highly suspicious, manufactured, and unreliable. The prosecution has failed to offer any credible justification for this delayed disclosure or the sudden emergence of eyewitnesses more than a month after the incident. It is further submitted that the spot maps (Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/20), prepared respectively by J.K. Jangade (PW-12) and Patwari J.R. Tandiya (PW- 13), do not identify or mark the specific spot from where PW-4 or PW-5 7 allegedly saw the accused persons dragging the deceased. The absence of this crucial detail in the spot maps further erodes the evidentiary value of the alleged eyewitness accounts. 8. The appellant seeks to rely on the case of Ramesh Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh (Cr.A. No. 353/2019, decided on 24.06.2025) where this Court held that failure to identify the exact location of eyewitnesses in the spot map undermines the version of prosecution. The prosecution has also failed to establish any proximate and immediate motive behind the alleged murder. While there is vague reference to a love affair between the deceased and the sister / daughter of appellants, there is no direct evidence, complaint, or corroboration to establish that the appellants had knowledge of the affair, or that it created a provocation sufficient to lead to murder. The learned counsel for appellant places reliance on the judgment of Chunthuram v. State of Chhattisgarh, reported in (2020) 10 SCC 733 where the Hon’ble Supreme Court emphasized that motive, though not always necessary, becomes crucial in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence. Furthermore, the entire conviction is based on the seizure of one Gamchha, allegedly used in the commission of the offence. However, mere recovery of such an article, without forensic or corroborative evidence linking it to the act of strangulation, cannot form the sole basis of conviction. No blood, fiber, DNA, or other forensic material was found on the Gamchha. As such, the legal presumption drawn by the learned trial Court is misplaced and contrary to law. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Ravi Mandal v. State of Uttarakhand, reported in 2023 SCC OnLine SC 651 has categorically held that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute legal proof, and that a conviction based solely on 8 suspicion or incomplete circumstantial chain cannot be sustained. The learned trial Court has erred in overlooking the contradictions and inconsistencies in the prosecution case, especially the conflicting statements of PW-4 and PW-5, the lack of independent corroboration, the failure to establish motive, and the unexplained delay in disclosure of material facts. The reliance placed by the trial Court on these witnesses, whose testimonies are inherently unreliable, has led to a miscarriage of justice. The learned Court has also failed to appreciate the law laid down in Rajendra Prasad & Others v. State of Chhattisgarh (Cr.A. No. 1179/2015, decided on 01.07.2024) where it was held that inconsistent and belated witness testimonies without corroboration should be discarded in a case based on circumstantial evidence. In view of the foregoing submissions, it is prayed that this Court may kindly set aside the conviction of the appellants as recorded by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the conviction is based on weak, suspicious, and contradictory evidence, which does not satisfy the standard of proof required under criminal law. Therefore, in the interest of justice, the appeal be allowed and the appellants be acquitted of all charges. He further relies upon the decision of Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Baby alias Sebastial and Another vs. Circle Inspector of Police, Adimaly, reported in (2016) 13 SCC 333. 9. Learned State counsel opposes the submission made by learned counsel for the appellants and would submit that the appellants before this Court stand rightly convicted and sentenced by the learned trial Court for the heinous and gruesome offence committed by them, warranting no interference in the impugned judgment. The prosecution 9 has brought on record a complete and cogent case against the appellants based on unimpeachable evidence, which firmly establishes the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The facts of the case, as narrated in Crime No. 02/15 registered at Police Station Kodekursey, District Kanker, clearly reveal the nexus between the appellants, father and son, who, driven by a common and sinister motive arising out of their displeasure over a love affair between the deceased, Niyaiklal Sahare, and Ku. Seema Andhare (the sister of appellant No. 1 and daughter of appellant No. 2), combined their intention and acted in concert to commit the cold-blooded murder of the deceased. It is submitted that the appellants deliberately throttled the deceased by means of a cloth (gamchha), inflicting fatal injuries on his neck, and subsequently, to evade detection and destroy evidence, disposed of the dead body in a pond at village Otekasa. The prosecution has examined a substantial number of witnesses, a total of fourteen, and produced 24 documentary exhibits, including the memorandum statement of appellant No.1 (Ex.P/10), which led to the seizure of the incriminating gamchha (Ex.P/11), identified as the weapon used in the commission of the offence. These evidences, in their entirety, form a coherent and unassailable chain of proof, unshaken during the course of trial, thereby cementing the case against the appellants. The testimony of Nagesh Kumar (PW-5), a last-seen eyewitness, is crucial and credible. PW-5 categorically deposed that on the date of the incident, while he had gone to answer the call of nature near the pond, he saw the appellants forcibly dragging the deceased by the light of a motorcycle. His deposition before the trial court remained consistent and trustworthy throughout. 10 Likewise, Nilesh Badhai (PW-7) also lent material corroborative evidence. This eyewitness account was neither contradicted nor impeached in any material manner during cross-examination. The medical evidence, as established by the postmortem report (Ex.P/23) and the testimony of Dr. Manoj Kishore (PW-14), further substantiates the case of prosecution beyond doubt. The doctor found clear ligature marks measuring 10 cm by 3 cm on the neck of the deceased, consistent with throttling as the cause of death. The manner of death was found to be homicidal, confirming that the appellants intentionally caused the demise of the deceased by strangulation. The appellants have moved an application under Section 389 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, seeking suspension of sentence and bail. The basis of this prayer is their denial of the evidence of the last-seen eyewitnesses and other prosecution witnesses. However, it is submitted that such a prayer is entirely untenable and meritless given the strength and reliability of the prosecution case and the grave nature of the offence committed. 10. It is further contended by learned State counsel that the learned trial Court rightly framed charges under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code, which were duly contested by the appellants. After appreciating the entire evidence, including the testimony of fourteen prosecution witnesses and 24 documents, the Court rendered a well- reasoned judgment convicting and sentencing the appellants to life imprisonment on 01.02.2016 (Annexure A/1). The judgment is founded on sound legal principles and factual matrix, thus deserving affirmation by this Court. It is submitted that the prosecution has established its case beyond reasonable doubt through consistent, corroborative, and 11 unimpeached evidence. The testimonies of the eyewitnesses corroborate each other and the medical evidence, leaving no room for any reasonable doubt. Therefore, the judgment of trial Court is just, proper, and needs no interference. Considering the seriousness of the offence, a deliberate act of homicide committed in cold blood, and the fact that the appellants have been in judicial custody since 20.01.2016 without being enlarged on bail by the Trial Court. The nature of the crime does not permit leniency, and the interest of justice mandates that the appellants serve the sentences awarded by the learned trial Court. In light of the foregoing, it is prayed that this Court may be pleased to dismiss the appeal filed by the appellants affirming the judgment and order passed by the learned trial Court, thereby upholding the rule of law and delivering justice. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have also perused the documents enclosed along with the appeal with utmost circumspection. 12. During course of appeal, appellant No. 2 Johar Lal has expired and appeal in respect of Johar Lal got abated vide order dated 25.07.2025 passed by this Court. 13. Prem Lal Sahare (P.W.-01), is the father of the deceased Niyai Lal. In his evidence, he identified the accused and confirmed knowing his son, who died on 08.01.2015. Prem Lal described how his son went missing that evening, and despite searching and informing the village council, the boy was not found. About a week later, the villagers found a body in a pond, which was identified as Niyai Lal. Prem Lal saw the body after the post-mortem and learned from the police that the accused Bhupendra Andhare had murdered his son by strangulation due to a 12 love affair between Niyai Lal and sister of appellant No. 1. He admitted that he had not reported missing report of his son to the Police initially but had informed the village council. He acknowledged that the Police recovered a scarf belonging to his son from the pond, which was linked to the murder. Prem Lal did not witness the crime but confirmed the circumstances of disappearance of his son and death as told to him by the Police and villagers. 14. Sagnuram Vaddhe (P.W.-04) stated that in January 2015, he was returning to his village Otekta with his daughter after visiting a Baiga in Kondabudi village. Around 7:00 PM, near a pond turn, in the headlight of his motorcycle, he saw the accused Bhupendra Andhare, his father Johar Andhare, and one more person dragging the deceased Niyai Lal Sahare towards an open field. Although it was dark, he clearly recognized face of Bhupendra in the headlight and identified Niyai Lal not by face but by the distinctive red and green jersey he was wearing, which matched the one found on the dead body later. He did not hear any cries for help. Later, he learned that Niyai Lal had gone missing. He admitted his signature on the site map (Pr.P.7) prepared by the Police. In cross-examination, he admitted that the Police had taken him to Court and also acknowledged knowing Bhupendra from working together as teachers in a nearby village but denied any false implication, maintaining that he indeed saw the accused dragging the deceased. 15. Nagesh Kumar (P.W.-05) stated that on the date of incident, around 7:00 PM, he had gone to the pond for defecation. While returning, he saw in the headlight of a motorcycle that the accused Bhupendra Andhare and his father Johar Andhare were dragging Niyai Lal through 13 a field, holding him by both hands, towards a bamboo boundary. He later found out that dead body of Niyai Lal was recovered from the pond. He identified the accused. In cross-examination, he admitted that he went to the magistrate about 1.5 months after the body was found, on Police request, and was taken there by Police. He also admitted that although he knew about the incident from the beginning, he did not inform the family of deceased for over a month. He maintained that he saw the accused dragging the deceased but he did not hear any cries for help at the time of the incident. In short, his evidence supports the case of prosecution as an eyewitness, but delays in disclosure and Police involvement raise questions about reliability. 16. Lankesh Kuldeep (P.W.-06) stated that he knew the deceased Niyai Lal, who was his neighbor, and was aware of romantic relationship of Niyai Lal with Seema Andhare, sister of the accused Bhupendra Andhare. He learned about the body of deceased when a villager informed the community, and he went to see the body along with others. He gave a statement before the Judicial Magistrate, but could not recall the exact date. Lankesh admitted that Niyai Lal himself had told him about his relationship with Seema, but Lankesh did not inform anyone, including the parents of deceased, until about a month after the body was found. He admitted that he did not see the murder and did not know who was responsible. Evidence of Lankesh mainly relates to the love affair of victim and his knowledge after the body was found; he did not witness the crime itself. 17. Sub-Inspector J.K. Jagde (P.W.-12) was stationed at Kodakur Police Station at the time of the incident. He registered the murder case (FIR 14 No. 2/15) against unknown accused based on the post-mortem report of the deceased Niyai Lal Sahare. He personally prepared the site map of the crime scene based on the guidance of witness Sagnuram Wadde and coordinated with the medical officer regarding the possibility of strangulation using the seized gamchha (scarf). He recorded the memorandum statement of the accused Bhupendra Andhare, who confessed to strangling Niyai Lal with a gamchha near the new pond and hiding the gamchha in the pond mud. The seized gamchha was taken into evidence. During the investigation, he recorded statements of several witnesses under Section 164 Cr.P.C. and arrested the accused with witnesses present. He also filed the final charge-sheet in Court. He clarified that the incident occurred near the new pond, while the body was found in the old pond about one kilometer away. He explained delays in filing the FIR as the post- mortem report was received shortly before FIR registration. He stated that the confession of accused was recorded in the presence of witnesses at the crime site. This witness provided key procedural and investigative evidence, including the confession and seizure from accused of crucial evidence, supporting the case of prosecution. 18. Patwari J.R. Tandia (P.W.-13) is an official responsible for revenue matters in the area. He testified that under orders from the Tehsildar of Durgukondal, he visited the village Otekasa to prepare a rough sketch map (Exhibit P-20) of the crime scene based on the witnesses' descriptions. He also prepared a report (Exhibit P-21) and sent these documents along with a letter (Exhibit P-22) to the Police station in Kodekurse. He confirmed that there are two ponds in the village, an old and a new one, and stated that his sketch was of the old pond where 15 the body was found. He admitted he did not label the pond by name on the map because witnesses did not provide this detail. He also did not indicate the direction of the body on the map as no witness specified it. He denied the claim that he did not prepare the map at the scene. 19. Dr. Manoj Kishore (P.W.-14), is the Medical Officer at the Community Health Centre, conducted the postmortem of the deceased Niyailal Sahare on 17.01.2015. He observed external injuries including a ligature mark around the neck and broken thyroid cartilage, indicating strangulation as the cause of death due to airway obstruction. Internally, the lungs were congested, and the body was in a moderate state of decomposition, estimated to be 8-10 days after death. The body was found drowned, which likely slowed decomposition. Dr. Kishore also examined a seized green cotton scarf (gamchha) with signs of use and concluded it could have been used to strangle the deceased. Overall, his medical opinion was that the death was homicidal, caused by strangulation followed by drowning. 20. The gravity of the charge, homicidal death by throttling followed by concealment of the body, and the concomitant life sentence demand that the prosecution case be scrutinised with the utmost care. The law requires proof beyond reasonable doubt; where the case rests, as here, significantly on eyewitness and circumstantial material the Court must ensure the chain of evidence is complete, consistent and leaves no reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The present record, on careful and anxious consideration, shows that the prosecution has not discharged that burden. 21. Even though P.W.-04 (Sagnuram Badde), P.W.-05 (Nagesh Kumar), and P.W.-06 (Lankesh Kuldeep) claimed to be eyewitnesses, none 16 disclosed the incident to the family or police for more than one and a half months. Their statements under Section 164 Cr.P.C. were recorded after this undue delay. Such belated disclosure raises serious doubts regarding the credibility of their version. Sagnuram Badde (P.W.-04) admitted that he identified the deceased only by a red-green jersey, whereas the inquest panchnama records the deceased was wearing a black-red jersey. He further claimed he was accompanied by his daughter, but Lankesh Kuldeep (P.W.-06) admitted that Sagnuram Badde (P.W.-04) was unmarried and had no children. This contradiction strikes at the root of his testimony. Nagesh Kumar (P.W.-05) admitted in cross-examination that he saw the incident but did not inform anyone for more than a month. Such conduct is wholly unnatural and inconsistent with ordinary human behavior. Lankesh Kumar (P.W.-06) admitted that he had no knowledge of who killed the deceased and only referred vaguely to an alleged love affair. He too remained silent for over a month before recording his statement. These inconsistencies render their testimonies unreliable and unworthy of acceptance. Equally, where the case rests on the testimony of eyewitnesses, their presence at the scene, capacity to perceive what they claim to have perceived, and promptness and consistency in disclosing material facts carry decisive weight. 22. The spot maps (Ex. P/7 and Ex. P/20) do not specify the place from where P.W.-04 or P.W.-05 allegedly saw the incident. No independent witnesses were examined, such as the Baiga or villagers present at the Panchayat meeting, though they could have corroborated crucial facts. The prosecution attempted to suggest that the deceased was killed due to a love affair with the sister of appellant Bhupendra. However, no 17 direct evidence was adduced to prove that appellants were aware of this affair or that it provided sufficient motive for committing murder. 23. As held by Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Chunthuram (Supra), motive assumes importance in a case based on circumstantial evidence. Relevant paragraph is quoted below for ready reference : “17. On the motive aspect, the land dispute was finally decided and it was stated by Mahtoram, PW 1 (father of the deceased) that Sildhar was murdered when the said land dispute was still pending. If this be the situation, without any further material to show any proximate and immediate motive for the crime, it would be difficult to accept the cited motive, to support the conviction.” 24. In this case, motive remains wholly unproved. The alleged recovery of the gamchha is of no evidentiary value. No forensic evidence such as blood, DNA, or fiber was found to link it with the offence. Mere recovery, without corroborative scientific proof, cannot be treated as conclusive. 25. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Ravi Mandal (Supra) has observed that suspicion, however grave, cannot substitute proof and has held as under : “25. Assuming that we accept the explanation for the delay in making the disclosure, considering the place and time of occurrence, the presence of PW-2 at the spot does not appear natural, particularly, at that odd hour of the night. To explain his presence at the scene of crime, PW-2 stated that his parents stay at another place in Mohalla Khatta and, therefore, to meet them he visited them that fateful night and on way return he could witness the incident. During cross examination, PW-2 stated that he usually takes dinner at 2100 Hours with his family; and that he used to visit his 18 parents at least once a week. According to PW-2, that fateful night he left his house to visit his parents after having dinner in his own house and on way return, at 0030 Hours he witnessed the incident. This explanation is not confidence inspiring, particularly, because his parents have not been interrogated or examined to corroborate PW-2's visit to their house at that odd hour of the night. In our view, PW- 2 is a mere chance witness, whose presence at the spot, at that hour, is not satisfactorily explained therefore, bearing in mind that he kept silent for unusually long i.e. for more than three and a half months, his testimony is not worthy of any credit. In our view, the courts below erred by placing reliance on his testimony. 26. As regards the testimony of PW-5 (Mahender Khurana) he too, is a chance witness. As to when testimony of a chance witness could be relied, the law is settled, which is, that the evidence of a chance witness requires a very cautious and close scrutiny and a chance witness must adequately explain his presence at the place of occurrence. Deposition of a chance witness whose presence at the place of incident remains doubtful should be discarded (See : Rajesh Yadav v. State of Uttar Pradesh [(2022) 12 SCC 200]; and, Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab [(2009) 9 SCC 719]. 27. The explanation offered by PW-5 for his presence at the spot at that odd hour appears false. According to PW-5, he was having an upset stomach, therefore, while watching a night show of a movie, to attend to nature's call, he came out of the cinema hall and, while he was easing himself, he got the chance to witness the incident. It be noted that the investigating officer (PW-10) and PW-7, a gram vendor in that cinema hall, have deposed that there are toilets in 19 the cinema hall where no money is charged for their use. This falsifies the explanation of PW-5 that he went out of the cinema hall to ease himself because cinema hall charged money for use of the toilet. Otherwise also, PW-10 (the investigating officer) in his deposition had stated that he was not shown the place where PW-5 squatted to ease himself.” 26. In the matter of Rajendra Prasad (Supra), this Court held that belated, inconsistent testimonies without corroboration must be discarded in cases based on circumstantial evidence. Relevant paragraph of the said judgment is quoted hereunder : 14. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is quite vivid that Devnath Jangde (PW-4), who is a chance witness, had gone to meet deceased Bharat @ Bhupendra, but even after witnessing that the three accused/appellants herein were sitting on the chest of Bharat and assaulting him by fist and strangulating his neck with the help of a towel (gamcha), Devnath Jangde (PW- 4) did not make any attempt to save his life or to inform the police immediately in order to rescue him and even thereafter, he left the place in question and remained busy in perform his daily pursuits and also did not inform to his wife (wife of the deceased) from whom he enquired about the deceased making his conduct highly unnatural and a person of questionable character. More particularly, Devnath Jangde (PW-4) has not reported the matter to the police or to any authority or to any person and he only informed the police after recording the FIR with a delay of more than eight months which makes his statement unworthy of acceptance. As per the statement of Devnath Jangde (PW-4), he has informed about the incident to Yogesh – brother of deceased Bharat, but Yogesh Kumar Ratre – brother of deceased 20 Bharat, has been examined as PW-2, but he did not say that he was informed by Devnath Jangde (PW-4), however, Yogesh (PW-2) also did not inform to the police or to his another brother Jivrakhan Ratre (PW- 1) and somehow, Jivrakhan Ratre (PW-1) informed the matter to the police. As such, it is quite established that the prosecution has failed to establish the death of deceased Bharat @ Bhupendra to be homicidal in nature and further failed to establish that the three appellants herein were the authors of the crime. Merely on the basis of the statement of Devnath Jangde (PW-4), who is a chance witness and whose conduct is questionable and highly unnatural he being a person of questionable character and who had given statement only after eight months of the date of incident, it would be highly unsafe to accept his evidence and to maintain conviction of the three appellants herein that too for an offence of murder. Furthermore, the trial Court has recorded that the motive of the offence is also established beyond reasonable doubt, as there is no proximate enmity between the appellants herein and the deceased. As such, we are of the opinion that the appellants are entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.” 27. Similarly, this Court, in the matter of Ramesh Kumar Sahu (Supra) has held as under : “17.4 Having thus seen the conduct of Anjora Bai (PW-2) in the light of the legal position adumbrated above, this Court has no hesitation to say that she cannot at all be termed as an eyewitness to the incident. It is particularly when the spot map (Ex.P-4) also does not show as to where in fact this witness was standing at the relevant time so as to arrive at a conclusion whether the incident could be seen from the place she was at. It has time 21 an again been reiterated by the Supreme Court that the site plan is not a mere formality and it is an essential feature to highlight the importance of the site plan. Relying upon several judicial pronouncements of the Supreme Court in this regard, the co-ordinate Bench of this Court in Shingara Singh (supra) has held as under:- “29. The evidence on record with regard to the existence of cots in the court-yard of Gurdeep Singh, the existence of a bicycle, as also about the existence of a ladder is rather unsatisfactory and creates a serious doubt as to whether the prosecution witnesses are telling the truth. The omission to show them in both the site plans cannot be attributed to a mere lapse on the part of the investigating agency. In fact so far as the site plans are concerned, the case of the prosecution is that they were prepared in the presence of PW 5 and another witness and on their pointing. However, PW 5 denied that the plans were prepared in his presence. The other witness was not examined.” 14. Similarly in the case of Baldev Singh (supra) it has been held by the Supreme Court that site plan is not a mere formality and it is essential feature to highlight the importance of the site plan and held as under : “13…..The site plan prepared by Arvind Khare does not show the presence of cycles or the bushes although the site plan mentions the place wherefrom the two witnesses claim to have seen the incident.” 15. Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Criminal Trials Guidelines Regarding Inadequacies and 22 Deficiencies, In Re Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh (supra), in para-3, has issued the following guidelines regarding site plan: “3. SCENE MAHAZAR/ SPOT PANCHANAMA i. A site plan of the place of occurrence of an incident shall be appended by the Investigating Officer to the scene mahazar or spot panchnama. ii. The site plan shall be prepared by the Investigating Officer by hand, and shall disclose a. the place of occurrence, b. the place where the body (or bodies) was / were found, c. the place where material exhibits and/or weapons, 20 d. blood stains and/or body fluids had fallen, e. the place where bullet shells, if any, were found or have caused impact, f. the source of light, if any and g. adjoining natural and man-made structures or features such as walls, pits, fences, trees/bushes, if any and h. elevation of structures and their location. iii. iii. The preparation of this sketch by the Investigating Officer shall be followed by a scaled site plan prepared by police draftsman, if available, or such other authorized or nominated draftsman by the State Government, who shall prepare the scaled site plan after visiting the spot. 23 iv. The relevant details in the mahazar or panchnama shall be marked and correlated in the said site plan.” 28. In the present case, the prosecution evidence suffers from inherent contradictions, unexplained delay, and lack of corroboration, failing to complete the chain of circumstances. In such circumstances the settled rule that `suspicion howsoever grave cannot take the place of proof’ applies squarely. The theory of prosecution, instead of being the only plausible one, is but one of several possibilities; that insuffices to sustain a criminal conviction predicated on proof beyond reasonable doubt. The so-called eyewitnesses (P.W.-04, P.W.-05, and P.W.-06) are wholly unreliable. Their conduct is unnatural, their statements were recorded after an unexplained delay of one and a half months, and their evidence is marred by contradictions and inconsistencies. The alleged motive has not been established. The recovery of the gamchha does not inspire confidence in the absence of forensic corroboration. 29. For the foregoing reasons, the Court is satisfied that the conviction recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge cannot be sustained. The trial Court erred in placing decisive reliance on witnesses whose credibility was materially impaired and whose accounts were belated and uncorroborated, and in elevating the recovery of the gamchha to a conclusive link without forensic substantiation 30. This Court is of the considered view that the conviction of appellant Bhupendra Andhare under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Uttar Bastar, Kanker, District – Kanker (C.G.) in S.T. No. 68/2015 is unsustainable. The trial Court fell 24 in error in convicting the appellant solely on weak and suspicious testimony. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 31. The judgment of conviction and sentence dated 01.02.2016 passed in S.T. No. 68/2015 is hereby set aside. Appellant Bhupendra Andhare is acquitted of all charges under Sections 302 and 201/34 of the I.P.C. Since appellant No. 2 Johar Lal Andhare has expired, the appeal in his respect already stands abated vide order dated 25.07.2025. 32. Accordingly, this Criminal Appeal is allowed. 33. The appellant - Bhupendra Andhare is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of CR.P.C., the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Cr.P.C. of sum of Rs. 25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the trial 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 appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 34. Registry is directed to transmit the lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Shayna