1 CRA No.1657 of 2021 2025:CGHC:48261-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1657 of 2021 Prem Singh @ Raju S/o Garjan Singh Aged About 32 Years R/o Village Devri, P.S. Dharsiva, Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through S.H.O. Dharsiva, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Shikhar Bakhtiyar, Advocate For Respondent-State : Ms. Soumya Sharma, P.L. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 19.09.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2021, passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, Dist. Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 140/2017, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.23 12:27:09 +0530 2 CRA No.1657 of 2021 Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment and fine amount of Rs.2,000/-, in default, additional R.I. for 1 year Under Section 364 of the IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine 3 months additional R.I. Under Section 201 of the IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine amount of Rs. 1,000/- and in default of fine 3 months additional R.I. (All the sentences are directed to run concurrently) 1. Brief facts of the case is that, on 26/01/2017 at police station Dharsiva, complainant namely Surya Prakash Sahu (PW-2) has lodged a complaint against unknown person alleging that Keshav Ram Sahu, S/o Durjan Sahu (since deceased), aged about 7 years, is missing since 02:00 PM and on enquiry nothing came up and some one has taken him away from his family. Thereafter, on 30/01/2017 during police investigation, on the basis of suspicion, the accused/appellant was arrested and on investigation, he confessed that the mother of the deceased used to quarrel with his family about the wall, drainage, water outlet and due to this dispute and vengeance he has taken Keshav Ram sahu to his place and murdered him by strangulating his neck and thereafter set him on fire in the farm of Sattu Sahu. Thereafter, on the basis of information, merg was registered by the police vide Ex.P-24, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and FIR was registered vide Ex. P-3. 3 CRA No.1657 of 2021 After due investigation, police arrested the appellant vide Ex.P- 16. On the basis of memorandum the half burnt skull, teeth, spine, bones of hands and legs of the male skeleton were seized and sent for post mortem and in post mortem report it was opined that the male skeleton belonged to a boy whose age was between 6-7 years, who was strangulated to death and later burnt. 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 25 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was recorded wherein he denied guilt and examined one witness in his defense. 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. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the conviction dated 30.11.2021 is illegal and unsustainable as it rests on no legally admissible evidence. He further submits that the FIR shows the incident on 26.01.2017, while the memorandum of the accused was recorded only on 4 CRA No.1657 of 2021 30.01.2017 and the burnt bones were allegedly recovered from an open place after about five days, making the recovery highly doubtful. Further, the “last seen” theory based on the evidence of PW-6 Shiv Kumar and PW-7 Ishwar Sahu is unreliable as their belated statements were recorded on 30.01.2017, they appear tutored, and their depositions suffer from material contradictions regarding dates, presence of children and whether they had actually seen the accused with the deceased. He further submits that the memorandum itself is fabricated since, as admitted by the Investigating Officer, it was not recorded at the spot but later at the police station. He further submits that, the DNA test was conducted after an unexplained delay of nearly two years, thereby rendering it doubtful, and the autopsy doctor also failed to explain the cause, nature or exact time of death. Further, it was contended that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the chain must be complete in accordance with the five principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra AIR 1984 SC 1622, whereas in the present case the chain is broken, and as suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, the conviction and sentence are liable to be set aside. 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that 5 CRA No.1657 of 2021 the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant 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 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-15) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Smt. Snigdha Jain (PW- 9), who opined that the human skeleton that was examined was of a male child, aged more than 6 years but less than 9 years. With regard to the question of how long prior to the examination the skeleton had been burnt, she stated that no definite opinion could be given as to the precise duration. She proved her report (Ex. P/15), therefore 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 6 CRA No.1657 of 2021 record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 8. Now the next question would be whether the accused- appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ? 9. PW-2 Surya Prakash Sahu, first informant, who is related to both the accused and the deceased, stated that on 26.01.2017, when Keshav went missing, he along with his uncle Durjan Sahu (PW-3), father of the deceased, searched for him for some time and thereafter lodged the FIR (Ex. P/3). According to him, the accused Prem Singh had also joined in the search for the deceased and it was only after his interrogation by the crime branch that the incident came to light, when the accused allegedly confessed to the killing, concealment of the body under paddy husk and its subsequent burning in the field of one Sattu Sahu, from where skeletal remains were recovered. Further, this witness admitted that he had not himself seen the deceased being taken away by the accused, and though he mentioned in court that some boys had seen them together, he conceded that no such fact was disclosed either in his FIR or in his police statement (Ex. D/1). In cross-examination, he further acknowledged that his knowledge about the commission of the offence was only hearsay, based on what the police told him, and that he had not witnessed any incriminating act of the accused nor was he 7 CRA No.1657 of 2021 present during investigation proceedings except for the search. 10. Durjan Sahu (PW-3), father of the deceased, deposed that he knew the accused, he is his nephew. He further stated that the deceased Keshav Ram Sahu was his son, aged about seven years. On 26.01.2017, his son had gone to school to attend the Republic Day programme and had returned home at about 1:00 p.m. Thereafter, the child informed that he would play outside and went out of the house. PW-3 and his wife had gone to their field (Byara) for agricultural work and when they returned home at about 3:00 p.m., they found that their son had not come back. They searched for him in the neighbourhood but he could not be traced. He further stated that Surya Prakash (PW-2), lodged a missing report of his son Keshav Ram Sahu at Police Station Dharsiwa. The police came and searched for his son. About three days later, the burnt dead body of his son was found in a field situated about 1 to 1½ kms. away from his house. At this stage, the witness was declared hostile and in cross-examination, he stated that apart from lodging his statement with the police regarding missing of his son, he had no further knowledge about the incident. He denied the suggestion that he had come to know through Kotwar Roop Singh Chauhan that the accused Prem Singh had murdered his 8 CRA No.1657 of 2021 son. 11. Rupsingh Chouhan (PW-4) stated that he knew the accused Prem Singh, the deceased Keshav Ram Sahu, and their families, all belonging to the same village. On 26.01.2017, Keshav went missing after leaving home to play. He further stated that despite searches by family, villagers, and police, he was not found. He further stated that the next day, on being interrogated, the accused Prem Singh gave a memorandum statement (Ex. P-7) admitting involvement. Based on this, a Hero Jet bicycle and the burnt Skelton of deceased were recovered from husk and the same were seized in his presence. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he had come to Court along with Rajkumar, who is his nephew, and that being the Kotwar of the village he often visits the police station and has cordial relations with the local police as well as with the deceased’s father and with other villagers. He denied the suggestion that the village was divided into two factions or that he and Durjan Singh belonged to one faction while the accused and his family were in the rival faction, or that efforts were made to include the accused’s family in their group but failed. He further denied the suggestion that he was a stock witness of the police, that he had deposed in various cases at 9 CRA No.1657 of 2021 the instance of the police, or that on 27.01.2017 he had signed several documents in the police station. He clarified that on 26.01.2017 he had not seen the deceased child Keshav playing or going with anyone and that whatever he had stated about the child’s disappearance was based on information given by others. He also denied that any memorandum statement was made by the accused in his presence. He stated that after their arrival, the police interrogated the accused and a cycle was seized, though he could not remember its make, colour or inscriptions. He further denied the suggestion that the accused had absconded from the village after the incident, that he had conveyed any false facts to the deceased’s family, or that he was giving false evidence at the instance of the police due to previous enmity with the accused. 12. Shiv Kumar (PW-6), who is a child witness, deposed that on the day of the incident, at about 2:00 p.m., he and his friend Sonu were playing with a top (bhavra) near the Anganwadi centre, while the deceased Keshav was watching them play. At that time, the accused arrived on a bicycle, took Keshav along by seating him on the bicycle, and thereafter the witness and his friend returned to their respective homes. 13. Ishwar Sahu (PW-7) deposed that the incident occurred on 26.01.2017 in the afternoon when he was playing with a 10 CRA No.1657 of 2021 spinning top (bhaavra) near the Anganwadi along with Shivkumar, and that the deceased Keshav came there and was sitting while watching them play. He stated that at that time the accused arrived on a bicycle and took Keshav along by seating him on the bicycle. Thereafter, the witness returned to his house and, while coming home, saw Keshav (deceased) sitting on the accused’s bicycle. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that there were residential houses near the Anganwadi, including his own, and that people frequently passed by, although he did not notice whether there was any such movement at that time. He denied the suggestion that other children were also playing there at that time. He further clarified that he saw Keshav being seated on the accused’s bicycle but did not witness the accused actually taking Keshav away on the bicycle. He stated that he could not say whether Keshav remained on the bicycle or got down after he left. He denied the suggestion that he was giving false evidence in Court based on the statements of the deceased’s father or his own relatives. 14. Dr. Smt. Snigdha Jain (PW-9) deposed that on 31/01/2017, the body of Keshav Ram Sahu (aged about 7 years), was brought for post-mortem examination. The body was identified by Rajkumar, Roopsingh, and R. Kapil Chandravanshi. She stated that the body was brought in a white bag which was not sealed, 11 CRA No.1657 of 2021 containing charred bones, ashes, a burnt wire, pieces of burnt clothing, and a burnt button attached to a shirt collar. Upon examination, she observed that the entire body was charred, blackened, and cooked due to burning, with very little tissue remaining. Some tissue was adhered to the skull bones. The maxilla contained eight teeth, and all cranial sutures were intact. She noted the presence of a ligature mark on the burnt tissues of the neck, below the thyroid cartilage, on the right side and in the middle, measuring about 9 cm, and another mark at the back measuring 4.5 cm, which was also burnt at the base. Dr. Jain stated that other bones were charred, fragmented, and most tissues were unrecognizable. She preserved samples of burnt tissue, the wire with attached button and cloth, and femoral bone for chemical and DNA examination. She expressed her opinion that all the burn injuries were post- mortem, but the ligature mark indicated possible compression of the neck, which could not be ruled out. She further opined that the skeletal remains sent for examination were human, male, aged between six to nine years, though it was not possible to determine the exact time since burning. 15. In Babu v. State of Kerala reported in (2010) 9 SCC 189, the Supreme Court has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that chain is complete. In such case, the burden on the prosecution is 12 CRA No.1657 of 2021 always greater and the absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused. 16. In a case dependent on circumstantial evidence, the law is well settled that the chain of circumstances must be complete, conclusive, and exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra)). Here, the chain is broken at multiple points: absence of last seen witness, doubtful recovery, and no conclusive forensic link. 17. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab {(2012) 11 SCC 768} has held thus in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 & 15 which is reproduced hereunder:- “12.In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] a three-Judge Bench has laid down five golden principles which constitute the “panchsheel” in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [1973 2 SCC 793], it was opined that 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. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to lay down that 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; that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and that 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 13 CRA No.1657 of 2021 the act must have been done by the accused. 13. 13. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706], this Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,the following tests must be satisfied: “10...... … (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.” A similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 172]. 14. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp(4) SCC 259], it has been laid down: “4. ........that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional 14 CRA No.1657 of 2021 considerations, howsoever strong they may be, to take the place of proof.” 15. In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 11 SCC 436], while dealing with the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasised that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and further the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.” 18. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {(2023) 5 SCC 350} has observed thus in para 27:- 27. It is important to note that the cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to accused must be adopted. 19. When the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of such circumstances must, in all probabilities, point towards the guilt of the accused, and the circumstances must lead to such guilt and not merely may lead to it. 20. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon the 15 CRA No.1657 of 2021 testimonies of witnesses and the seizure of burnt body parts of the deceased. However, there is no direct evidence to prove that the accused was last seen together with the deceased immediately prior to the incident. On proper analysis of the testimonies of witnesses, it becomes apparent that the prosecution case suffers from serious infirmities and contradictions. PW-2, Surya Prakash Sahu and Durjan Sahu PW- 3, both close relatives of the deceased, admitted that they had not witnessed the occurrence and their knowledge was based only on hearsay. PW-3, father of the deceased, was declared hostile and specifically denied having any knowledge implicating the accused. Rupsingh PW-4, the Kotwar, also admitted in cross-examination that he had not seen the deceased with the accused, denied witnessing any memorandum statement, and was shown to be a police-friendly stock witness, thereby undermining the credibility of the alleged recovery proceedings. The only direct witnesses of last seen, PW-6 Shiv Kumar and PW-7 Ishwar, are child witnesses whose versions are inconsistent and uncertain while they stated that the accused had seated the deceased on a bicycle, they admitted in cross-examination that they did not see whether the deceased actually went away with him, leaving scope for doubt about their reliability. The medical evidence of PW-9 Dr. Snigdha Jain, though indicating a ligature mark suggestive of compression, is inconclusive and cannot, in absence of corroborative evidence, establish homicidal death beyond 16 CRA No.1657 of 2021 reasonable doubt, particularly when the skeletal remains were highly charred and unsealed. Most significantly, the mother of the deceased, being a natural and material witness to the child’s last movements, was not examined by the prosecution, which creates a serious gap in the chain of circumstances. In view of these infirmities, the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, and the accused is entitled to benefit of doubt and acquittal. 21. In view of these infirmities unsupported by any corroborative evidence, would be unsafe and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law. The absence of last seen, lack of independent corroboration, creates serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must necessarily enure to the appellant. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant, warranting his acquittal under Section 302, 364 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 22. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him under Sections 302, 364 and 201 of IPC cannot be sustained and are liable to be set aside. 23. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction 17 CRA No.1657 of 2021 and order of sentence is set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. Since the appellant is in custody, he be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case. 24. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC, the appellant is 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 two reliable sureties 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 appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 25. 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. SD/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Judge Jyoti/ Shoaib