1 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 2025:CGHC:27211-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1784 of 2018 [Arising out of judgment dated 04.08.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.116/2017 by the Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.]  Gurubachan Chauhan S/o Late Ramkaran @ Puchangi Chauhan, Aged About 37 Years, R/o Kalgasa, Bandhpara, P. S. Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus  State Of Chhattisgarh Through P. S. Darima, District Surguja Chhattisgarh ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Viprasen Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent-State :- Mr. Amit Buxy and Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyers Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Deepak Kumar Tiwari Judgment On Board (24.06.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.06.30 14:52:57 +0530 2 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 short ‘Cr.PC’), the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant, calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 4.8.2018 passed by the Sessions Judge, Sarguja, Ambikapur (CG) in Sessions Case No.116/2017, by which, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under :- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 6 months Under Section 449 of the IPC RI for 7 years and to pay a fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, to further undergo RI for 3 months. Both the sentences will run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 25.05.2017 at about 8:00 am, the appellant trespassed into the house of his mother namely, Sagri Bai (Badi Maa) and assaulted her with a 3 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 brick, as a result of which, she suffered grievous injuries and subsequently died on 14.07.2017, after a period of about 41 days and thereby, the appellant committed the offence. 3. The matter was reported to the Police, pursuant to which, Dehati Nalsi was registered vide Ex.P/1. Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P/14 by PW-7 Rahul and FIR was registered vide Ex.P/01A & 01B. The inquest was conducted vide Ex.P/16 and the MLC Report was submitted vide Ex.P/20. Subsequently, the dead body of deceased namely, Sagari Bai was subjected to postmortem, which was conducted by Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-3), who proved the Postmortem Report vide Ex.P/12, according to which, mode of death was shock due to severe anemia, old head injury and cardio respiratory arrest. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/6), pieces of brick were seized vide Ex.P/7, which were sent for chemical examination to FSL and as per the FSL Report (Ex.P/24), human blood was found on the seized article (brick). 4. After due investigation, the appellant herein was charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offence and the case was committed 4 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 to the Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant /accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 5. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents. The appellant in his defence has examined Panduram (DW-1). 6. Learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned above, against which, this Appeal has been preferred by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellant for offence under Sections 302 & 449 of the IPC as the prosecution has failed to prove the offence beyond reasonable doubt. He submits that the appellant has been convicted solely on the basis of motive and recovery of the weapon. Furthermore, the extra judicial confession made by the appellant before PW-1 Brahmdev Singh, in the presence of Police, is not reliable and inadmissible in evidence in view of 5 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 Section 25 of the Indian Evidence Act. Thus, the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 8. Per contra, learned State Counsel would support the impugned judgment of conviction and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence. The appellant is not entitled for acquittal and the Appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and have gone through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative relying upon the Postmortem Report (Ex.-P/12), which is proved by Dr. Janeshwar Singh (PW-3), wherein, it was opined that the death was homicidal in nature, and we do not find any illegality in the said finding, 6 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 as the same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and the said finding is hereby affirmed. 11.Now, the next question is, whether the trial Court has rightly held the appellant to be the author of crime in question? 12. In the present case, the trial Court has found the following three incriminating circumstances proved against the appellant : (1) Motive; (2) Extra judicial confession made by the appellant before Brahmdev Singh (PW-1); (3) Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, pieces of brick were recovered, on which, human blood was found. 13. Now, we shall proceed to discuss/examine the aforesaid incriminating circumstances one by one to ascertain as to the involvement of the accused/appellant in the crime in question. Motive (First Circumstance) 14. As per the prosecution case, the appellant’s father and the deceased’s husband were brothers. The deceased’s husband had already died and the appellant was keeping an evil eye 7 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 over the property of the deceased to claim partition and as such, the appellant was having an ulterior motive which has been supported by the statements of PW-2 Chameshwar Singh and PW-7 Rahul because of which he assaulted and caused injuries to the deceased, as a result of which she died. 15. PW-2 Chameshwar Singh, in his statement before the Court has stated that after the death of deceased’s husband the land was mutated in the name of deceased, however, he has also stated that he did not know as to why the appellant assaulted the deceased and what was the motive of commission of offence and even he has nowhere stated that with regard to that land there was dispute between the appellant and the deceased, as such, in view of the aforesaid contradiction, it cannot be held that because of such dispute the appellant had motive to commit murder of the deceased. Further, in the statement recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C., PW-7 Rahul has stated that there was dispute with regard to partition between the appellant and the deceased, however, in the Court evidence he has denied that because of the land 8 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 dispute the appellant has assaulted the deceased. Thus, this witness has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. Even if for the sake of argument it is accepted that the appellant had motive to commit murder of the deceased, it is settled law that motive alone can hardly be a ground for conviction. In the absence of any other circumstantial evidence, motive would not be sufficient to convict the accused. The presence of motive in the facts and circumstances of the case creates a strong suspicion against the appellant but suspicion howsoever strong also cannot be a substitute for proof of guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. {See: Sampth Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri1} Extra Judicial Confession (second circumstance) 16. In the instant case, it is alleged that the appellant has made extra judicial confession before Bramhdev Singh (PW-1). However, perusal of the evidence of PW-1 (para 2 & 6) would show that the alleged confession was made in the presence of Police. 1 (2012) 4 SCC 124 9 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 17. It is settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that extra- judicial confession is a weak piece of evidence. Whereever the Court, upon due appreciation of the entire prosecution evidence, intends to base a conviction on an extra judicial confession, it must ensure that the same inspires confidence and is corroborated by other prosecution evidence. (See Sahadevan and another Vs. State of Tamil Nadu2). 18. In view of the above settled legal position, we are of the considered opinion that such confession is inadmissible in evidence in view of Section 25 of the Evidence Act. As such, on the basis of extra judicial confession the appellant could not be convicted. Recovery of weapon (last circumstance) 19. Pursuant to the memorandum of the appellant, pieces of brick were recovered, on which, human blood was found. However, there is no evidence on record to show that the pieces of brick recovered from the possession of the appellant were in fact used in commission of the offence. It was the duty of the prosecution to prove that the weapon of 2 (2012) 6 SCC 403 10 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 the offence recovered was the same which was used in commission of the offence. However, recovery of weapon would not automatically lead to the conclusion that the offence was committed by the accused. Furthermore, burden lies on the prosecution to establish a close link between discovery of the material objects and its use in the commission of the offence. (See Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen Vs. State of Rajasthan3). Therefore, the trial Court’s reliance on recovery of weapon based on the appellant’s disclosure is misplaced and the same is of no use to the prosecution. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid discussion, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has not been able to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal by giving him the benefit of doubt. 21. In view of the foregoing discussion, the Appeal is allowed. Conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant under Sections 302 and 449 of the IPC are set-aside and he is acquitted of the said charge. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender. The bail bonds furnished by the appellant shall 3 (2011) 11 SCC 724) 11 CRA No. 1784 of 2018 remain in operation for a period of 6 months in view of the provisions contained under Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 22. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Deepak Kumar Tiwari) Judge Judge Shyna/Ankit