1 NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1706 of 2019 Judgment Reserved on 25.06.2025 Judgment Delivered on 08.07.2025 1 - Ramprasad Nareti S/o Ramsai Nareti Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Dodade, Police Station Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ramsai Nareti S/o Late Chaituram Aged About 48 Years R/o Village Dodade, Police Station Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Durgukondal, District North Bastar Kanker Chhattisgarh. ---- Respondent For Appellants : Mr. Santosh Bharat, Advocate For State : Mr. Ajay Pandey, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Justice Smt. Rajani Dubey & Hon'ble Justice Shri Amitendra Kishore Prasad CAV Judgment Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants herein under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29.05.2019 passed in Sessions Trial No.10/2018 by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratappur, District Uttar Bastar Kanker, C.G., by which the appellants stand convicted & sentenced as under:- Conviction of Appellant No.1 Ramprasad Nareti Sentence Under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for six months Under Section 201 read with 34 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for six months (Both sentences of appellant No.1 were directed to run concurrently) Conviction of Appellant No.2 Ramsai Nareti Sentence Under Section 201 read with 34 of IPC Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.500/- each, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for six months 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 27.11.2017 at about 11:00 PM, at Village Dodde, within the jurisdiction of Police Station 3 Durgukondal, the accused persons, due to an old land dispute with the deceased, Ram Singh Nareti (hereinafter referred to as "the deceased"), entered into a criminal conspiracy and in furtherance of their common intention, committed his murder. It is alleged that the accused persons assaulted the deceased with a stick and a hoe, causing grievous injuries to his head and face, as a result of which, he died on the spot. Thereafter, with the intention of shielding themselves from legal consequences, the accused persons took the dead body to the deceased's house and misinformed the villagers that he had died due to vomiting and diarrhoea. In furtherance of their design to destroy evidence and suppress the true cause of death, the accused persons allegedly facilitated the cremation of the body without reporting the matter to the police and without any post-mortem examination being conducted. It is further alleged that the accused persons also criminally intimidated the wife and son of the deceased by threatening to kill them if they disclosed the true facts to anyone or lodged a complaint with the police. On the basis of the above allegations, the accused persons were charged with offences punishable under Sections 120-B, 302/34, 201/34, and 506 (Part II) of the Indian Penal Code. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that following the death of the deceased, informant- Nohar Singh lodged an oral report at Police Station Durgukondal, alleging that on the night of 27.11.2017, at around 11:00 PM, due to old land dispute, appellant No.1 abused 4 the deceased and assaulted him on his head with a wooden stick and committed his murder and kept the dead body of deceased in his house (deceased's house). Based on the above information, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-5, FIR was lodged against accused persons vide Ex.P-53 and spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-32. Dead body’s identification panchnama (Ex.P-2), Identification panchnama (Ex.P-21) & inquest proceedings (Ex.P-10) were conducted and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-11 Dr. Nand Kishor Sidar, who has proved the postmortem report Ex.P-26. According to postmortem report, cause of death of deceased was intracranial hemorrhage due to head injury and mode of death was homicidal in nature. During investigation, appellants were taken into custody vide Exs.P-46 & P-47. Memorandum statement of appellant No.1 was recorded vide Ex.P-17, consequent to which, one wooden stick, one hoe, scarfs, clothes of appellant No.1 having blood stains were seized vide Exs.P-18 & P-19. From the spot, plain and blood stained soil were seized vide Ex.P-20 and vide Ex.P-16, one tooth of deceased was seized. However, no memorandum statement of appellant No.2 was made and no seizure was made from him. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report Ex.P-51, human blood has been found on the seized articles i.e. “A- soil, C- piece of tile, D- wooden stick seized from appellant No.1-Ram Prasad Nareti, E-1 & E-2 pieces of 5 wooden stick, F, G-1 & G-2 scarf, barmuda and T-Shirt of appellant No.1and H- soil”. Query report has also been obtained vide Exs.P-28 to 32 where it has been mentioned that injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by seized wooden sticks. 4. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellants were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellants/accused abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offence. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 21 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 54 documents Exs.P-1 to P-54. However, the appellants in support of their defence have examined none and not exhibited any documents in their defense. 6. The trial Court, after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which they have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC. 7. Learned counsel for the appellants contended that the prosecution case is based on extremely doubtful and weak circumstantial 6 evidence, consisting primarily of an extra-judicial confession, and the recovery of blood-stained clothes and a weapon allegedly seized from appellant No.1 Ramprasad. It is submitted that there is no eyewitness to the incident and the alleged motive is also not clearly established, being based solely on oral assertions regarding the existence of a property dispute. Insofar as appellant No.2 Ramsai is concerned, it is argued that all incriminating evidence namely the extra-judicial confession, recovery of the weapon and blood-stained clothes pertains only to appellant No.1 Ramprasad and that appellant No.2 Ramsai has been implicated merely on the basis that, upon being informed by appellant No.1 Ramprasad of the alleged killing, he is said to have advised him to conceal evidence and provided a false explanation regarding the cause of death. Therefore, it is prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the said charges. In alternative, he submits that even if the total case of prosecution is taken into consideration, it would fall under exception to Section 4 of Section 300 of the IPC as the dispute arose on a trivial issue and in the spur of moment and without any premeditation, the appellant No.1 has caused injuries to the deceased, due to which he died. The appellant is in jail since 23.11.2018, therefore, the conviction of appellant No.1 be altered under Section 304 Part II of the IPC. 7 8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the evidence of extra-judicial confession, the recovery of the weapon and clothes of appellant No.1 Ramprasad, which were found to be stained with human blood, along with the false explanation given by the appellants that the deceased died due to a fall from the bridge, clearly point towards the involvement of the appellants. He further submits that the medical evidence categorically establishes that the cause of death was multiple assaults, and not accidental. Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentences is well- merited and does not warrant interference. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question for consideration would be, whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature? 11. Dr. Nand Kishor Sidar (PW-11) conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased. During examination, he observed that deceased had sustained ante-mortem injuries, and that both eyes and the nose bore deep injuries. The underlying orbital, zygomatic, nasal, and maxillary bones were found to be fractured. The base of the skull was broken, and there were multiple cuts and lacerations on the upper and lower lips and chin, with fractures to the bones beneath those areas. Several teeth were missing, and 8 both the anterior and posterior portions of the skull were fractured, causing a portion of the brain to protrude. In his opinion, the cause of death of deceased was intracranial hemorrhage due to head injury and that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and he has duly proved the postmortem report Ex.P-26. The learned trial Court, relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P-26), the statement of Dr. Nand Kishor Sidar (PW-11) and the evidence available on record, came to the conclusion that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on the evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 12. Now, the question would be whether the appellants are the authors of the crime in question for which the trial Court has relied upon the circumstantial evidence by delving into the incriminating evidence which have been found to be proved by the trial Court resulting into conviction of the appellants. 13. Admittedly, the present case is based on circumstantial evidence. The five golden principles to constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been narrated by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1 , in which it was observed in paragraph 153 as under : “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 9 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 Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra2 where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] 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 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. Now, we shall consider the circumstances found proved by the trial Court against appellant No.1 with regard to motive of the offence, since the deceased had an old land dispute with the appellant No.1 and in order to eliminate him, appellant No.1 designed the plan to commit murder of the deceased. As such, the motive of offence has rightly been held proved by the trial Court on the part of appellant No.1. 2 (1973) 2 SCC 793 10 15. One of the main incriminating circumstances that has been found proved by the trial Court is that under what circumstances the dead body of deceased was recovered. From the evidence on record, it stands established that on the morning of 28.11.2017, the dead body of the deceased Ramsingh Nareti was recovered from beneath a canal under suspicious circumstances, based on the information first given by appellant No.1 Ramprasad. The deceased had not returned home the previous night after completing road construction work under the employment guarantee scheme. The deceased’s body was found covered with a shawl and due to lack of light, the face could not be properly identified at the time of retrieval. Importantly, no cogent explanation has been offered by appellant No.1 Ramprasad as to how he came to know of the deceased’s presence at that location before sunrise, nor is there any clarification as to how the body came to be lying under the culvert. The presence of the appellant No.1 at the scene, combined with his role in informing others and leading them to the body, and the fact that the body was found covered with a shawl, reinforces the incriminating chain of circumstances. Moreover, this version is supported by the accused’s own admissions under Section 313 Cr.P.C., which further negates the theory of accidental death. Accordingly, the Court finds that the conduct of appellant No.1 Ramprasad and the unexplained recovery of the deceased’s body in suspicious circumstances constitute a significant incriminating 11 circumstance pointing to his guilt, and the prosecution has successfully proved this fact beyond reasonable doubt. 16. Apart from that, PW-06 Udey Ram Korram, before whom appellant No.1 is said to have made extra-judicial confession and also the witness to memorandum and seizure proceedings, has stated that after the incident, he went to the house of appellant No.1 Ramprasad along with villagers. There, appellant No.2 Ramsai told them that the deceased had died due to vomiting and diarrhoea. However, when the deceased’s brother-in-law, Saturam Salam, uncovered the face of the deceased, they noticed the face was swollen and appeared to have been hit with a stick. At that time, appellant No.1 Ramprasad admitted that he has assaulted the deceased by a wooden stick, due to which, he died. Although in cross-examination, the witness said he had heard about the death of deceased due to vomiting and diarrhoea from villagers, but no suggestion was made by the defence denying the disfigurement of the deceased’s face or the admission made by appellant No.1. The witness also confirmed that appellant No.1 Ramprasad had accompanied him to the police station and remained present there. This witness (PW-6) remained firm during his cross-examination and fully supported the prosecution's case. There is nothing in his testimony to suggest that he was having any prior enmity with appellant No.1 or any motive for falsely implicating him. Moreover, he is also a witness to seizure vide Ex.P-16, by which, a tooth of the deceased was seized. As such, there is no reason to 12 disbelieve the testimony of PW-6 Udey Korram. In addition, during the course of investigation, pursuant to the disclosure statement of appellant (Ex.P-17), blood stained wooden stick and clothes of the appellant No.1 were seized, which has been duly proved by PW-6 Uderam Korram and PW-7 Santuram. Furthermore, as per FSL report (Ex.P-51), human blood has been found on the seized articles i.e. “A, C, D, E-1 & E-2, F, G-1, G-2 & H. Moreover, Dr. Nand Kishor Sidar (PW-11) who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased found multiple ante-mortem injuries. The base of the skull was fractured, there were lacerations and cuts on the lips and chin, teeth were missing from the jaw and brain material had come out of the skull. In his opinion, the cause of death of deceased was intracranial hemorrhage due to head injury and nature of death was homicidal in nature and duly proved the PM report (Ex.P-26). The intention of the appellant No.1 can be clearly gathered from the nature of injuries inflicted. This is a case where multiple serious injuries were caused, bones were crushed and brain matter was exposed. Such an act cannot be considered as culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The appellant No.1 acted with full knowledge and in a cruel manner. The nature and extent of the injuries clearly establish that the appellant No.1-Ramprasad Nareti inflicted several blows, indicative of a deliberate intention to cause death. There is no material on record to suggest any sudden provocation or quarrel. On the contrary, the evidence reflects the appellant No.1 was 13 determined to cause the death of the deceased. The seizure of the incriminating articles pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant No.1- Ramprasad Nareti, corroborated by the FSL report and the consistent testimony of PW-6 also support the prosecution's case. It is further revealed that the appellant No.1 Ramprasad Nareti attempted to cremate the body and gave false information regarding the cause of death in order to screen himself from legal consequences. Therefore, keeping in view the five golden principles laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), all the incriminating circumstances appearing against appellant No.1 Ramprasad Nareti are taken together, they unerringly point towards the guilt of appellant No.1 Ramprasad Nareti beyond all reasonable doubts. 17. Being so, we do not find any reason to interfere with the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court. Accordingly, the criminal appeal in respect of appellant No.1 Ramprasad Nareti being without any substance is liable to be and is accordingly dismissed. Appellant No.1- Ramprasad Nareti is reported to be in jail, therefore, there is no need to pass any order regarding his arrest/surrender etc. 18. As regards the conviction and sentence of the appellant No.2- Ramsai Nareti, it is observed that no act of screening of evidence has been established against him by the prosecution. No incriminating article has been seized from the possession of 14 appellant No.2 and in absence of any memorandum and seizure or some other corroborative piece of evidence, the chain of circumstances remains incomplete. In such a situation, it would be unsafe to sustain the conviction of appellant No.2- Ramsai Nareti for the offence under Section 201 of IPC. 19. In that view of the matter, we are unable to hold that the prosecution has been able to prove the five golden principles to constitute the ‘panchsheel’ of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), in absence of which, appellant No.2- Ramsai Nareti is entitled for acquittal. The learned trial Court is totally unjustified in convicting and sentencing appellant No.2- Ramsai Nareti for the offences under Section 201 of IPC. Accordingly, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 07.08.2015, passed by the learned trial Court in respect of appellant No.2- Ramsai Nareti is liable to be set-aside. 20. Consequently, the conviction of appellant No.2- Ramsai Nareti for the offence punishable under Section 201 of IPC as well as the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court is hereby set-aside. He is acquitted of the said charge. Appellant No.2- Ramsai Nareti is reported to be on bail and his bail bond shall remain in force for a period of six months from today in view of provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C. 15 21. In the result, the appeal is allowed in respect of appellant No.2 Ramsai Nareti, whereas the appeal in respect of appellant No.1- Ramprasad Nareti is hereby dismissed. 22. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and action. 23. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant No. 1- Ramprasad Nareti is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he 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/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Vishakha