1 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases 2025:CGHC:54137-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 40 of 2025 Manjeet Boyar @ Manboyar S/o Ambar Boyar Aged About 18 Years R/o Bhoipara Purani Basti (Near Sweeper Basti) Jay Kali Chowk Police Station - Azad Chowk Raipur District - Raipur (C.G.) Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balod District - Balod (C.G.) Respondent(s) CRA No. 382 of 2025 Lokendra Patel S/o Ramsingh Patel Aged About 22 Years R/o Mararpara, Balod, P.S.- Balod, District- Balod (C.G.) Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station- Balod, District- Balod (Chhattisgarh) Respondent(s) CRA No. 1342 of 2025 Nikhil Sonwani S/o Madhav Ram Sonwani, Aged About 23 Years R/o Hathoud (Karhibhadar), PS-Balod, Presently R/o Lohar Chowk, Purani Basti, District Raipur Chhattisgarh RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.11 10:35:30 +0530 2 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, (SHO) PS Balod District Balod Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) CRA No. 819 of 2025 Govind Soni @ Kalu S/o Lt. Hemant Soni Aged About 20, Years R/o Lohar Chowk Purani Basti (Street Beside Saraswati School), Police Station Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) Respondent(s) CRA No. 817 of 2025 Krishnakant Sharma @ Golu S/o Basant Sharma Aged About 22 Years R/o Purani Basti (Awadhiya Para Lili Chowk In Front Of Dinesh Kirana Store), P.S.- Azad Chowk, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.) Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, District Balod (C.G.) Respondent(s) CRA No. 239 of 2025 Madhuri Mandle @ Madhu W/o Late Himanshu Mandle Aged About 29 Years R/o Atal Vihar LIG 100, Housing Board Colony, Sivni, P.S. And District Balod (Chhattisgarh) 3 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Appellant Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through- P.S. Balod, District Balod (Chhattisgarh) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellants : Mr. Goutam Khetrapal, Adv. (CRA No. 40/2025) Mr. Anil Pillai, Advocate (CRA No. 239/2025) Mr. Chandresh Shrivastava, Adv (CRA No. 382/2025) Ms. Dolly Soni, Advocate (through VC) & Mr. Shivkumar Banjare (CRA No. 817/2025 & 819/2025) Mr. Devershi Thakur, Adv. (CRA No. 1342/2025) For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. GA Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, J 06/11/2025 1. Since all these appeals arise out of the same impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/11/2024, they are being heard analogously and are disposed of by this common judgment. 2. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C are against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 29/11/2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 24/2021 by the learned I 4 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Additional Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod (CG) whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 320/120 B of the IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment further one year additional simple imprisonment. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 21.12.2020, at about 8:15 a.m., complainant Rakesh Kumar Nishad (PW-1), a resident of Juripara, Balod, working as an electrician, appeared at Police Station Balod and lodged a Dehati Nalishi in Crime No. 0/2020. He reported that on the same day, at about 6:00 a.m., while on his morning walk near Tandula Dam, he noticed the dead body of an unknown male person lying about twenty feet away from the water. The deceased’s head was found crushed; there were sharp-cut injuries on the neck and abdomen, and blood was spattered around his head. A large blood-stained stone was found lying nearby. Two shoes, an empty country liquor bottle, a water pouch, and disposable cups were also found near the body. From the condition of the body and the surrounding articles, it appeared that some unknown person had murdered the deceased by inflicting sharp and blunt force injuries. Upon receiving the said information, Inspector G.S. Thakur (PW- 26) of Police Station Balod, along with his staff, reached the spot, recorded the Dehati Nalishi, conducted an inquest in the presence of witnesses, and seized the articles found at the scene. During the 5 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases proceedings, PW-16 Shiv Mandale, brother of the deceased, arrived and identified the body as that of Himanshu Mandale (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), a resident of Atal Vihar Colony, Seoni, District Balod. The body was thereafter sent for post-mortem examination. Based on the report of the complainant, an offence was registered at Police Station Balod against an unknown person vide Crime No. 398/2020 for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, and investigation was set into motion. During the course of investigation, the memorandum statement of accused Lokendra Patel was recorded, wherein he disclosed that he had met co-accused Madhuri Mandale (Madhu), wife of the deceased, at his dance academy. Initially, she had brought her seven-year-old daughter for dance lessons and later joined as a student herself. Their acquaintance developed into an intimate relationship. Madhuri was unhappy in her marital life and frequently expressed her desire to get her husband eliminated, even offering to pay for it. Acting on her insistence, about seven to eight months prior to the incident, Lokendra contacted his friend Nikhil Sonwani to arrange for the killing. Madhuri, who had been staying with her parents during the COVID period, returned to Balod about three months before the incident, and the disputes between her and the deceased resumed, leading to increased pressure on Lokendra. 6 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Nikhil agreed to execute the plan with his associates and demanded ₹15,000/- and travel expenses. On 20.12.2020, he arrived from Raipur in a white Innova car along with four others. Lokendra arranged a meeting with Himanshu at the bus stand, and after consuming liquor near the Jam river bank, Krishna Kant Sharma @ Golu gave the signal for attack. Manjeet stabbed Himanshu first; Golu and others struck him with a stone and further stabbed him while Nikhil and Govind restrained his legs. Lokendra assaulted Himanshu on the head with a hammer, and Aryan and Govind also joined in the assault. After ensuring that Himanshu was dead, Lokendra disposed of the hammer and mobile phone in Tandula Dam. The assailants took the deceased’s wallet containing ₹1,060/- and left for Raipur in the Innova. Lokendra concealed Himanshu’s scooter in nearby bushes and returned home on his motorcycle around 10:30 p.m., where he washed his bloodstained clothes. He admitted that the killing was planned and executed by him along with Nikhil and others and that his statement was voluntary. On the basis of the said memorandum, further investigation was carried out and additional evidence was collected. Upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the present accused persons for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code before the competent Court. Since accused Aryan Manas was found to be a Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), a separate charge-sheet was filed against him before the Juvenile Justice Board, 7 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Balod. The learned Trial Court framed charges against accused Madhuri Mandale, wife of the deceased, under Section 302/120-B IPC, and against the remaining accused persons under Sections 302/120-B, 302/34, and 201/34 IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused, to which they pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined 28 witnesses. The statements of the accused persons were thereafter recorded under Section 313 CrPC, wherein they denied all the allegations, claimed innocence, and pleaded false implication. 4. The learned Trial Court, after due appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 29.11.2024, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph two of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 5. Learned counsel for the respective appellants contends that the appellants have been falsely implicated and that the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, there being no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the “last-seen” theory beyond reasonable doubt, there being no credible evidence that the appellants and the deceased were together immediately prior to the occurrence. The alleged recovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, it is submitted, was not from the exclusive possession of the appellants nor made in the presence of any independent witness, and therefore cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel further points to the 8 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases unexplained delay in forwarding the seized articles to the FSL; the absence of any forensic or scientific link between the appellants and the crime; and the fact that the seized weapons and clothes were not shown to carry the blood of the deceased. It is next urged that the prosecution has failed to establish motive and that the chain of circumstances remains incomplete and incapable of leading to the sole inference of guilt. Reliance was placed on the well-settled principle that in cases founded on circumstantial evidence each circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must form a continuous chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused. Attention was also drawn to the evidence of PW-11, who admitted that although a GPRS system was installed in the Innova allegedly used in the offence, the police did not verify its data. Reliance was placed on Rahil & Anr. v. State (Govt. of N.C.T. of Delhi), 2025 INSC 858 = AIROnline 2025 SC 710, and it was submitted that in the absence of a valid certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, electronic records such as CDRs/GPRS data cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel thus urged that the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proof and that the appellants are entitled to acquittal by reason of benefit of doubt. 6. Learned State Counsel, on the other hand, opposes the submissions on behalf of the appellants and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. It is contended that the cumulative weight of the evidence documentary and oral constitutes a complete 9 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases chain of circumstances leading only to the guilt of the accused, and accordingly the trial Court was justified in convicting the accused. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and have perused the record with the utmost circumspection. 8. Before examining the other aspects of the case, it is first necessary to determine whether the death of the deceased was accidental, suicidal, or homicidal in nature. 9. The prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Dr. Meenal Choubey (PW-6), who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. During examination, the doctor found the following injuries over the head, face, and neck of the deceased: • Lacerated wound measuring 1.9 cm × 3 cm × 1 cm over the right eyebrow, with comminuted fracture of the frontal bone. • Lacerated wound measuring 2 cm × 5 cm × 1 cm over the left eyebrow, with comminuted fracture of the frontal bone. • Lacerated wound measuring 1 cm × 1 cm × 0.5 cm over the left cheek. • Lacerated wound measuring 2 cm × 2 cm × 2 cm over the nose, with depressed fracture of the nasal bone. • Lacerated wound measuring 1 cm × 1 cm × 1 cm over the lower lip. • Incised wound measuring 12 cm × 5 cm, situated over the front of the neck extending between both angles of the mandible. 10 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases • Stab wound measuring 3 cm × 2 cm × 6 cm, situated over the right hypochondriac region, having well-defined and clear margins. • Stab wound measuring 4 cm × 6 cm × 6 cm, situated over the right hypochondriac region, having well-defined and clear margins. • Stab wound measuring 3 cm × 1 cm × 3 cm, situated over the right side of the umbilical region, having well-defined and clear margins. • Stab wound measuring 3 cm × 1 cm × 3 cm, situated over the right umbilical region, about 2 cm lateral to the umbilicus, having well-defined and clear margins. • Stab wound measuring 2 cm × 2 cm × 3 cm, situated over the right umbilical region, having well-defined and clear margins. • Stab wound measuring 2 cm × 2.5 cm × 3 cm, situated over the right umbilical region, having well-defined and clear margins. • Stab wound measuring 2 cm × 2 cm × 7 cm, situated over the left lumbar region, having well-defined and clear margins. • Stab wound measuring 2 cm × 1 cm × 3 cm, situated over the left lumbar region, having well-defined and clear margins. • Stab wound measuring 2 cm × 2 cm × 6 cm, situated over the umbilical region, about 2 cm lateral to the umbilicus on the left side, having well-defined and clear margins. According to the doctor, injuries Nos. 1 to 5 were caused by a hard and blunt object, injury No. 6 was caused by a sharp-edged weapon, and injuries Nos. 7 to 15 were caused by a hard, sharp, and 11 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases pointed weapon. All the injuries (Nos. 1 to 15) were ante-mortem in nature, that is, inflicted prior to death. On internal examination, both lungs were found congested, the hyoid bone and thyroid cartilage were fractured, and both chambers of the heart were empty. The stomach contained about 50–100 ml of straw- coloured fluid with partially digested food and a smell of alcohol. The doctor opined that the cause of death was hypovolemic shock due to excessive haemorrhage resulting from multiple injuries on the neck, head, and abdomen. The nature of death was homicidal, and the time since death was estimated to be within 12 to 24 hours prior to the postmortem examination. 10. On careful perusal of the postmortem report (Ex. P-15) and the evidence of Dr. Meenal Choubey (PW-6), it stands clearly established that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. Accordingly, this Court finds no reason to take a different view and affirms the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court to that effect. 11. The Court shall now proceed to meticulously examine the testimony of the prosecution witnesses in order to evaluate the credibility of the case set forth by the prosecution. 12. Complainant – Rakesh Kumar Nishad (PW-1) deposed that while on a morning walk, he noticed a dead body lying near the bank of the dam, soaked in blood. He immediately informed the police, whereafter Dehati 12 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Nalisi (Ex. P/1) was registered. He stated that in his presence, a spot map (Ex. P/4) was prepared and a scooty (Ex. P/7) was seized. 13. PW-2 Suman Kumar Ratre deposed that about two years prior to the incident, he heard commotion that a dead body had been found near Tandula Dam. He, along with one Rohit Sahu, went to the spot and saw a bloodstained body lying there, with some disposable items scattered around. The police had already reached the spot. In his presence, the police prepared the Naksha Panchanama (Ex. P/4) after issuing him notice (Ex. P/5), both bearing his signatures. He noticed several injuries on the body. He further stated that no article was seized from the spot in his presence, though later at the police station, a stone and a scooter were seized, the seizure memos of which (Ex. P/7 to P/10) bear his signatures. He also identified his signatures on the Memorandum Panchanama (Ex. P/11), Seizure Panchanama (Ex. P/12), and the spot map prepared by the Patwari (Ex. P/13). In cross-examination, he admitted that he had signed all documents together at the instance of the police and that all papers were not read over to him. He further stated that he was unaware of what exactly accused Lokendra had disclosed to the police. 14. PW-3 Kiran Uike stated that the incident occurred about two years ago. On hearing that a dead body had been found near Tandula Dam, he went to the spot and saw a body lying in a pool of blood. Police were already present and prepared the Naksha Panchanama of the dead body in his 13 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases presence after serving notice (Ex. P/5), which bears his signature. He observed multiple injuries on the body and identified the Naksha Panchanama (Ex. P/4) prepared before him. He clarified that no article was seized at the spot in his presence; however, he was later informed that certain articles, including a stone and a scooter, were seized at the police station, as recorded in seizure memos (Ex. P/7 to P/10), bearing his signatures. In cross-examination, he admitted that he signed all documents at the instance of the police and that some papers were read over to him while others were not. He denied having personal knowledge of what accused Lokendra had told the police. 15. PW-4 Rohit Kumar Yadav, a driver by occupation and resident of Ward No. 15, Balod, stated that about two years ago, he came to know that a dead body was lying near Tandula Dam. On reaching there, he saw the body, which was soaked in blood; the front portion of the neck was cut and the face was badly crushed. A crowd had gathered at the spot, and the police were already present. He stated that the police issued him a notice for preparation of the Naksha Panchanama (notice Ex. P/5), on which his signatures appear from point D to D. The Naksha Panchanama (Ex. P/4) was prepared in his presence, and at that time, he again saw the body bearing a cut neck and crushed head. He affirmed his signatures on Ex. P/4 from point D to D. He further stated that although his signatures appear on the spot map (Ex. P/6) from point B to B, the same was not prepared in his presence. 14 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases 16. On close scrutiny of the statements of PW-1 to PW-4, certain inconsistencies are discernible. PW-1, the complainant, claimed to have first seen the body during his morning walk and to have informed the police, whereas PW-2 to PW-4 reached the spot later, after hearing about the incident, by which time the police had already arrived. While PW-1 merely stated that the body was bloodstained, PW-2 and PW-3 spoke of multiple injuries, and PW-4 gave a more detailed description, stating that the neck was cut and the face was crushed. There are also discrepancies regarding the preparation of documents. Though all witnesses have identified their signatures on the Naksha Panchanama (Ex. P/4), PW-4 denied that the spot map was prepared in his presence, and PW-2 and PW-3 admitted signing several papers at the instance of the police without knowing their contents. Further, PW-1 deposed that a scooter was seized at the spot, whereas PW-2 and PW-3 stated that no seizure took place before them and that the articles were later seized at the police station. These variations, when considered cumulatively, cast doubt on the precise manner in which the panchanamas and seizures were prepared. 17. Admittedly, there is no ocular version of the crime except the memorandum statement of the appellants, as no witness has seen the appellants committing the crime. Case of the prosecution, therefore, rests on circumstantial evidence. The principle as to when an accused can be convicted on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been propounded by the Supreme Court in the celebrated case of Sharad 15 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein it has underlined the conditions, which must be fulfilled for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and held in para-153 as under : “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established : (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 : (AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the following observations were made: ‘certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.’ (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused 16 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases 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.” 18. In a judgment in Nathiya Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore, (2016) 10 SCC 298, the Supreme Court has reiterated the above principles. 19. In Jonh Pandian v State, Represented by Inspector of Police, Tamil Nadu, (2010) 14 SCC 129 the Supreme Court has held that all means adopted and illegal acts done must be proved to be done in furtherance of the object of conspiracy hatched. A systematic role played by each accused has to be highlighted. Similarly each one of the circumstances should be proved beyond reasonable doubt and such circumstances proved must form a chain of events from which the only irresistible conclusion is about the guilt of the accused which can be safely drawn and no other hypothesis of the guilt is possible. Since the evidence of conspiracy is very hard to find and the prosecution would always have great difficulty in proving the conspiracy and, therefore, the conspiracy 17 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases has to be inferred from circumstantial evidence, but the circumstances in a case, when taken together on their face value, should indicate the meeting of minds between the conspirators for the intended object of committing an illegal act or an act which is not illegal, by illegal means. 20. Similar proposition has been laid down by the Supreme Court in Sherimon v State of Kerala, (2011) 10 SCC 768 and held thus in paras 17 & 18 : 17. The gist of the offence of conspiracy is the agreement between two and more persons to do or cause to be done an illegal act or a legal act by illegal means. There must be meeting of minds resulting in an ultimate decision taken by the conspirators regarding commission of the crime. In this case, no such evidence has come on record. PW- 5 Biju, the employee of City Auto Finance at Moovattupuzha was the only witness examined by the prosecution to prove the alleged meeting between the appellant and the other accused. He has turned hostile. Therefore, there is nothing on record to establish meeting of minds between the appellant and the other accused. 18.Assuming that the appellant had produced certain documents pertaining to the said auto rickshaw, it cannot be concluded on the basis thereof that he had entered into a conspiracy with A-1 to A-3 to repossess the said auto rickshaw because the loan amount was not repaid and in pursuance thereof A-1 to A-3 murdered the driver of the said auto rickshaw. 18 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases The evidence on record is totally inadequate to come to such a conclusion. It is, therefore, not possible to sustain the impugned judgment. 21. PW-16, Shiv Mandale (brother of the deceased), stated that accused Lokendra Patel was known to him, whereas he did not know the other accused persons. He deposed that co-accused Madhuri Mandale @ Madhu was his sister-in-law, being the wife of his deceased brother, Himanshu Mandale. On 20.12.2020, between 12:00 noon and 1:00 p.m., Madhuri informed his younger brother Tarun over phone that Himanshu had left the house around 10:00 a.m. after a quarrel and had not returned. When he and Tarun tried to contact Himanshu, his phone initially rang but was later switched off. The next day, he, along with his family members, went to Himanshu’s house at Balod, where police officials informed them that a body had been found near Tandula Dam and a scooter near the bus stand. He accompanied the police to the spot and identified the dead body as that of his brother Himanshu, whose face was crushed and injuries were visible from the neck to the abdomen. After post-mortem, the body was handed over to him (Ex. P- 25). He further stated that once Lokendra had visited their house at Village Borsi with Himanshu and introduced himself as a dance teacher. He also deposed that Madhuri frequently stayed at her parental home, was fond of expensive items, and used to insist that Himanshu buy costly clothes and jewellery. Himanshu had taken loans of ₹5,00,000/- from Bank of Baroda, Balod and ₹4,00,000/- from Bajaj Finance, and 19 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases his bank account had little balance. Madhuri’s stridhan was also not recovered. After the incident, when he visited Himanshu’s school at Khardhuli, he learned that a few months before the incident, Himanshu had changed his service-book nomination from his parents to his wife Madhuri, giving her 100% entitlement, including benefits in the event of his death, insanity, or divorce. He suspected that such alteration was made under pressure and that Madhuri, in collusion with Lokendra, was responsible for his brother’s murder. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not lodged any report or expressed suspicion against anyone before the police, and several facts stated in Court regarding loans, stridhan, nomination change, and suspicion were not mentioned in his police statement. He further admitted that no identification proceedings were conducted to confirm Lokendra’s identity as the person who had visited their house and that he could not specify the date or year of that visit. He conceded that he had no personal knowledge of who committed the murder or why, and that he lived separately from the deceased, visiting him only occasionally. He denied any suggestion of family or property dispute with Himanshu or Madhuri and maintained that relations were cordial. 22. PW-17, Tarun Kumar Mandale (another brother of the deceased), deposed that he knew accused Lokendra Patel but not the other accused persons. He stated that co-accused Madhuri Mandale @ Madhu was his sister-in-law, being the wife of his deceased brother, Himanshu 20 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Mandale. On 20.12.2020, around midnight, Madhuri called him and informed that Himanshu had left home at about 10:00 a.m. and had not returned. He informed his family and thereafter tried calling Madhuri, but her phone remained busy for some time. Later, when he contacted her again, he asked for the number of Himanshu’s colleague, Goswami Sir, and upon calling him, was told that he had no information about Himanshu. The next morning, his elder brother Shiv Mandale, along with their parents, went from Durg to Balod and around 11:30 a.m. informed him that Himanshu had been murdered. He stated that he had no other knowledge about the incident. He further stated that he later came to know that on 23.12.2020 the police had arrested Lokendra Patel and five others from Raipur for the murder and had also arrested Madhuri for conspiracy. In cross-examination, he admitted that he gave his statement to the police about 10–12 days after recovery of the body and that, before that, news of the arrests along with photographs of the accused had been published in newspapers. He also admitted that he had seen the accused being brought in handcuffs to Court and therefore knew that the present case was against them. He candidly stated that he had no personal knowledge as to who killed his brother or why. He further admitted that he knew Jaidev Sharma and Ravishankar Mandale through business, but they did not accompany him to Balod after the incident. 21 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases 23. PW-18, Jaidev Sharma, deposed that during police investigation, memorandums of the accused persons were recorded and several articles were seized in his presence. He stated that accused Lokendra Patel disclosed that the hammer used in the offence was thrown into Tandula Dam, the scooter was hidden near the bus stand, and other items such as a mobile phone, jeans, T-shirt, and slippers were kept at his house, which were later seized vide Ex. P/28. Similarly, memorandums of accused Nikhil Sonwani (Ex. P/29), Krishnakant Sharma (Ex. P/31), Manjeet Boyar (Ex. P/33), Govind Soni (Ex. P/35) and Aryan (Ex. P/37) were recorded before him, and the corresponding seizure memos (Ex. P/30, P/32, P/34, P/36, P/38) bear his signatures. He further deposed that during interrogation, accused Lokendra Patel narrated the motive and the sequence of events, stating that he had an affair with co-accused Madhuri Mandale, wife of the deceased, and conspired with others to eliminate him. Pursuant thereto, all the accused lured the deceased to Tandula Dam under the pretext of consuming liquor and brutally assaulted him with a knife, hammer, and stones, causing his death, thereafter disposing of the weapons and bloodstained clothes. In cross-examination, the witness admitted that he was acquainted with Ravishankar Mandale and came to Balod together with him upon receiving notice (Ex. P/26). He conceded that all memorandum and seizure documents were signed by him and Ravishankar together at the police station at the instance of the police and that the documents were prepared there itself. He expressed inability to specify the exact places 22 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases of seizure, the nature of the houses, or the timing of each recovery. He denied the suggestion that his statement was tutored or given at the behest of the complainant’s family. 24. PW-19, Mukesh Sai, stated that he is a four-wheeler driver by occupation and does not know any of the accused persons, including Lokendra Patel, Manjeet Boyar @ Manboyer, Nikhil Sonvani, Krishnakant Sharma @ Golu, Govind Soni @ Kalu or Madhuri Mandale @ Madhu. He denied that any vehicle papers were seized from him, though the seizure memo (Ex. P-23) and identification memo (Ex. P-22) bear his signatures. He further deposed that he was not present when any identification proceedings were conducted at Balod Sub-Jail. In cross-examination (after being declared hostile), he admitted that he knew one Lileshwar, who occasionally gave him his vehicle for hire. He denied having taken Lileshwar’s vehicle to Balod on 20.12.2020 or having driven any five persons from Raipur to Balod in an Innova car (C.G. 04 H.S. 9200). He also denied that those persons paid him ₹1,000 as fare or that he identified any accused before the Tehsildar. He asserted that all his signatures on police papers were obtained together at the police station at the instance of the officers, without any other person being present. 25. PW-21, Basant Kumar Mandale (father of the deceased), deposed that while he, his son Shiv Mandale and daughter-in-law Madhuri Mandale were proceeding to lodge a missing report regarding Himanshu, they 23 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases met police officers in front of Himanshu’s house who informed them that a dead body had been found near Tandula Dam. The police took his son Shiv to the spot, where he identified the body as that of Himanshu. He later learnt that Lokendra Patel and his friends from Raipur, along with Madhuri Mandale, had been arrested for the murder. He further stated that Himanshu had married Madhuri in 2012, and they had a daughter, Niyati. Initially, their relations were cordial, but frequent quarrels began after they shifted to Balod. He had purchased a house at Atal Vihar Colony, Balod, in their joint names after his retirement in 2018. He also mentioned that he had once seen Lokendra when he visited their Durg house with Himanshu. In cross-examination, he admitted that most of his statements were based on what he had heard from others. He confirmed that it was his son Shiv Mandale who first informed him about Himanshu’s disappearance on the basis of a call from Madhuri. He further confirmed that Himanshu and Madhuri lived separately in Balod, while his other sons, Shiv and Tarun, lived with him at Durg. He admitted that he had purchased property only in Himanshu’s name jointly with his wife and not for his other sons. He denied any property dispute or quarrel between his sons but conceded that Himanshu sometimes demanded money, for which he occasionally sent ₹4,000–₹5,000. He also accepted that the flat at Balod was purchased jointly in the names of Himanshu and Madhuri and that he had retired as Assistant Committee Manager from the Chhattisgarh Housing Board. 24 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases 26. From the depositions of PW-16 Shiv Mandale, PW-17 Tarun Mandale, PW-18 Jaidev Sharma, PW-19 Mukesh Sai, and PW-21 Basant Kumar Mandale, it is evident that the entire prosecution case rests purely on circumstantial evidence and alleged confessional memoranda, without any direct, ocular, or independent corroboration. PW-16 and PW-17, both brothers of the deceased, admittedly had no personal knowledge of the occurrence and derived their information either from the police or from others. Their statements concerning loans, property disputes, stridhan, and change of service-book nomination were never disclosed to the police earlier and therefore amount to clear improvements. Their suspicion of the accused persons was admittedly based on conjecture. 27. PW-17 further admitted that he gave his statement ten to twelve days after recovery of the body and only after publication of the accused’s photographs in newspapers, which seriously undermines the spontaneity and credibility of his testimony. PW-18, the so-called memorandum witness, categorically admitted that all memorandum and seizure documents were signed at the police station at the instance of the police and not at the actual place of recovery, thereby falsifying the alleged discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. His inability to specify the location, nature, or timing of the alleged recoveries renders such evidence wholly unreliable. PW-19, projected as an independent seizure and identification witness, turned completely hostile, denying acquaintance with any of the accused and asserting that his signatures were obtained in bulk at the police station—further corroding the 25 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases prosecution version. Even PW-21, father of the deceased, admitted that his statements were based on hearsay and that he had no personal knowledge of the cause or perpetrators of the incident. 28. Cumulatively, these contradictions, delayed statements, absence of independent witnesses, doubtful recoveries, and hearsay depositions create grave doubt about the prosecution version and break the chain of circumstances necessary to sustain conviction, thereby entitling the appellants to the benefit of doubt. 29. PW-26 G.S. Thakur (Investigating Officer), Inspector and then Station House Officer, Police Station Balod, deposed that on 21.12.2020, on the report of Rakesh Kumar Nishad, he registered Crime No. 398/2020 under Section 302 IPC against unknown persons. He prepared the Dehati Nalishi (Ex. P-1) and Merg Intimation (Ex. P-2) and conducted inquest proceedings (Ex. P-4) in the presence of witnesses. The deceased was identified as Himanshu Mandale by his brother Shiv Mandale. From the spot he seized plain and blood-stained soil, a blood- stained stone, a pair of shoes, liquor bottles, disposable glasses, and water pouches under seizure memos (Ex. P-9 & P-10). A white TCS Scooty No. CG-07-BF-1739 was also seized near Balod Bus Stand, along with blood samples from its handle and footrest (Ex. P-7 & P-8). On 23.12.2020, he recorded memorandum statements of all accused under Section 27 of the Evidence Act as follows: 26 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases • Lokendra Patel (Ex. P-27) disclosed hiding of the scooter, throwing a hammer and the deceased’s mobile into Tandula Dam, and keeping his Yamaha motorcycle and blood-stained clothes at home, which were seized (Ex. P-28). • Nikhil Sonwani (Ex. P-29) produced a Samsung mobile, jeans, shirt, and shoes from his house (Ex. P-30). • Krishnakant Sharma @ Golu (Ex. P-31) disclosed burning his and Manjeet’s clothes and produced a black denim shirt, shoes, Apple iPhone, and a button-operated knife (Ex. P-32). • Govind Soni (Ex. P-33) produced jeans, shirt, and shoes (Ex. P-34). • Aryan Manhas (CIL) produced jeans, maroon shirt, shoes, and a Vivo mobile (Ex. P-38). • Manjeet Boyar’s burnt shirt and jeans were recovered (Ex. P- 40). On Lokendra’s disclosure, a hammer allegedly used in the crime was recovered from Tandula Dam with the help of a diver (Ex. P-11 & P-12). Later, an Innova Car (CG-04-HS-9200) purportedly used by the accused was seized (Ex. P-23). During investigation, blood-stained articles and weapons were sent for FSL examination, queries were made to the medical officer regarding the possibility of injuries by the recovered hammer, stone, and knife, and post-mortem and FSL reports were obtained before completion of investigation. 30. In his memorandum (Ex. P-27), accused Lokendra Patel stated that on the date of the incident he, along with co-accused persons, consumed liquor near Chhadi Dam. There, on the signal of Krishnakant Sharma @ Golu, Manjeet attacked Himanshu from behind with a knife on the neck. 27 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases When Himanshu attempted to rise, Golu kicked him, struck his head several times with a stone, and stabbed him repeatedly in the abdomen, while Nikhil Sonwani and Govind Soni held his legs. Lokendra further stated that he himself struck Himanshu on the head with a hammer and that Aryan and Govind also assaulted him with the same hammer. After Himanshu fell dead, the hammer and mobile phone were thrown into the water to destroy evidence. Golu took ₹ 1,060 from Himanshu’s wallet and gave it to Manjeet. Thereafter, Nikhil drove the Yamaha motorcycle (CG-07-AF-9143) with Aryan and Govind, while Lokendra drove the deceased’s scooter with Golu and Manjeet. The scooter was hidden near the bus stand, and others returned to Raipur. Lokendra stated that on reaching home around 10:30 p.m., he washed and concealed his blood- stained clothes and kept the motorcycle at home. He offered to produce the hammer, mobile phone, and motorcycle. 31. In his memorandum (Ex. P-29), accused Nikhil Sonwani stated that he was acquainted with Lokendra Patel for several years. Lokendra informed him of his enmity with one person and offered money to have him killed. Accordingly, Nikhil arranged an Innova car and, along with Golu, Manjeet, Aryan, and Govind, proceeded to Balod on 20.12.2020. There, Lokendra met them and later brought Himanshu to the spot. After consuming liquor near Chhadi Dam, on Lokendra’s signal, Manjeet stabbed Himanshu on the neck, Golu struck him with a stone and stabbed him repeatedly, while Nikhil and Govind held his legs. Lokendra then hit Himanshu with a hammer, followed by Aryan and 28 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Govind striking him multiple times. After Himanshu died, the hammer and mobile phone were thrown into the water, and Golu took ₹ 1,000 from his wallet. Thereafter, Nikhil drove Lokendra’s motorcycle (CG- 07-AF-9143) while Lokendra rode Himanshu’s scooter, which was later hidden near the bus stand. Nikhil returned to Raipur and stated that the jeans, black shirt, and shoes worn by him during the incident were blood-stained and kept in his room. 32. In his memorandum (Ex. P-31), accused Krishnakant Sharma @ Golu disclosed that on the instruction of co-accused Lokendra Patel, he, along with Manjeet, Aryan, Govind, and Nikhil, assaulted Himanshu Mandale with a knife, hammer, and stones, causing his death. He further stated that after the incident, they threw the hammer and the deceased’s mobile into Tandula Dam, took ₹ 1,060 from his purse, later burnt their blood- stained clothes, and concealed his own blood-stained denim shirt, black shoes, one mobile phone, and a foldable knife at his house. 33. In his memorandum (Ex. P-33), accused Manjeet Boyar disclosed that on 20.12.2020 he, along with Lokendra Patel, Krishnakant Sharma (Golu), Aryan, Govind, and Nikhil Sonwani, executed a plan to murder Himanshu Mandale near Tandula Dam. On Lokendra’s signal, Manjeet first attacked Himanshu with a knife on the neck, followed by Golu, who struck him with stones and stabbed him multiple times. Nikhil and Govind held the victim’s legs, while Aryan and Lokendra assaulted him with a hammer, resulting in his death. After the murder, they threw the 29 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases hammer and Himanshu’s mobile phone into the dam, took ₹ 1,060 from his purse, and later burnt their blood-stained clothes near Imli Bada, Raipur. Manjeet admitted concealing his blood-stained jeans at home and offered to produce it. 34. In his memorandum (Ex. P-35), accused Govind Soni stated that on 20.12.2020 he, along with Lokendra Patel, Krishnakant Sharma (Golu), Manjeet Boyar, Aryan, and Nikhil Sonwani, went to Balod in an Innova car to kill Himanshu Mandale. At Tandula Dam, after consuming liquor, on Lokendra’s signal, Manjeet stabbed Himanshu, Golu struck him with stones and stabbed him again, while Govind and Nikhil held his legs. Lokendra then hit Himanshu with a hammer, followed by Govind and Aryan, causing his death. They threw the hammer and mobile phone into the dam, took ₹ 1,000 from the victim’s purse, and hid his scooter near the bus stand. Govind further disclosed that his blood-stained jeans, shirt, and shoes were kept at his house and could be recovered. The memorandum was witnessed by Jaidev Sharma and Ravishankar Mandale. 35. In his memorandum (Ex. P-37), accused Aryan Manhas stated that on 20.12.2020 he, along with Nikhil, Krishnakant @ Golu, Manjeet, and Govind, went to Balod, where Lokendra and Himanshu joined them. After consuming liquor near the dam, on Lokendra’s signal, Manjeet stabbed Himanshu, Golu hit him with a stone, Lokendra struck him with a hammer, and Aryan and Govind also assaulted him, while Nikhil and 30 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases Govind held his legs. After Himanshu died, they threw the hammer into Tandula Dam, took his mobile and ₹ 1,060 from his wallet, hid his scooter, and returned to Raipur. Aryan stated that he had kept his blood- stained clothes, shoes, and mobile at home and offered to produce them. 36. On perusal of the memorandum statements of all the accused, it is evident that while the core narrative murder of Himanshu Mandale near Tandula Dam on 20.12.2020 remains substantially similar, certain discrepancies exist regarding the sequence of assault, the degree of participation, and the subsequent conduct of each accused. All memorandum consistently mention that on the instigation or signal of co-accused Lokendra Patel, the deceased was attacked with a knife, stone, and hammer by Krishnakant Sharma @ Golu, Manjeet Boyar, Aryan Manhas, Govind Soni, and Nikhil Sonwani after consuming liquor near the dam. However, variations appear as to who initiated the assault Lokendra’s memorandum attributes the first knife blow to Manjeet on Golu’s signal, whereas others state it was on Lokendra’s signal. The extent of hammer blows and participation of Aryan and Govind also differ. The amount allegedly recovered from the deceased’s purse is mentioned variably as ₹ 1,000 or ₹ 1,060. Some memorandum speak of burning the blood-stained clothes, while others state they were concealed at home. There are also inconsistencies regarding who drove which vehicle after the incident and who disposed of the hammer and mobile phone in the dam. 31 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases 37. The prosecution has sought to project that the motive for the crime was the alleged illicit relationship between accused Lokendra Patel and co- accused Madhuri Mandale @ Madhu, wife of the deceased Himanshu Mandale, coupled with financial strain and frequent quarrels between the spouses. However, on close scrutiny, the prosecution has failed to substantiate this motive by any cogent or independent evidence. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed to having personally witnessed any intimacy or relationship between Lokendra and Madhuri. The evidence of PW-16 Shiv Mandale and PW-21 Basant Mandale, being the brother and father of the deceased respectively, is admittedly based on hearsay and suspicion alone. Their statements that Madhuri was fond of luxurious articles, frequently stayed at her parental home, and insisted upon costly purchases, are insufficient to establish any compelling motive for murder. No witness from the neighbourhood, workplace, or social circle of either the deceased or the accused has corroborated the alleged illicit relationship or any serious marital discord. Even the alleged alteration of the service-book nomination in favour of Madhuri, relied upon by the prosecution to suggest a financial motive, was not proved by production of any authenticated document or testimony of the concerned authority. In absence of credible, direct, or circumstantial proof linking the alleged relationship or financial factors to the commission of the offence, the prosecution’s theory of motive remains speculative and unsubstantiated. It thus cannot be said that the 32 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases prosecution has successfully established any motive that could have impelled the appellants to commit the murder of Himanshu Mandale. 38. The prosecution has further placed reliance upon the FSL report (Ex. P/64), which pertains to the examination of various seized articles collected during the investigation. As per the report, Articles ‘A’ and ‘B’ were soil samples from the spot; ‘C’ and ‘D’ were cotton swabs from the same location; ‘E’, ‘F’, and ‘G’ were cotton swabs collected from the bus stand; ‘H’ was a piece of rubber recovered from the bus stand; ‘I’ and ‘J’ were the T-shirt and pant of accused Lokendra Patel; ‘K’ and ‘L’ were the shirt and shoes of accused Nikhil Sonwani; ‘M’ and ‘N’ were the shirt and knife of accused Krishnakant Sharma @ Golu; ‘O’ and ‘P’ were the jeans and shoes of accused Manjeet Boyar; ‘Q’ and ‘R’ were the jeans and shirt of accused Govind Soni; ‘S’ and ‘T’ were the jeans and shoes of the child in conflict with law, Aryan; and ‘U’ was the burnt material allegedly belonging to accused Manjeet. The report records that bloodstains were detected on Articles ‘B’, ‘D’, ‘F’, ‘G’, ‘H’, ‘I’, ‘J’, ‘K’, ‘L’, ‘M’, ‘N’, ‘O’, ‘P’, and ‘Q’. However, while the blood group on certain articles was determined to be of ‘O’ group, in several others, the origin of the blood could not be ascertained or the grouping test remained inconclusive. Notably, there is no evidence on record to establish that the deceased’s blood group was ‘O’ or that the stains on the seized clothes and weapons were scientifically matched with the blood of the deceased. Consequently, the FSL report, in the absence of 33 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases such correlation, fails to provide any definite forensic link connecting the accused persons with the homicidal act. 39. The prosecution has also sought to rely on the Call Detail Records (CDRs) to establish the presence and movement of the accused persons in and around the place of occurrence. However, the evidentiary value of such material is rendered nugatory for want of compliance with the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Indian Evidence Act. PW-27, during his cross-examination, has categorically admitted that no certificate under Section 65B was issued in respect of the electronic records produced. Similarly, PW-28, the officer concerned with the analysis of tower location and route mapping, also conceded that no tower location data or route chart was submitted along with the CDRs. In view of the settled legal position enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer, (2014) 10 SCC 473, and reaffirmed in Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, (2020) 7 SCC 1, electronic evidence without the requisite Section 65B certification is inadmissible in evidence. Therefore, the CDRs and related tower location data cannot be read in evidence and hold no probative value in establishing the prosecution’s case. 40. Upon a comprehensive evaluation of the entire material on record, it is evident that the case of the prosecution rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, there being no direct or ocular testimony connecting the appellants with the commission of the offence. The settled law, as laid 34 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) requires that in cases founded on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain of circumstances must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and must form a complete chain leading only to the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any other conclusion. 41. In the present case, several material infirmities have emerged. The seizure and memorandum witnesses have admitted that all documents were signed at the police station and not at the alleged place of recovery, rendering the purported discovery under Section 27 of the Evidence Act highly doubtful. The prosecution has also failed to establish any credible “last-seen” circumstance or to produce any independent witness to corroborate its version. The evidence of PW-16 and PW-17 (brothers of the deceased) is based entirely on hearsay and subsequent suspicion, while PW-18 and PW-19 cited as independent witnesses have either retracted or contradicted the prosecution narrative. The prosecution’s attempt to establish motive through allegations of an illicit relationship and marital discord also fails for want of substantive evidence. 42. The cumulative effect of these deficiencies is that the chain of circumstances is not only incomplete but also inconsistent and unreliable. The alleged recoveries, improvements in testimony, and absence of corroboration from forensic or electronic evidence further weaken the prosecution case. In such a situation, where two views are 35 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases reasonably possible one pointing to guilt and the other to innocence the view favourable to the accused must necessarily be adopted. 43. It is well settled that in a case relating to circumstantial evidence the chain of circumstances has to be spelt out by the prosecution and if even one link in the chain is broken the accused must get the benefit thereof. We are of the opinion that the present is in fact a case of no evidence. Thus, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt. 44. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish its case against the appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances relied upon by the prosecution does not form a complete and unbroken link pointing only to the guilt of the appellants. On the contrary, the circumstances, taken cumulatively, are insufficient to exclude every hypothesis consistent with their innocence. Therefore, the benefit of doubt must necessarily go to the appellants. The conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court cannot be sustained and is, accordingly, set aside. 45. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellants are hereby quashed, and they are acquitted of all the charges by extending the benefit of doubt. The appellants, who are presently in custody, shall be released forthwith if not required to be detained in connection with any other case, upon each of them furnishing a personal bond in the sum of ₹25,000/- with one surety in the like amount to the 36 CRA No. 40 of 2025 & connected cases satisfaction of the Trial Court. The bail bond shall remain operative for a period of six months, in compliance with the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (BNSS). The appellants shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 46. In the result, all the criminal appeals succeed and are allowed. 47. 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. S Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri