1 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 2025:CGHC:60539-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1478 of 2021 Sarfuddin @ Sonu Musalman S/o Mumatajuddin, Aged About 23 Years R/o Village Mopka, P.S. Bhatapara (Gramin), District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bhatapara (Gramin) District Baloda Bazar Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondents (Cause title is taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondents/State : Mr. U.K.S. Chandel, Dy.A.G. Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Order on Board Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 12/12/2025 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 03.02.2021 passed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.12.16 18:27:52 +0530 2 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhatapara, District Balodabazar, C.G. in Sessions Trial No. H-27/2018, whereby the appellant/accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence Section 302 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,00,000/- with default stipulation Section 201 of IPC R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation Section 25(1-B)(b) of Arms Act R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation Section 27(1) of Arms Act R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation All the sentences were directed to run concurrently 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Preetamdas Manikpuri PW-1 informed the concerned police station that on 05.09.2018, while he was at his house at about 6:30 a.m. a villager namely Rakesh PW-3 came to his residence and reported that he had found the beheaded dead body of an unknown person when he went out of answer the nature’s call at Ahuwaribhata. During the investigation of an unidentified body, it was found that the deceased was Thaneshwar Sahu, a resident of Mopka. After obtaining permission, the body was exhumed and handed over to his father, Chatursingh Sahu PW-4. Memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded, on the basis of which, head of the deceased Thaneshwar Sahu, the weapon used in the incident, blood-stained clothes and the 3 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 motorcycle used in the incident were seized. Merg intimation was prepared vide Ex.P-42. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P- 25. Postmortem of the dead body was conducted vide Ex.P-28. Appellant was arrested. After completing of investigation, final report was prepared. 3. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 61 documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either. 4. 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. 5. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. There is material contradiction and omission between the statement of prosecution witnesses. He submits that the learned trial Court erred in convicting the appellant only on the basis of assumption and presumption and the finding given by the learned trial Court 4 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 against the appellant is perverse and contrary to evidence on record. Learned counsel submits that the prosecution has not proved the case against the appellant beyond reasonable doubts. He submits that there is no any eye witness, who had seen the incident. Learned counsel submits that the chain of circumstantial evidence is not connected to each other. Learned counsel submits that only on the basis that there was dispute between the appellant and deceased with regard to family purpose, the appellant has implicated in this crime. Also, looking to the entire evidence adduced by the prosecution, the alleged offence is not made out against the appellant and he has been falsely implicated in the present case. As such, the criminal appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by the learned counsel for the appellant and submits that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt the learned trial Court after considering the material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant, in which no interference is called for. 7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 5 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 8. Postmortem report vide Ex.P-28 in respect of body of deceased, in which, the Doctor found the following injuries:- “One incision was located in the lower front part of the neck, which was a wound after beheading, one incision was located in the upper part of the chest measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm, which was up to the bone depth, one incision was located in the right side of the chest measuring 2 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm, one incision was located in the front part of the chest measuring 2 cm x 1.5 cm, which was up to the depth of the chest cavity, one incision was located in the lower right side of the abdomen measuring 2 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm, one incision was located in the lower part of the iliac crest bone, from where the abdominal intestines were visible protruding out, one incision was located in the lower part of the abdomen measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm, which was up to the depth of the iliac crest bone, from where the abdominal intestines were visible protruding out. One incision was located in the lower part of the chest measuring 2 cm x 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm. There was an incision in the abdomen, two inches above rib number 6, and an incision measuring 2 cm x 1.5 cm deep in the chest, up to rib number 6. There was an incision in the chest, measuring 2 cm x 0.5 cm x 1.5 cm, above the 6 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 right iliac crest bone. There was an incision in the lower back, measuring 1.5 cm x 1.5 cm x 0.5 cm. The middle lobe of the lung was lacerated, measuring 3 cm x 1.5 cm x 3 cm.” 9. Postmortem report vide Ex.P-29 in respect of severed head of deceased, in which, the Doctor found the following injuries:- “The skin on the deceased's head was peeled off. The trachea and windpipe, as well as cervical bones 5 and 6 at the back of the neck, were broken and separated. The scalp hair was protruding from the skin. The eyes were swollen and protruding from the eye sockets, and the scalp bones were broken, and the brain was liquefied. Opinion - In his opinion, the severed head of the deceased, which was brought before him for examination, matched the severed head of the deceased from a previous autopsy of a headless body that he had performed.” 10. 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/28) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. R.N. Das (PW-14). Accordingly, 7 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/28) and the statement of Dr. R.N. Das (PW-14) that the nature of death of deceased was homicidal in nature, 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 record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 11. Now the next question would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ? 12. PW-1 Pritam Das Manikpuri, Complainant, Kotwar, stated in his evidence that about three months before the date of evidence, a boy namely Rakesh from the village informed about a murder in Mahuaribhatha, then he went to the spot, where he saw the beheaded dead body. In cross-examination, he stated that even on the day he saw the dead body, he did not identify the deceased. He stated that the person who informed him, also did not identify the deceased on the day the body was seen. He categorically stated that the accused did not take out the head and clothes from the pond and handover the same to the police. The witness himself states that they themselves took out the said seized articles from the pond and the accused was present there. He further stated that the police did not take his signatures on the seizure memo regarding the seizure of the 8 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 gandasa and the knife. 13. PW-3 Rakesh stated in his evidence that about two months prior to the date of evidence, he had gone to Mahuaribhata to defecate. There, he saw a beheaded deadbody lying under a tree and its clothes stained with blood. At the request of the village Head, Hemlal, he went to the Kotwar's house and reported the incident. 14. PW-2 Hemlal Dhruv, stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, he went to place of occurrence, where he saw the dead body. He also supported the scene of the Crime (Exhibit P- 3), inquest report (Exhibit P-5), a pair of slippers, blood-soaked soil, and plain soil from the scene (Exhibit P-6), the seizure memo (Exhibit P-7) of jeans and pants. Furthermore, this witness stated that the deceased was a 23-24 year old youth. He further stated that five days after the incident, he accompanied the police, along with the accused to Mopka Pond, where a severed head was recovered at the instance of the appellant and the accused had taken out a knife and an axe from his house. In cross-examination, he stated that wherever the police asked him to sign on papers, he signed, as instructed by the police. He further stated that the accused did not take out the head and clothes from the pond and hand them over to the police. The witness himself states that the village Kotwar searched for and took out the deceased’s head from the pond, 9 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 and the accused was present there. He admits that the police seized a gandasa and a knife, but did not take his signatures on the seizure memo. 15. PW-9 Dilharan Verma stated that the incident occurred on 04-09-2018. At the police station, the accused Sarfuddin alias Sonu was questioned in his presence. He stated that the appellant had thrown the head, wrapped in a shirt and a membrane, into the Sargbundia pond, thrown the pants into the Solah pond, and he had kept the knife and axe in Meehi Maharaj's room. 16. PW-7 Nohar Singh Sahu stated that upon receiving information, he went to Bhatapara Police Station and, along with his brothers Chatur and Lakeshwar. He further stated that after exhuming the body in the presence of the SDM, identified the deceased as Thaneshwar. On 10-09-2018, when the villagers took the accused to Sargbundiya pond in Mopka village, he went there and, as per the appellant’s statement, retrieved a head wrapped in a cloth from the pond in Dhurrabandha village. In cross- examination, he stated that the police did not take his signatures on the recovery panchnama and seizure memo of the deceased’s head. The police did not give him any notice to be present near Sargabundiya pond. He stated that the work of taking out Thaneshwar’s head from the pond was done by the Kotwar of village Dhurrabandha. The police did not take any 10 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 signatures from him during the seizure proceedings conducted at the edge of the pond. 17. PW-6 Parameshwar Sahu stated in his evidence that that on 06- 09-2018, he went to Bhatapara Rural Police Station with his father, Chatur Singh, his uncles, Lakeshwar Sahu, Daulat Sahu. At the police station, they identified the body as Thaneshwar after seeing the tattoo on the body in the photograph as brother. He further stated that his brother (deceased) had an illicit relationship with the wife of the accused, which led to the incident. 18. 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 v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622). Here, the chain is broken at multiple points: hostile testimony from key relatives, unreliable extra-judicial confession, doubtful recovery, and no conclusive forensic link. 19. 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 11 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 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 the act must have been done by the accused. 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 12 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 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 13 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 being swayed by emotional 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.” 20. 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.” 21. When the case is entirely based upon the circumstantial evidence, the chain of such circumstantial evidence in all probabilities 'must' indicate towards guilt of accused and 14 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 circumstances 'must be' and not 'may be' lead towards guilt of accused. 22. As far as the alleged motive of murder of the deceased by the appellant is concerned, PW-6 Parmeshwar Sahu, brother of deceased, has stated that there was an illicit relationship between the deceased and the wife of the accused, however, the same has not been proved, further that because of the siad relation, the deceased has been murdered by the appellant. Even the wife of the accused has not been examined. In absence of proof about the allegation of motive, mere submission of PW-6, Parmeshwar Sahu that there was an illicit relationship between the deceased and the wife of the accused is not sufficient to hold that there was a clear cut motive for the murder of the deceased by the accused appellant. 23. Even the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances so as to point conclusively towards the guilt of the accused and to exclude every hypothesis consistent with his innocence. None of the material prosecution witnesses, namely PW-1 Pritam Das Manikpuri, PW-2 Hemlal Dhruv and PW-7 Nohar Singh Sahu, have supported the prosecution case with regard to the alleged recovery of the deceased’s head and clothes at the instance of the accused. On the contrary, all these witnesses have categorically stated that the accused did not take out the head or the clothes from the pond and hand over the same to the 15 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 police, and that the recovery was in fact made by the village Kotwar, with the accused merely being present at the spot. The evidence further reveals serious procedural lapses, as none of these witnesses signed the seizure memos or recovery panchnamas, and some of them have admitted that they signed documents only as directed by the police, thereby casting grave doubt on the genuineness and credibility of the alleged recoveries. 24. It is also significant that there is no eye-witness account of the incident, and the identity of the deceased was not even established at the time the dead body was first seen. In a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, the law requires that each circumstance must be firmly proved and the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to lead only to the inference of guilt of the accused. In the present case, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are neither conclusively proved nor do they form a complete chain. The recoveries, which form an important link in the prosecution case, are doubtful and unreliable, and the benefit of such doubt must necessarily go to the accused. Consequently, this Court holds that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. The accused is therefore entitled to the benefit of doubt and is hereby acquitted of all the charges levelled against him. 16 CRA No. 1478 of 2021 25. In the result, this appeal is allowed. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case. 26. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A Cr.P.C., 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 one surety 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. 27. The trial Court record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep