1 CRA No. 86 of 2015 2025:CGHC:59914-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 86 of 2015 [Arising out of judgment dated 14.01.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.48/2014 by the 5 th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja, Chhattisgarh.]  Chhandan Paikra @ C.K. S/o Sabaldev Paikra, Aged About 22 Years, Occupation – Agriculturist, R/o Village Chiranga, Police Station Batauli, District Sarguja C.G. Civil & Revenue District Ambikapur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus  State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Batauli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant :- Mr. Maneesh Sharma, Advocate. For Respondent-State :- Mr. Arfoz Khan, Panel Lawyer. Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal & Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment On Board (10.12.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J 1. Assail in the present criminal appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the CrPC preferred by the appellant herein, is to the ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Digitally signed by ANKIT KUMAR SINGH Date: 2025.12.10 17:01:41 +0530 2 CRA No. 86 of 2015 legality, validity and correctness of the judgment dated 14.01.2015 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, in Sessions Trial No.48/2014, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer imprisonment for life with fine of ₹1,000/-; in default of payment of fine, he has to undergo simple imprisonment for six months and also convicted for offence under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced thereunder to suffer rigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of 500/-; in default of payment of fine, he has to ₹ undergo simple imprisonment for six months. Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently. Prosecution story:- 2. The case projected by the prosecution and accepted by the trial Court is that on 11.02.2014, in the midnight, between 11:00 pm to 12 mid night, at village Chiranga, Police Station Batauli, District Sarguja, Chhattisgarh, the appellant murdered Teejmaniya Bai by sharp edged weapon knife and thereby committed the aforesaid offence. Against the said incident, 3 CRA No. 86 of 2015 merg intimation (information of sudden and untimely death) was registered vide Ex.P/1. FIR was registered vide Ex.P/2. Nazari naksha and crime details form were registered vide Exs. P/4 & P/3, respectively. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P/20) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/8) proved by Dr. Ganesh Beck (PW-3), cause of death was neurogenic shock due to injuries of sinoventricular nodes, condueting system hypovolemia on account of penetrating wound of heart and homicidal in nature. Wheels of investigation started running and the appellant was arrested. Pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/14) weapon of offence i.e. knife and his clothes were seized vide Exs.P/15 & P/16, respectively. Other articles were also seized. Seized articles were sent for chemical analysis to FSL. As per FSL report (Ex.P/28) on the weapon of offence, clothes of the appellant and shoes of the appellant blood was found. 3. After due investigation, appellant herein was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offences and the case was committed to the 4 CRA No. 86 of 2015 Court of Sessions for trial in accordance with law. The appellant / accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence. 4. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents, whereas, defence, in support of its case, has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. The statement of the appellant / accused was recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence and false implication. 5. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, convicted the appellant / accused for the offence as mentioned in the opening paragraph of the judgment, against which the instant appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. Submission of the Parties:- 6. Mr. Maneesh Sharma, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the trial Court is absolutely unjustified in 5 CRA No. 86 of 2015 convicting appellant for offence in question. He would also submit that recovery of blood stained knife has not been established beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the appellant has convicted also on the ground that he absconded for two days, however, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded on 12.02.2014 at about 1:45 pm at the very next day of the incident though as per the arrest memo he was arrested on 13.02.2014, meaning thereby the appellant in the custody of the police and he was not absconded and furthermore, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 would not be applicable in the instant case. Thus the appeal deserves to be allowed and the appellant is entitled for acquittal. 7. Mr. Afroz Khan, learned State counsel, would oppose the prayer made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences in question. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6 CRA No. 86 of 2015 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submission made herein above and gone through the records precisely. Discussion & Analysis:- 9. The first question, as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P/8) proved by Dr. Ganesh Beck (PW-3), which, in our considered opinion, is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record and which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding of the trial Court holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 10. To base the conviction of the appellant the trial Court has relied upon the recovery of weapon of offence i.e. knife pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant also on the fact that the appellant remained absconded for two days and further relying upon the motive convicted the appellant for offences in question. 7 CRA No. 86 of 2015 Evidence of seizure and FSL:- 11. So far as the recovery is concerned, memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded on 12.02.2014 at about 1:45 pm, and the witnesses to the memorandum statement Ram Kripal Singh (PW-10) has turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and Devkaran Painkara (PW-15) partially supported the case of the prosecution. However a careful perusal of the FSL report (Ex.P/28) would show that weapon of offence i.e. knife and clothes of the appellant were seized on 12.02.2014 and the same was sent for chemical analysis on 24.03.2014, after more than one month, which was received by the office of the Joint Director Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Surguja on 27.03.2014 and there is no explanation given by the prosecution that the said seized articles were kept in a safe custody, between the date on which articles were seized i.e. 12.02.2014 and the date on which articles were received i.e. 27.03.2014, therefore, in absence of evidence that the said articles were kept in safe custody, chances of fabrication and manipulation cannot be ruled out. Furthermore, in the FSL report (Ex.P/28) only 8 CRA No. 86 of 2015 blood was found on the knife and clothes of the appellant and could not be ascertained human blood and only on the basis of forensic evidence appellant could not be convicted that too for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v State of Rajasthan 1 , has held that sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused and further held only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. As such, recover of bloodstained weapon and clothes of the appellant as well as the FSL report are of no use to the prosecution. Evidence of absconding:- 12. Furthermore, the trial Court has recorded incorrect finding that the appellant was absconded for two days from 11.02.2014 to 13.02.2014. As the date of offence is 11.04.2014, in the late night between 11:00 pm to 12:00 1 (2011) 11 SCC 724 9 CRA No. 86 of 2015 midnight, the appellant was taken into custody on 12.02.2014 and his the memorandum statement was recorded on 12.02.2014 at about 1:45 pm, thereafter, recovery was made on the same day i.e. 12.02.2014 and the appellant was arrested on 13.02.2014. In view of the aforesaid fact, finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant remained absconded for two days form the village without any evidence is not based upon the evidence available on record. Even otherwise, the present case is based upon the circumstantial evidence and non explanation and false explanation while recorded the statement recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC of the appellant cannot be used as additional evidence to complete the chain of circumstances. Motive:- 13. Last piece of evidence that has been relied upon by the trial Court is motive. As per the prosecution, there was a lover affair between the appellant and daughter of the deceased Sukanti (PW-2). However, it is well settled that motive is weak piece of evidence and only on the basis of motive appellant could not be convicted that too for offence under 10 CRA No. 86 of 2015 Section 302 of the IPC in absence of other corroborative piece of evidence. As such, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt. [See: Sampath Kumar v. Inspector of Police Krishnagiri 2 ] Conclusion:- 14. In view of the aforesaid discussion and analysis, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.01.2015 passed by the trial Court convicting and sentencing the appellant for the offences in question, is hereby set aside and the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the basis of principle of benefit of doubt as the prosecution has also failed to complete the chain of circumstances in light of decision of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 3 . Since the appellant is stated to be on bail, he need not surrender. However, his bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as per provisions contained in Section 437-A of the CrPC. 2 (2012) 4 SCC 124 3 (1984) 4 SCC 116 11 CRA No. 86 of 2015 15. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned, forthwith for information and necessary action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge Ankit