1 2025:CGHC:61155-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No.313 of 2016 The date when the judgment is reserved The date when the judgment is pronounced The date when the judgment is uploaded on the website Operative Full 23.09.2025 16.12.2025 -- 16.12.2025 1 - Pardeshi Yadav S/o Parasram Yadav Aged About 40 Years R/o Tulsi Baradera, Police Station Mandir Hasod, Civil and Revenue District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Appellant (s) versus 1 - The State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Mandir Hasod, District Raipur, Chhattisgarh Respondent(s) For Appellant (s) : Mr. Amit Kumar Sahu, Advocate on behalf of Mr. R. K. Pali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Ms. Sunita Sahu, PL Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad C A V Judgment Per Rajani Dubey J. 1. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 18.02.2016 passed by Digitally signed by R NIRALA 2 the learned 7th Additional Session Judge, Raipur in ST No.71/2014, whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with fine of Rs.2000/- and RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.1000/-, respectively, with default stipulations. Both sentences shall run concurrently. 2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that on 07.10.2013 Mahesh Kumar Banjare intimated the police station concerned that one body is floating in canal, upon which a merg was registered and the police went to spot and found the dead body and during investigation the said dead body was found to be of deceased Kamal Sonkar and multiple injuries were found on his body. During investigation the appellant was found to be murderer of him, upon which a case was registered against the appellant and he was arrested. After investigation, charge sheet was filed before the Magistrate concerned. On the basis of the evidence adduced by the prosecution and material available on record, learned trial court convicted the accused/appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 3. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law and material available on record. There are material omissions and contradictions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. There is no eye witness in the present case and only on the basis of conjectures and surmises the appellant has been convicted 3 and sentenced for the aforesaid offence. The case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence but the chain of circumstances is not proved against the appellant. The prosecution had only recovered one stick (danda) from the place of occurrence but no blood was found on the same. The memorandum and seizure is also not proved against the appellant, but the learned Trial Court has not considered the said aspects of the matter. Therefore, the appeal deserves to be allowed. 4. Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that the learned Trial Court has minutely appreciated the evidence available on record and has rightly convicted the appellant. Therefore, the appeal is liable to be dismissed. 5. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 6. It is clear from the record of the learned Trial Court that the learned Trial Court framed charges under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC against the appellant and after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, the learned Trial Court convicted and sentenced the appellant, as mentioned in para 1 of the judgment. 7. With respect to the homicidal death of deceased, the prosecution has examined Dr. S. K. Bagh (PW-11) who conducted postmortem of deceased and gave his report (Ex-P/14) and opined that the death was due to multiple injuries to body and 4 injuries were caused with hard and sharp object and few injuries were caused with hard and blunt object and injuries are sufficient to cause death in ordinary course of nature and death was homicidal in nature. 8. From the evidence of Dr. S. K. Bagh (PW-11), anti mortam injuries over the body of deceased were found which led to his death and the nature of death has also not been disputed by the appellant, therefore, it has been found proved that the death of deceased Kamal Sonkar was homicidal in nature. Thus, the learned Trial Court has rightly found that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 9. Now we have to consider that whether the accused is author of this crime or not? 10. There is no eye witness in the present case and no last seen evidence as well. The case of the prosecution mainly rests on the circumstantial evidence. 11. The learned Trial Court in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant relied upon the evidence of memorandum and seizure witnesses namely Shiv Shankar Sonkar (PW-7) and Bhuneshwar Singh Thakur (PW-9) as well as the evidence of investigating officer Rajesh Kumar Jha (PW-12) and Jitendra Sonkar (PW-8) who stated about motive. 12. PW-7 Shiv Shankar Sonkar stated that the accused had told the police in front of him that he assaulted the deceased Kamal Sonkar by a club (danda). The police recorded his memorandum 5 vide Ex-P/8. This witness admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. He also stated that police seized club near canal as per seizure memo (Ex-P/9) and he admitted his signatures on A to A part of the same. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted this suggestion of prosecution that it is true that the accused had given club to the police near canal in front of him. In the cross-examination, he admitted some suggestion of defence that the deceased was historysheeter and prior to few days, he was released from jail. In para 9, he admitted that he comes to the Court to give his deposition for his friends as a help. He further stated that being a friend of the deceased who is history sheeter, he comes to the Court to help the brother of the deceased Hari Sonkar. 13. PW-9 Bhuneshwar Singh Thakur admitted his signatures on memorandum (Ex-P/8) and seizure (Ex-P/9). In the cross- examination, he admitted that belongs to Raipur and there are 3- 4 criminal cases against him for which he comes to the Court regularly for his court appearance. He stated in para 7 as under:- “eSa xokg f’koeaxy ls iwoZ U;k;ky; ds le{k vk pqdk FkkA U;k;ky; esa mifLFkfr yxkus ls U;k;ky; dk pijk’kh vkSj eksgfjZj eq>s xokgh nsus ds fy;s vnkyr esa dbZ ckj cqyok;k ijarq eSa xokgh rc rd ugh nsuk pkgrk Fkk lk{kh f’koeaxy dk bartkj dj jgk FkkA lk{kh f’koeaxy ds vkus ds Ik’pkr~ gh U;k;ky; esa xokgh ns jgk gWwa ;g dguk xyr gS fd xokg f’koeaxy ls ckrphr djus ds mijkar gh U;k;ky; esa xokgh ns jgk gWwA ;g xyr gS fd e`rd dey lksudj esjk HkkbZ gksus ds ukrs EkSus vkjksih ds fo:} >wBh xokgh fn;k gSA 14. It is clear from merg intimation (Ex-P/1) and FIR (Ex-P/20) that it 6 was lodged against unknown person. 15. Jitendra Sonkar (PW-8), brother of deceased stated that prior to the incident, the deceased Kamal Sonkar had told him that he has sold land to the appellant but he is not giving money of the same. The appellant had complained to Dinesh Thakur that he has given entire money to Kamal Sonkar. The prosecution declared him hostile and cross-examined him, then he admitted that he had not given his statement on B to B part of Ex-P/13 and he does not know as to how the police recorded this statement. He admitted this suggestion of defence that for the first time he is telling the Court that prior to the incident, the deceased Kamal Sonkar had told him that he has sold land to the appellant but he is not giving money. 16. PW-13 Hariom Sonkar, who is also brother of deceased, stated that his brother Kamal Sonkar had sold land to the appellant and due to which there was dispute between the deceased and the appellant. In the cross-examination, he admitted that he had told the police that his brother Kamal Sonkar had sold land to the appellant and due to which there was dispute between the deceased and the appellant and he can not tell if the police has not mentioned the same in his statement (Ex-P/1). 17. As per seizure memo (Ex-P/9), one club was seized from garbage heap. The Investigating Officer (PW-12) Rajesh Kumar Jha stated that during investigation he had got knowledge that injuries were caused to the deceased by sharp weapon but he 7 has not done any investigation in this regard. He also admitted that in the club which was seized, no blood or mark of blood was found. In para 21 he admitted that he has not sent the seized club for FSL examination. He also admitted that for query, he has not sent any sharp and blunt object. He also admitted this suggestion that both witnesses of memorandum and seizure are from Raipur. He admitted this suggestion that deceased Sonkar was history sheeter and there were various criminal cases against him. 18. On close scrutiny of statement of all the witnesses, it is clear that PW-8 Jitendra Sonkar and PW-13 Hariom Sonkar, brothers of deceased stated about rivalry between the accused and the deceased pursuant to the land dispute. PW-7 Shiv Shankar and PW-9 Bhuneshwar Singh Thakur stated about memorandum (Ex- P/8) and seizure (Ex-P/9). The Investigating Officer (PW-12) Rajesh Kumar Jha admitted this suggestion of defence that he did not sent the seized club for FSL. As per postmortem report, some injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon and the Investigating Officer admitted that he did not investigate about sharp cutting object and though the memorandum and seizure witnesses stated against the appellant, but they also admitted this suggestion that they are from Raipur and they are friends of deceased’s brother and they came to Court to give deposition on behalf of their friends, as such their statements are not reliable. Most importantly in seized club no human blood was found. The 8 Investigating Officer only sent viscera of deceased Kamal Sonkar as per Ex-P/21 and no weapon was sent for chemical examination so seizure of club is of no help to the prosecution. 19. Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Raja Khan v. State of C.G. reported in (2025) 3 SCC 314, held in para 31 as under:- “31. The question as to whether evidence relating to recovery is sufficient to fasten guilt on the accused was considered by this Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, wherein it has been held as under: (SCC pp. 58- 59, para 18) "18.... Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (in short "the Evidence Act") is by way of proviso to Sections 25 to 26 and a statement even by way of confession made in police custody which distinctly relates to the fact discovered is admissible in evidence against the accused. This position was succinctly dealt with by this Court in State (UT of Delhi) v. Bal Krishan and Mohd. Inayatullah v. State of Maharashtra². The words "so much of such information" as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, are very Important and the whole force of the section concentrates on them. Clearly the extent of the Information admissible must depend on the exact nature of the fact discovered to which such information is required to relate. The ban as Imposed by the preceding sections was presumably inspired by the fear of the legislature that a person under police Influence might be induced to confess by the exercise of undue pressure. If all that is required to lift the ban be the Inclusion In the confession of Information relating to an object subsequently produced, it seems reasonable to suppose that the persuasive powers of the police will prove equal to the occasion, and that in practice the ban will lose its effect. The object of the provision i.e. Section 27 was to provide for the admission of evidence which but for the existence of the section could not in consequence of the preceding sections, be admitted in evidence. It would appear that under Section 27 as it stands in order to render the evidence leading to discovery of any fact admissible, the information must come from any accused in custody of the police. The requirement of police custody is productive of extremely anomalous results and may lead to the exclusion of much valuable evidence in cases where a person, who is 9 subsequently taken into custody and becomes an accused, after committing a crime meets a police officer or voluntarily goes to him or to the police station and states the circumstances of the crime which lead to the discovery of the dead body, weapon or any other material fact, In consequence of the Information thus received from him. This Information which is otherwise admissible becomes inadmissible under Section 27 If the information did not come from a person in the custody of a police officer or did come from a person not in the custody of a police officer. The statement which is admissible under Section 27 Is the one which is the information leading to discovery. Thus, what is admissible being the information, the same has to be proved and not the opinion formed on it by the police officer. In other words, the exact information given by the accused while in custody which led to recovery of the articles has to be proved. It is, therefore, necessary for the benefit of both the accused and the prosecution that Information given should be recorded and proved and if not so recorded, the exact information must be adduced through evidence. The basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The Information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable Information. It is now well settled that recovery of an object is not discovery of fact envisaged in the section. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King-Emperor is the most- quoted authority of supporting the interpretation that the "fact discovered" envisaged in the section embraces the place from which the object was produced, the knowledge of the accused as to it, but the information given must relate distinctly to that effect. [See State of Maharashtra v. Damu².] No doubt, the information permitted to be admitted in evidence is confined to that portion of the information which "distinctly relates to the fact thereby discovered". But the information to get admissibility need not be so truncated as to make it insensible or incomprehensible. The extent of Information admitted should be consistent with understandability. Mere statement that the accused led the police and the 10 witnesses to the place where he had concealed the articles is not indicative of the information given." 20. In light of the above, in the present case also, both brothers of the deceased stated about motive, but in police statement no such motive was stated by them. As per postmortem report, some injuries were caused by sharp edged weapon but no investigation in this regard was done. The memorandum and seizure witnesses were also from distant place i.e. Raipur and themselves admitted that since they are friends of deceased’s brother and they came to Court to give deposition on behalf of their friends, as such their statements are not reliable. Most importantly in seized club no human blood was found. The Investigating Officer only sent viscera of deceased Kamal Sonkar as per Ex-P/21 and no weapon was sent for chemical examination. Thus, the prosecution has failed to prove any legally admissible evidence against the appellant, as such the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is not sustainable. 21. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC. 22. The appellant is reported to be on bail. 23. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 of BNSS 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- before the court concerned forthwith, which shall be 11 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. 24. The Trial Court’s record along with the copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- Rajani Dubey Amitendra Kishore Prasad Judge Judge Nirala