1 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 2025:CGHC:42653-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1500 of 2021 Narayan Yadav S/o Shri Hetu Ram Yadav Aged About 56 Years R/o Village Loharsi, Choki Pachpedi, P.S. And Tahsil Masturi, And District Bilapur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The P.S. Pachpedi, Tahsil Masturi And District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Jameel Akhtar Lohani, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 22/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2017 passed in Sessions Trial No. 174/2016 by the learned 7th SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.08.25 18:50:35 +0530 2 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Sentence U/s 302 of the IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 3,000/- with default stipulation. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 22nd August, 2016, at about 5-6 AM, Kannu Lal Yadav (since deceased) was sentineling the fields of the Ashok Tiwari. his wife, Bodhin Bai, had also reached near the place of occurrence to answer the call of nature. At that time, the accused had also come there and after some exchange of words with deceased, hit him with a Tendu stick on the temple region of his head, consequently, the deceased fell down on the surface. The accused after committing the crime fled from the place of occurrence with Tendu lathi. Bodhin Bai had seen the entire incident and immediately rushed to the spot of occurrence and found her husband died. It was bleeding from the Temple region of the head of deceased. She tried to wake her husband up, but found him dead. She returned to her house and narrated the entire incident to her daughter in law and other relatives. Upon receipt of information, police rushed to the spot and recorded Dehati Nalisi on the basis of information of Bodhin Bai. Upon disclosure statement of the accused, police authorities recovered the weapons used in the occurrence and blood stained clothes of the accused and deceased and other articles produced before him in a sealed packet after autopsy. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Statements of the 3 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 prosecution witnesses were recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 4. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 22 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 5. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 11.10.2017 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel would submit that without there being any cogent evidence, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. According to the learned counsel the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances against the appellant. He further submits that there is material illegality 4 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 and perversity in the prosecution story purely based upon the false allegation that is an afterthought that too not supported by the eye- witness PW/1 Bodhin Bai, wife of the deceased, thus the conviction may be set-aside. 7. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The sole question for consideration arises before this Court whether the accused has murdered the deceased or not. 10. PW/1- Bodhin Bai is the widow of Kannu Yadav (deceased) being an eye-witness, stated in her statement that she knows the accused Narayan Yadav. She stated that it was about 7 am in the morning on the date of incident, she had gone to answer the call of nature when she saw the accused hitting her husband with a stick, due to which her husband fell down and died on the spot. After witnessing this cruel incident she went to her house to call her children. After that she reached the place along with her son and daughter-in-law where her husband was lying dead. Her son Devprasad went to the police station to report about the incident. Whereas in her cross-examination, she categorically admitted the 5 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 fact that she did not go to the police station to report the incident, her son went. She confusingly stated that her husband had gone to sentinel the field at 7 AM, further she voluntarily stated that he had left at 6 AM in the morning. She further stated that at what time her husband went to sentinel the field, she did not know. This witness totally bewildered and confused in stating the reliable statement. She further stated that she lives with her son and daughter-in-law and she alongwith other family members used the toilet built under the village scheme. She stated that when it rains, the grass grows on the ridge of the field and when the height of the grass on the ridge increases, it becomes one and a half feet. It is also true that the height of the ridge of the field varies. The height of the ridge of a field is up to 4 feet. 11. An eyewitness who provides a confusing or inconsistent statement is generally considered unreliable. When their account lacks clarity or contradicts itself, it becomes difficult to determine the truth of the events described. Such confusion can arise from stress, poor memory, or misunderstanding, which all compromise the accuracy of their testimony. As a result, their statement should be treated with caution and corroborated with other evidence before drawing any firm conclusions. Even PW/22- Apurva Tiwari, land owner, stated that he has not made the deceased to work in his field as sentinel. 12. PW/15 – Dr. Nandraj Kanwar, who conducted the post-mortem on the body of the deceased opined that the cause of death was head injury with shock, the nature of death was homicidal, which occurred within 24 6 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 hours of post mortem. The PM report given by him is Ex.P. 03. 13. Though the prosecution has led the evidence of witnesses Ram Kumar Sahu (PW/7), Kishan Lal Dhruv (PW/8) to prove the discovery of Tendu Lathi at the instance of the accused, but the witnesses have not supported the case of the prosecution with regard to the discovery and seizure of the Tendu Lathi. Therefore, the recovery of the tendu Lathi at the instance of accused can not be held as proved. It is true that Ram Kumar Sahu (PW/7) has turned hostile, while evidence of other witness Kishan Lal Dhruv (PW/8) is shaky on all recoveries made in his presence. 14. In such circumstances, the recovery evidence often plays a crucial role in establishing a connection between the accused and the crime. However, when these evidence is weak, it significantly undermines the prosecution’s case. Weak recovery evidence may stem from improper handling, lack of clear chain of custody, or ambiguous circumstances surrounding how and where the evidence was found. Such flaws can lead to doubts about the authenticity and relevance of the recovered items, raising questions about whether the evidence was planted, contaminated, or even linked to the accused at all. Consequently, weak recovery evidence fails to provide the solid foundation needed to prove guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, thereby weakening the overall case and potentially leading to acquittal. 15. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the accused. Attention of this Court was drawn up towards the admission made in para 11 of cross examination of Har Prasad Yadav (PW/3), son 7 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 of deceased, and in para 09 of Mohan Yadav P.W 10, brother-in-law of deceased, wherein both witnesses have admitted that there was no previous enmity between the family of deceased and accused and they were in talking terms with the accused. 16. In light of the above admissions made by the close relative of the deceased, this Court has found that in the absence of any motive on the part of the accused, the prosecution story cannot be relied upon. It is true that Har Prasad Yadav P.W3, Mohan Yadav P.W 10 have made admission to the above effect, but, it is a settled position of the law that if the motive of the occurrence was not proved, the ocular testimony of the witnesses should not be discarded merely on that account. 17. Upon cumulative analysis of the material available on record, at this stage, the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with punishment for murder, cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a chain of circumstances if that chain is not conclusively established. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the links in the chain of circumstances consistently point to the guilt of the accused. If there is any break or weakness in the chain, or if the circumstances are open to multiple interpretations, it creates doubt. Since a charge as serious as murder demands the highest standard of proof, Courts are cautious and do not convict based on an incomplete or unproven chain of events. Therefore, without a firmly established chain of circumstances, a conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be justifiably recorded. 8 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 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 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. 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 9 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 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 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 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 10 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 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 circumstances 'must be' and not 'may be' lead towards guilt of accused. 22. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the evidence on record, it would not be safe for this Court to hold that the appellant has murdered the deceased, thus, it cannot be said that the appellant murdered the deceased. 23. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond all reasonable doubts and the case of the prosecution itself has negated the theory by their own evidence on record. Hence the conviction under Sections 302 of IPC deserves to be set aside. 24. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the accused had murdered the deceased. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the same creates doubt, therefore, giving the 11 CRA No. 1500 of 2021 benefit of doubt, the accused/appellant entitled to be acquitted of the alleged charges levelled against him for the aforesaid offence. 25. The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted from the charge leveled against him. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case, on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as required under the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed. 26. 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. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar