1 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 2025:CGHC:60944-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2214 of 2024 Devdas Mahant S/o Vishambhar Das Mahant Aged About 42 Years R/o Village Bayang, Police Station Kotra Road, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant (s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station Officer Kotra Road, District- Raigarh, Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Sanjay Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Nitansh Jaiswal, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 15/12/2025 1. In the case at hand, there were two accused persons tried before the learned trial Court. The trial Court after appreciating all the evidence available on record, has acquitted one of the accused SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.12.17 11:07:03 +0530 2 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 namely; Kailash Kapoor Sidar from the charges levelled against him by giving benefit of doubt and hence the present appellant herein approached this Court preferring this appeal against his conviction. 2. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415 of the BNSS is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 27.11.2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 58/2023 by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, 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. 5,000/- with default stipulation. 3. Case of the prosecution in brief is that the deceased, Kamal Das Mahant, and the accused, Devdas Mahant, were jointly engaged in the business of liquor and ganja. There was a dispute between them regarding the settlement of money earned from the said business. Similarly, the deceased Kamal Das Mahant was having a love affair with the daughter of acquitted accused Kailash Sidar. Upon coming to know this, said Kailash Sidar had on several occasions threatened to kill Kamal Das Mahant. On account of these reasons, both the accused, in connivance with each other and after forming a common intention, hatched a plan to murder Kamal Das Mahant and, in a pre-planned manner, entered into a 3 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 criminal conspiracy. Accordingly, on 17.12.2022 at about 6.00 P.M., accused Devdas Mahant took the deceased Kamal Das Mahant from village Bayang on his motorcycle and went to village Nandeli. At Nandeli, both of them consumed liquor at the house of Chhatte Sarthi. Accused Devdas Mahant made Kamal Das Mahant consume excessive liquor and thereafter took him on his motorcycle from Nandeli to village Jogitarai. After leaving Kamal Das Mahant at village Jogitarai, accused Devdas Mahant returned to his village Bayang and took accused Kailash Sidar along with him. On the way, near village Jogitarai, they met Kamal Das Mahant, whom they took along towards an isolated place on the Kotra road. Finding a secluded spot, both the accused assaulted Kamal Das Mahant with iron rods carried by them, inflicting fatal injuries on his head and thereby committed his murder. Thereafter, they left the dead body of Kamal Das Mahant at the place of occurrence in front of the Power Grid, Kotra, returned to their respective homes in village Bayang, and threw the iron rods into a canal in village Kotra. 4. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Statements of the 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 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 5. 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. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 27.11.2024 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned aforesaid. Hence, this appeal. 7. 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. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances against the appellant. Learned counsel would also submit that the impugned judgment passed by the Learned trial Court is wholly unsustainable in the eyes of law, inasmuch as the prosecution has miserably failed to establish any motive whatsoever on the part of the appellant to commit the alleged offence. It is also argued that absence of motive assumes greater significance in the present case, as the entire prosecution case 5 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 rests solely on circumstantial evidence. He would further submit that the FIR itself was lodged after an inordinate and unexplained delay of about 85 days, which strikes at the very root of the prosecution case and creates serious doubt regarding its authenticity and truthfulness. Such abnormal delay, according to the learned counsel, clearly indicates afterthought, deliberation and false implication of the appellant, rendering the prosecution story highly doubtful and unworthy of reliance. 8. 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. 9. 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. 10. The sole question for consideration arises before this Court whether the accused has murdered the deceased or not. 11. PW-4 Setbai Mahant, the mother of the deceased, stated that on 17.12.2022 at about 6.00 P.M., the appellant Devdas Mahant came to her house and took her son Kamal Das Mahant with him on a motorcycle saying that they were going to village Jogitarai. She stated that later in the night the appellant telephoned her family and informed them that Kamal Das had not returned and that he was searching for him around Jogitarai. According to her, 6 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 despite search efforts on 17.12.2022 and 18.12.2022, the deceased could not be traced and on 19.12.2022 they received information that an unidentified dead body was found near the Power Grid at Kurmapali, which was later identified as her son. She further stated that after the dead body was brought home, the appellant allegedly told her that accused Kailash Sidar and others had killed her son due to previous enmity relating to a love affair, and she thereafter suspected the involvement of the accused in the incident. 12. On careful scrutiny, this Court finds that her testimony does not inspire confidence and cannot be safely relied upon. Admittedly, PW-4 is not an eye-witness to the occurrence and has categorically stated that she has not seen the incident. Her evidence is based entirely on suspicion, assumptions and subsequent disclosures allegedly made by the appellant. A close reading of her deposition reveals material contradictions, inconsistencies and significant improvements over her earlier statements recorded during merg enquiry. Notably, at one stage she suspected several other persons of committing the murder and later shifted the blame exclusively upon the appellant, which clearly demonstrates wavering stands and lack of certainty. Her statement that the appellant allegedly admitted his presence at the place of occurrence is not corroborated by any independent witness, nor is it supported by contemporary 7 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 conduct, as admittedly no immediate report was lodged. Further, her own admission that relations between the deceased and the appellant were cordial till the time they left the house, coupled with the fact that she last saw the deceased alive much before the incident, renders her testimony weak for establishing the chain of circumstances. Being a highly interested witness, her evidence, in the absence of cogent corroboration, cannot form the sole basis for sustaining conviction in a case resting purely on circumstantial evidence. 13. On careful appreciation of the testimony of PW-7 Hirday Das Mahant, father of the deceased, this Court finds that his evidence also does not inspire confidence. He is also not an eye-witness to the occurrence and his deposition is based on suspicion and subsequent assumptions. His statement contains material contradictions, particularly with regard to the alleged quarrel, motive and manner of assault. Though he attempted to project the prosecution case of forcible intoxication and murder, he has in cross-examination admitted that the deceased was a habitual consumer of liquor and was already in an intoxicated condition when he left with the appellant, thereby contradicting the prosecution version. His stand regarding the last-seen circumstance is also inconsistent, as at one stage he stated that the deceased was left at Jogitarai, whereas later he alleged that the deceased was taken up to the Power Grid area, without any 8 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 independent corroboration. Such inconsistent conduct and uncorroborated allegations render the testimony of PW-7 unreliable for sustaining conviction in a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence. 14. Chhatte Ram Sarthi (PW-10), in his deposition, stated that the deceased Kamal Das Mahant and accused Devdas Mahant had come to his house once in the evening about two to three years prior to his examination and thereafter left together in a normal manner. He stated that on the next day Devdas informed him that Kamal Das had gone missing and he was searching for him. He further stated that he later came to know about the death of Kamal Das. PW-10 did not support the prosecution case regarding consumption of liquor at his house or any plan to intoxicate the deceased, and specifically denied having made any such statement to the police. He further stated that Devdas and Kamal Das had left his house happily, that Devdas appeared worried when Kamal Das went missing, and that he had heard that the death of Kamal Das occurred due to a road accident. 15. On a careful review of the evidence, it is observed that no clear or specific motive has been established against the accused, Devdas Mahant. PW-7 mentioned disputes between the deceased and the accused over minor altercations and prior disagreements, but these were domestic or interpersonal in nature and do not indicate any intention to cause death. Further, 9 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 there is no evidence of enmity, financial gain, or personal animosity that could explain a deliberate act against the deceased. The prosecution has failed to demonstrate how the alleged quarrels could have escalated to a homicidal act, leaving the motive entirely unsubstantiated. 16. Further the medical witness, Dr. Dhratiman Nath (PW-22) who conducted the post mortem of the deceased, stated that on examination, he found multiple injuries on the head and face, including fractures and abrasions, and concluded that all injuries were ante-mortem, caused by blunt force trauma, leading to coma and death. The internal organs were normal, and the stomach was empty. Rigor mortis and decomposition had set in, indicating death occurred 2–3 days before the post-mortem. Samples of hair, nails, and dried blood were preserved for DNA testing. He examined two iron rods and two small containers sent for query and stated that such rods could cause head injuries, but no blood was found on them. He clarified that the type of injuries could also result from collision with a heavy vehicle. While the injuries could result from a heavy object or a road accident, the rods and containers examined did not have blood stains, and further forensic testing (DNA/FSL) was needed to confirm any link to the items. 17. Upon cumulative analysis of the material available on record, at this stage, the conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal 10 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 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. 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 11 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 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 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]. 12 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 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 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, 13 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 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. Reverting to the facts of the case, it is also noted that the deceased, Kamaldas Mahant, went missing on 17.12.2022, and his body was recovered on 19.12.2022. The testimonies of PW-7 (father of the deceased) and PW-10 (Chhatte Ram) contain contradictions and inconsistencies, especially regarding the alleged involvement of Devdas Mahant in the death. The accounts of phone calls, the deceased’s alleged intoxication, and the search efforts differ in various statements, reducing their reliability. 23. The post-mortem report confirms that the deceased sustained multiple injuries to the head and face, which were sufficient to cause death. Nonetheless, the medical evidence also indicates that these injuries could result from accidental causes, such as collision with a heavy vehicle or object. Forensic examination of the rods and containers allegedly linked to the incident revealed no blood stains, and further conclusive evidence connecting these items to the deceased was not established. 24. It is also observed that the FIR was lodged after a considerable delay of 85 days, and no motive for the alleged crime has been established. The delay in reporting and absence of a clear motive cast further doubt on the credibility of the accusations. Additionally, the circumstances narrated by the witnesses suggest 14 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 that the deceased was frequently intoxicated and roaming around the locality, which could have contributed to an accidental death. 25. In light of the above, while the death of Kamaldas Mahant is tragic, the evidence on record does not sufficiently prove the involvement of the accused. There is no direct or credible material linking the accused to the act, and the inconsistencies in witness accounts further weaken the prosecution’s case. 26. 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. 27. In view of the above and applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, particularly considering the lack of motive, the delayed FIR, the contradictions in witness statements and the medical opinion pointing to possible accidental causes, 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. 28. 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, 15 CRA No. 2214 of 2024 therefore, giving the benefit of doubt, the accused/ appellant entitled to be acquitted of the alleged charges levelled against him for the aforesaid offence. 29. The accused is acquitted of the charges for which he was tried. The impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. 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 present Criminal Appeal is allowed. 30. 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