Page No.1 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 2025:CGHC:56537-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR [Arising out of a common impugned judgment dated 24.04.2015, passed in Session Trial No.86 of 2014 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Sanat Sahu and another) by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Durg (CG)] Criminal Appeal No. 687 of 2015 Sanat Sahu, S/o Bisahuha Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o Village – Bhansuli, Police Station- Ranitarai, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant (On Bail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Ranitarai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Tandon, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- WITH Criminal Appeal No. 885 of 2015 Neeta Sahu, W/o Shri Mukesh Sahu, aged about 27 years, R/o Village – Bhansuli, Police Station- Ranitarai, District- Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Appellant (On Bail) Versus State of Chhattisgarh, through Station House Officer, Police Station Ranitarai, District Durg (Chhattisgarh) ... Respondent [Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)] ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- SAIFAN KHAN Digitally signed by SAIFAN KHAN Page No.2 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Sharad Mishra, Panel Lawyer ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Division Bench Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal and Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (20.11.2025) Sanjay K. Agrawal, J (1) Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved and being arising out of a common impugned judgment dated 24.04.2015, on the joint request of learned counsel for the parties, both these criminal appeals are clubbed together, heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment. (2) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, two accused-appellants herein, namely, Sanat Sahu (A-1) and Neeta Sahu (A-2) have preferred two criminal appeals (CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015) under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of common impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 24.04.2015, passed in Session Trial No.86 of 2014 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Sanat Sahu and another) by the 5th Addl. Sessions Judge, Durg (CG), whereby they both have been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence U/s. 450 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 10 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 03 months each. Page No.3 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 U/s. 302/34 of IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/- each and, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months each. (3) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 26.11.2013, at about 10:40 AM, at Village in the intervening night of 26-27/04/2018, between 08:00 PM to 06:00 AM, at Village Bhansuli, which comes within the ambit of Police Station- Ranitarai, District- Durg (CG), the two accused-appellants herein in furtherance of their common intention, entered into the house of Ku. Kajal (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) and caused her murder and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offence. (4) It is further case of the prosecution, as projected in the final report, that the two appellants herein were having love affair with each other and, on the date of offence, they were having sexual intercourse in the house of the deceased, which was seen by the deceased and, when she threatened them that she will disclose about the said incident, both the appellants committed her murder. It is also the case of the prosecution that when the matter was reported to the police, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P/09 and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/06 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/07. Nazari Naksha and panchnama were also prepared vide Ex.P/08. The dead-body of the deceased was sent Page No.4 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Ajay Singh Thakur (PW-18) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/16), cause of death of the deceased has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries caused by hard and sharp object and nature of death is homicidal. Further, FIR was also registered vide Ex.P/22. The appellants-accused were arrested vide Ex.P/31 & Ex.P/32 respectively. Thereafter, memorandum/confessional statements of the accused-appellants were also recorded vide Ex.P/01 & Ex.P/02 and, pursuant to which, one shirt has been seized from appellant- Sanat Sahu (A-1) vide Ex.P/03 and one sari has been seized from appellant- Neeta Sahu (A-2) vide Ex.P/04. From the place of incident, weapon of the offence i.e. axe and saw were seized vide Ex.P/11. The said seized articles were sent for chemical examination and, as per FSL report (Ex.P/30), it has been opined stains of blood were found only on the shirt seized from appellant- Sanat Sahu (A- 1). After statements of witnesses were recorded and due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellants in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellants/accused abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they are innocent and have been falsely implicated. (5) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 34 documents, whereas the appellants- Page No.5 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 accused in support of their defence, examined 01 witness and exhibited 03 documents. (6) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict both the appellants for offence under Sections 450 & 302/34 of IPC and sentenced the as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which these two appeals have been preferred by the appellants-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. (7) Mr. Suresh Tandon and Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the respective appellants submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting the appellants for offence under Sections 450 & 302/34 of IPC, as the prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that the appellants has been convicted on the basis of surmises and conjectures. There is no legally admissible evidence available against the appellants to hold them guilt for the offence. They vehemently argued that the evidence of last seen together is not at all established. Nothing incriminating has been seized from the exclusive possession of the appellants. Even the weapon of the offence i.e. axe and saw both have been seized from the place of incident. Moreover, so far as recovery of blood stained shirt from appellant- Sanat Sahu (A-1) is concerned, only on that count alone he could not have been convicted by the learned trial Court in Page No.6 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 absence of any other connecting link or valid piece of evidence more particularly when it is settled legal position that sole recovery of blood stained article cannot form basis for recording conviction of the accused that too for an offence under Section 302 of IPC. As such, the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting both the appellants for the offence under Sections 450 & 302/34 of IPC and, therefore, the present appeals deserve to be allowed and the appellants are liable to be acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. (8) Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. In view of the statements of prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for offence under Sections 450 & 302/34 of IPC. Thus, the present appeals deserve to be dismissed. (9) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. (10) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the Page No.7 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 postmortem report (Ex.P/16), wherein it has been opined that cause of death of the deceased has been opined to be hemorrhage and shock due to multiple injuries caused by hard and sharp object and nature of death is homicidal, which is duly proved by the statement of Dr. Ajay Singh Thakur (PW-18). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/16) and the statement of Dr. Ajay Singh Thakur (PW-18), who has conducted the postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, we are of the considered opinion 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. We hereby affirm the said finding. (11) Now, the next question would be whether the accused- appellants herein are the author of the crime in question or not? (12) In the case at hand, the case of the prosecution, as projected in the charge-sheet (final report) as also found proved by the learned trial Court, is that the appellants herein were having love affair with each other and, on the date of offence, they were having sexual intercourse in the house of the deceased, which was seen by the deceased and, when the deceased threatened them to disclose about the said incident to her mother, mother of appellant- Neeta Sahu (A- 2), her mother-in-law and village Sarpanch, the accused-appellants became frightened and in order to avoid such an eventuality, caused Page No.8 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 her murder. However, the factum of two appellants herein were making physical relationship was not stated by any of the prosecution witnesses and it has been taken from the memorandum/confessional statements of both the appellants recorded vide Ex.P/01 &Ex.P/02. It is well settled that confessional statement made by the accused is inadmissible in evidence in light of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. In this regard, the Supreme Court in the matter of State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya 1 , the Constitution Bench of the Supreme Court has held that confessional part of the statement is inadmissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and only part which leads to discovery of facts is admissible in evidence. (13) The aforesaid decision of Deoman Upadhyaya (supra) has been followed with approval by the Supreme Court in the matter of Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar & Others v. State of Karnataka 2 and observed in paragraph 60 & 61 held as under : “60. We would now discuss about the requirement under law so as to prove a disclosure statement recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act and the discoveries made in furtherance thereof. 61. The statement of an accused recorded by a police officer under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is basically a memorandum of confession of the accused recorded by the investigating officer during interrogation which has been taken down in writing. The confessional part of such statement is inadmissible in evidence as laid down 1 AIR 1960 SC 1125 2 (2024) 8 SCC 149 Page No.9 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 by this Court in State of U.P. v. Deoman Upadhyaya (supra).” (14) Coming to the facts of this case in light of the decisions rendered by the Supreme Court in Deoman Upadhyaya (supra) followed in Babu Sahebagouda Rudragoudar (supra), it is quite vivid that the part of the appellants’ confessional statement that they have committed murder of the deceased is inadmissible in evidence, as only the information given by the accused/appellants leads to recovery of incriminating material from a place solely and exclusively within the knowledge of the maker thereof would be admissible in evidence. Therefore, the reliance placed by the trial Court on the confessional part of the statement of accused/appellants, admitting their guilt, is inadmissible in evidence and cannot form basis for their conviction. We hereby hold accordingly. (15) Now the next piece of evidence which has been relied upon by the learned trial Court is that the two appellants herein were lastly seen together alongwith the deceased by Dhalsingh (PW-03), Kamta (PW-13) and Jugal Kishore Sen (PW-21) and, therefore, it would be necessary to scrutinize the testimonies of these three witnesses carefully one by one. (a) Dhalsingh (PW-03) is the neighbor of appellant- Sanat Sahu (A-1) and the deceased and he has only stated that on the date of incident he has seen appellant- Sanat (A-1) looking towards the Page No.10 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 house of the deceased and, thereafter, he visited Krishan Shop. As such, thought this witness has been heavily relied upon by the learned trial Court, but the same is of no help to the prosecution on the point that he has seen the appellants alongwith the deceased lastly on the date and time of the offence. (b) Kamta (PW-13) has only stated that on the date of offence, he was reading news-paper in his house and appellant- Sanat (A-1) was standing therein. He has also stated that he saw appellant- Neeta (A-2) entering into the house of Janardan but thereafter he left the spot for his house. Except this nothing incriminating has been stated by this witness and, more particularly, in Para-6 this witness has stated that he has suspicion upon Janardan that he might have committed murder of the deceased. As such, this witness is also of no use to the prosecution. (c) Jugal Kishore Sen (PW-21) is 14 years’ old brother of the deceased. He only stated that he on the date and time of the offence, his sister (deceased) and appellant- Sanat (A-1) were only present alongwith him and, after sometime, he left the house for his school. Thereafter, when he came back from school, he saw the dead-body of his sister (deceased) lying in the pool of blood, upon which, he call Sanat (A-1) and, when Sanat came to his house, he went to call the village Sarpanch and Sanat brother’s had taken him to his house. However, if the statement of this witness is accepted as it is, the case Page No.11 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 of the prosecution becomes doubtful, as it is the case of the prosecution that the appellant herein both were having sexual intercourse in the house of the deceased and, all of sudden, when deceased saw them, she threatened them to disclose about the same to others and, upon which, the appellants in order to avoid such as eventuality, caused her murder. Further, it is also worth noting that if the deceased was also present in the house alongwith the Sanat (A-1), the question of Sanat (A-1) involved in physical activity with Neeta (A-2) does not arise that too when Neeta (A-2) was already a married woman. As such, under such circumstances, it would unsafe and risky to rely upon the statement of this witness to hold the appellants herein guilty for the offences in question. (16) Accordingly, from above analysis, the theory of last seen together is not at all established on the basis of testimonies of Dhalsingh (PW-03), Kamta (PW-13) and Jugal Kishore Sen (PW-21). It is held accordingly. (17) Now, the last piece of evidence that has been relied upon by the learned trial Court is that pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant- Sanat (A-1) one shirt has been seized, in which, as per FSL report (Ex.P/30) stains of blood were found. However, The Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Nayka v. State of Chhattisgarh 3 by relying upon its earlier decision rendered in the 3 2024 SCC Online SC 67 Page No.12 of 12 IN CRA-687-2015 & CRA-885-2015 matter of Mustkeen @ Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan 4 has held that sole circumstance of recovery of blood-stained article cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same is corroborated with other piece of incriminating circumstances. Consequently, the recovery of aforesaid article is also of no help to the prosecution. We hereby hold accordingly. (18) In view of aforesaid discussion, the conviction and the respective sentence of both the appellants for offences punishable under Sections 450 & 302/34 of IPC, as imposed upon them by the learned trial Court, are liable to be and are hereby set aside. The appellants are acquitted of the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt. Since the appellants are already on bail, they need not to surrender. However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437A of the CrPC. (19) Consequently, both the criminal appeals are allowed to the extent indicated herein-above. (20) Let a certified copy of this order alongwith original record be transmitted to the trial Court for necessary information and action, if any. sd/- Sd/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal) Judge Judge s@if 4 (2011) 11 SCC 724