1 2026:CGHC:1892-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1260 of 2021 Barjesh Pandey S/o Kishan Pandey, aged about 20 years R/o Premnagar Colony P.S. And District Kondagaon Chhatttisgarh. --- Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through - Aarakshi Kendra Kondagaon District Kondagaon Chhattiagarh. --- Respondent CRA No. 1886 of 2022 Rahul Shrivastava S/o Shankarlal Shrivastava, aged about 18 years R/o Premnagar Kondagaon, PS Kondagaon District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant Versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent ________________________________________________________ For Appellant in CRA 1260/2021 : Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, Advocate For Appellant in CRA 1886/2022 : Mr. Kamlesh Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate ________________________________________________________ Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA Digitally signed by ROHIT KUMAR CHANDRA 2 Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 13.01.2026 1. Since both the above-captioned appeals arise out of a common factual matrix and common judgment, this Court is disposing of both these appeals by a common judgment. 2. Both these Criminal Appeals have been preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’) against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.) Kondagaon, District – Kondagaon (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 34/2019 and Consolidated Case No. 55/2019 by which both the accused/ appellants have been convicted and sentenced in the following matter with a direction to run all the sentences concurrently :- A ccused - Barjesh Pandey : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 449 of IPC RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 03 years U/s 394 of IPC RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 03 years U/s 302 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 03 years 3 Accused – Rahul Shrivastava : CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s 449 of IPC RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 03 years U/s 394 of IPC RI for 10 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 03 years U/s 302 of IPC RI for 20 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional RI for 03 years 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that the complainant Parasram Sinha appeared at the Kondagaon police station on 02.02.2019 and lodged an oral report that Roshan Yadav, Supervisor of the E- Com Courier Service Centre office, was murdered by unknown persons on the night of 01.02.2019 and they fled after looting the daily collection of the Courier Centre amounting to Rs. 1 lakh 50 thousand and other items. On the information of the complainant, the inquest report of the death of Roshan Yadav and FIR No. 35/2019 under sections 450, 394, 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered at the Kondagaon police station vide Ex.P-1 and Ex.P-4 respectively. 4. Investigating Officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-5, inquest over the dead body of deceased Roshan Yadav was prepared vide Ex.P-6 and thereafter the dead body was sent to RNT District Hospital, 4 Kondagaon for conducting postmortem vide Ex.P-18, wherein Dr.Sanjay Basak (PW-5) conducted postmortem over the dead body of deceased and on external examination, he found following injuries : (i) A ligature mark, clearly and consistently caused by the tightening of a cable wire, was found above the hyoid bone on the upper neck, measuring 1.5 inches x 1/2 inch. (ii) A ligature mark was present on both wrists, measuring 8 inches x 1/2 inch. (iii) A ligature mark was present on both ankles, measuring 10 inches x 1/2 inch. He removed the cable wire from all three ligature marks, sealed it, and handed it over to the police. (iv) A cut wound was present on the front of the head, measuring 1 inch x 1/2 inch. (v) A blood clot was present on the right ear. (vi) A swelling was present on the right shoulder, measuring 1 inch in circumference. (vii) Two cut wounds were present on the back of the head, in the occipital region. The bone in the occipital region was fractured and bleeding. (viii) Three small swellings were present on the head, one above the temple. Abrasion marks were also found on the right neck. According to Doctor, the cause of death was suffocation and shock which was caused due to strangulation and rupture of intestine. The time was within 12 to 24 hours and the mode of death was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report conducted by him is Ex.P-7. 5 5. In sealed packet containing undergarments of the deceased, 03 Nos. black colour cable wire and red colour towel with blood-stains on it, one another sealed packet containing black colour jacket and black cap with blood-stains on it and one another sealed packet containing hair of the deceased and occipital skin were seized vide Ex.P-20 and on 02.02.2019 during site inspection of the protest site, E-com Courier Service Center, Kondagon, by FSL Crime Unit Team, Jagdalpur, a chair with blue colour cushion was found kept near the counter table on which the shoe prints of both the feet of the accused were found was preserved and seized vide Ex.P-28. 6. During the course of investigation, blood sample of deceased spilled in floor of the place where the body was found; blood- stained soil and plain soil; one pair of slipper found near the dead body of deceased; one reliance company SIM card; one blue and one green colour goggle cover; one JIO DIGITAL LIFE company SIM cover in which ICCID 89918630400095564123 and IMSI 405863055332405 were written; one pack of courier packing which contains blood-stained in which Customer’s name is mentioned as Shiv Shankar and Customer Order ID is mentioned as 6870887603 were seized vide Ex.P-2 and two Nos. of CPU out of which one is of ACER company and second one is of LENOVO company; one 20 liter sky-blue colour plastic tank containing blood-stains and fingerprints; cover of plastic tank containing fingerprints over it; one blue cover chair containing footprints of the 6 accused and empty leather purse of the deceased were seized vide Ex.P-3. 7. Accused Brajesh Pandey was taken into custody on 06.02.2019 and his memorandum statement was recorded at SDOP office, Kondagaon vide Ex.P-7 and at his instance one green colour bag containing one screwdriver having red handle, one iron cutter blade, one green colour woolen jacket, which accused Brajesh Pandey worn at the time of incident containing blood-stains on it, one black and white spotted full sleve shirt, which accused Brajesh Pandey worn at the time of incident containing blood- stains on it, one skyblue colour full sleve shirt containing blood- stains on it, which was taken out from parcel and worn by the accused Brajesh Pandey after the incident, one blood-stained black colour woolen jacket which was worn by co-accused Mukesh Mandavi (juvenile), one stone used during incident containing blood-stains on it by which the accused hit the head of deceased Roshan Yadav and Pan Card of deceased in which Account No. AMIPY00844 is mentioned and driving licence of deceased in which License No. R/6324/BTR/17 valid upto 18.10.2026 has been written, one Canara Bank Rupay Debit Card in which Card No. 508925259009440 has been written, one Rupay Debit Card of C.G. Rajya Gramin Bank with Card No. 6072149902211759 and one passport photo of deceased Roshan Yadav were seized vide Ex.P-8 and cash amounting to Rs. 87,500/- and MI Android Mobile Phone of deceased Roshan Yadav in back side of which IMEI-1 – 7 869781038078700 and IMEI-2 – 869781038078718 S.No. 17591/88T104935 has been mentioned, which were produced by accused Barjesh Pandey from inside of his kept in one plastic sack and one white golden colour China Mobile containing two SIM (1) Airtel Mob. No. 9589851577 and (2) Reliance Jio Mob. No. 6262531476 were seized vide Ex.P-9. 8. On the basis of memorandum statement of accused Barjesh Pandey, accused Rahul Shrivastava was also taken into custody and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-10 and at his instance amounting to Rs.14,000/- and one white coloured full sleve T-shirt with black print containing blood-stains on upper part of it were seized from the house of the accused Rahul Shrivastava. 9. Accused Brajesh Pandey was arrested and arrest memo was prepared vide Ex.P-12 and information about his arrest was given to his family member vide Ex.P-23. Accused Rahul Shrivastava was arrested and arrest memo was prepared vide Ex.P-24 and information about his arrest was given to his family member vide Ex.P-25. 10. During the course of investigation, statements of the witnesses were recorded, a site map of the crime scene was prepared vide Ex.P-19, a doctor's query report was obtained regarding the seized property vide Ex.P-8, the seized property was sent to FSL Jagdalpur for examination through the Superintendent of Police 8 vide Ex.P-29 and memo for providing report by conducting comparative examination of fingerprints obtained from seized articles and fingerprints taken from accused was sent to Director, Fingerprint Bureau, Police Headquarters, Raipur (C.G.) vide Ex.P-30 and report of the Finger Print Expert was obtained vide Ex.P-16. Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act was obtained vide Ex.P-15. 11. After the entire investigation, charge sheet against accused Barjesh Pandey bearing No. 67/2019 was prepared on 30.04.2019 and presented before the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate, Kondagaon, from where the case was received by the Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Kondagaon, District – Kondagoan for resolution and since accused Rahul Srivastava was a minor at the time of the incident, a separate charge sheet was filed in the Juvenile Court, Kondagaon. Finding that the accused Rahul Srivastava should be tried as an adult, his case was also sent for trial before Court of Additional Sessions Judge (FTC) Kondagaon, District – Kondagoan, cognizance was taken and the trial was conducted. 12. To prove its case, the prosecution has recorded the statements of PW-1 Parasram Sinha, PW-2 Arun Yadav, PW-3 Vijay Yadav, PW-4 Deepak Thakur, PW-5 Dr. Sanjay Basak, PW-6 Lady Head Constable Sagarbati Sori, PW-7 Inspector Kamleshwar Singh, PW-4 Inspector Hansraj Gautam and PW-9 Head Constable Naresh Devangan. 9 13. The accused were charged with the offences under sections 449, 394, 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code. When the charges were framed and read out to them and explained to them, they denied the charges and a trial was claimed. Upon being questioned under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused stated that they were innocent and had been falsely implicated. They expressed their intention not to present any defence evidence. 14. The trial Court after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 06.09.2021, convicted and sentenced the accused/appellants as aforementioned, 15. Being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned trial Court, these two appeals have been preferred by the convict/accused. 16. Mr. Vikash A. Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant – Barjesh Pandey in CRA No. 1260 of 2021, vehemently argued that though there is no eyewitness of the incident and the case prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence, but the learned trial Court has failed to consider that the chain of circumstance is not complete, which is a requirement under the law. The motive of the offence has also not been proved by the prosecution. He further argued that the learned trial Court has also failed to appreciate that the conviction cannot be based 10 merely on the basis of memorandum statement and subsequent seizures, especially when the motive of the offence has not been proved and they are merely corroborative piece of evidence and cannot be the sole basis to convict the appellant. 17. Mr. Kamlesh Patel, learned counsel for the appellant – Rahul Shrivastava in CRA No. 1886 of 2022, vehemently argued that the conviction of appellant Rahul Shrivastava is wholly unsustainable as the prosecution has failed to prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt; the entire case against him rests only on the memorandum statement of co-accused Brajesh Pandey and an alleged recovery of Rs.14,000/- and a blood-stained T-shirt, which by settled law is insufficient to sustain conviction, particularly when there is no eye- witness, no evidence of last-seen, no motive attributed to the appellant, and no proof of his presence at the place of occurrence or participation in the alleged offence; the recovered cash has not been identified as part of the looted amount and the alleged blood- stained clothes have not been scientifically linked to the deceased through FSL or DNA examination; further, no fingerprint, footprint, call detail record, or other forensic evidence connects the appellant with the crime scene, and no overt act or prior meeting of minds has been established so as to attract Section 34 IPC; in a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, the chain of circumstances is completely broken and does not exclude the hypothesis of innocence; moreover, the appellant was a juvenile at the time of the incident, requiring stricter scrutiny of evidence, 11 which the prosecution has failed to satisfy; therefore, in view of the serious legal and evidentiary gaps, the appellant Rahul Shrivastava is entitled to the benefit of doubt, and it is most respectfully prayed that he be acquitted of all the charges. 18. On the other hand, Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent vehemently opposed the submissions advanced on behalf of the appellants and contended that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted both the accused after a proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record. It was argued that although the case is based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution has successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which conclusively points towards the guilt of the appellants and excludes every hypothesis of innocence. The homicidal death of the deceased is fully proved by the medical evidence, and the manner of assault, strangulation and robbery clearly demonstrates a pre-planned and conjoint criminal act. The memorandum statements of the accused have led to recoveries of incriminating articles including blood-stained clothes, weapon used in the offence, robbed cash, mobile phone, ATM cards and other personal belongings of the deceased, which form a strong and admissible link under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recoveries were made promptly and from the exclusive possession of the accused, thereby lending credibility to the prosecution case. The State further submitted that motive, 12 though relevant, is not sine qua non when there is cogent circumstantial and forensic evidence establishing guilt, and in the present case the motive of robbery is clearly borne out from the recovery of stolen property. It was further contended that common intention under Section 34 IPC stands proved from the coordinated acts of the accused before, during and after the commission of the offence, including joint participation in assault, robbery and concealment of evidence. The mere fact that the appellant Rahul Shrivastava was a juvenile at the time of the incident does not dilute the evidentiary value of the prosecution case once his active involvement is established beyond doubt. Therefore, the learned trial Court committed no error in convicting the appellants, and the appeals being devoid of merit deserve to be dismissed. 19. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 20. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Roshan Yadav was homicidal in nature ? 21. The trial Court relying upon the statement of Dr. Sanjay Basak (PW-5), who had conducted the postmortem over the dead body of deceased Roshan Yadav and found aforementioned injuries and vide its report Ex.P-7 opined that the cause of death was suffocation and shock which was caused due to strangulation and 13 rupture of intestine and the mode of death was homicidal in nature, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Roshan Yadav was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 22. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 23. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 24. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: 14 “(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.” 25. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 26. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum 15 probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 27. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (2) 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; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion 16 consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 28. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the 17 “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 29. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 30. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the following circumstantial evidence against the appellants :- (i) After the incident, the mobile phone of the deceased Roshan Yadav was being used by the accused Barjesh Pandey by inserting his own SIM. (ii) On the basis of the call details of the accused, after the incident, the accused was arrested and interrogated. (iii) On the basis of the memorandum of the accused, the stone, axe, saw, blade, blood-stained clothes, mobile phone and the cash obtained from the robbery were seized at the instance of the accused. 18 (iv) As a result of the commission of the crime by the accused Barjesh Pandey along with his other accomplices, on the basis of the memorandum statement, the money obtained from the robbery and other materials used in the crime were seized from the possession of Rahul Srivastava and Mukesh Kumar Mandavi, who are in conflict with law. (v) The fingerprint of the right palm of the accused Barjesh Pandey was found at the scene of the incident, which proves the presence of the accused at the scene of the incident. Witnesses of the seizure and memorandum remains undeniable. 31. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellants are author of the crime by relying upon the aforementioned circumstances ? 32. It can thus clearly be seen that it is necessary for the prosecution that the circumstances from which the conclusion of the guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The Court holds that it is a primary principle that the accused ‘must be’ and not merely ‘may be’ proved guilty before a court can convict the accused. It has been held that there is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be proved’. It has been held that the facts so established should be consistent only with the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the 19 accused is guilty. It has further been held that the circumstances should be such that they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. It has been held 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 probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. 33. It is settled law that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt. 34. In the light of these guiding principles, we will have to examine the present case. 35. PW-6 Sagarbati Sori has stated in her examination-in-chief that since 2018 she is posted as Women Head Constable in Cyber Cell, Kondagaon. During his posting in 2019, after endorsing a letter sent by the Station House Officer (SHO) of Kondagaon to the Superintendent of Police (SHO) of Kondagaon, the matter was forwarded to the Cyber Cell of Kondagaon. Following this, the Station House Officer (SHO) investigated the mobile numbers 9993239240, 7879757927, 6260531476, and EMI number 869781038078700. The accused, Barjesh Pandey, was found to be using the above-mentioned number on the deceased's mobile phone, 9589851577. Information regarding the current location 20 and call details was obtained from Airtel, Reliance, and Jio, and these numbers were found to be registered in the accused's name. Upon extraction of the call details, it was revealed that the accused, Barjesh Pandey, was using a SIM card in his own name on the deceased's mobile phone. He then emailed a verified copy of the call details to the Station House Officer (SHO) of Kondagaon. She issued a certificate containing all information related to the Cyber Cell under Section 65B of the Evidence Act and sent it by post to the Station House Officer, Kondagaon. The certificate is Exhibit P-15, which bears her signatures on parts A to C. 36. The above statements of this witness have not been contradicted and in the cross-examination, no such fact could be brought forward by the defence that the accused Barjesh Pandey was not using the mobile cell of the deceased by inserting his SIM. 37. PW-03 Vijay Yadav stated in his examination-in-chief that on 06.02.2019, in the afternoon, his relative Arun Yadav called him to the SDOP office at Kondagaon. He went to the SDOP office and saw that the police had arrested Barjesh Pandey, Rahul Srivastava, and Mukesh Mandavi. In his presence, the police interrogated the accused Barjesh Pandey. During the interrogation, the accused told the police that he had killed Roshan Yadav along with his two accomplices, Rahul Srivastava and Mukesh Mandavi. The accused further stated, in his presence, that he had kept the stone with which he had killed Roshan Yadav by hitting him on the 21 head, his blood-stained clothes, a screwdriver, and a saw blade in a bag and had thrown the same into a bersham bush on the road leading to Dogripara. He also stated that the looted amount of ₹87,500 and the mobile phone of the deceased had been concealed under the roof of his house. 38. The same witness further stated in his examination-in-chief that the police prepared a memorandum of the accused’s statement as per his disclosure, which is Ex.P-7, bearing his signatures at places A to C. Thereafter, the accused Barjesh Pandey, accompanied by the police and Deepak Thakur, went to the place mentioned in the memorandum and produced a green bag before the police. The said bag contained a screwdriver, a saw blade, the clothes of the accused, a jacket, the stone used in the commission of the offence, and the PAN card, driving licence, debit card, and photograph of the deceased Roshan Yadav. When the accused produced the bag from the bersham bush, the police seized the same and prepared a seizure memo, Ex.P-8, on which his signatures appear at places A to C. 39. The witness further stated that thereafter the accused, along with the police, went to his house at Prem Nagar, from where the accused took out Rs. 87,500/- from a plastic bag kept in the corridor of the house, along with the mobile phone of the deceased and his own mobile phone, and handed them over to the police. After seizure, a seizure memo, Ex.P-9, was prepared, bearing his signature at place A. Thereafter, the police took the 22 accused to the house of Rahul Srivastava, who took out Rs.14,000/- from under the armrest of his bed and handed it over to the police. Subsequently, the police went to the house of Mukesh Mandavi, who took out a bag kept near the door, from which the police recovered Rs.9,520/-. Thereafter, the police interrogated him and recorded his statement. 40. PW-4 Deepak Thakur, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that he was a partner of accused Barjesh Pandey and Rahul Srivastava and was acquainted with the deceased, Roshan Yadav. On 02.02.2019, at about 8:00 a.m., he came to know from the local residents that Roshan Yadav had been murdered at the E-Com Courier Service Center, Kondagaon. Immediately thereafter, he went to the said courier service center, where he found a police officer present. The office shutter was half open and, upon looking inside, he noticed Roshan Yadav lying on the floor with his hands and feet tied with wire, with blood oozing from his head. He further stated that at about 11:30 a.m., police personnel along with the forensic team reached the spot and the office shutter was fully opened. He entered the premises along with them and found Roshan Yadav lying dead. Blood had spread around the body and there were visible injuries on the face of the deceased. Thereafter, the police prepared the inquest panchnama of the dead body and sent it for post-mortem examination. PW-4 further deposed that on 06.02.2019, at about 1:00 p.m., he received a telephone call from the Station House Officer, Police Station Kondagaon, asking him 23 to come to the SDOP Office, Kondagaon. On reaching the SDOP office, he found three persons present there. During police interrogation, the said persons disclosed their names as Barjesh Pandey, Rahul Srivastava, and Mukesh Mandavi. He stated that during interrogation, accused Barjesh Pandey disclosed that he had worked as a courier boy under the deceased Roshan Yadav for a period of about three months in the year 2018 and that he was removed from service due to irregularities in monetary transactions. He further stated that Barjesh Pandey disclosed that, owing to personal enmity arising out of his termination by the deceased, he, along with co-accused Rahul Srivastava and Mukesh Mandavi, conspired to commit the murder of Roshan Yadav. 41. The aforesaid statement shows that accused Barjesh Pandey was having motive to kill the deceased, with whom he had a personal enmity as he was fired from the company by deceased Roshan Yadav due to irregularities in money transactions. 42. PW-7 Inspector Kamleshwar Singh, in his examination-in-chief, deposed that he has been serving as an Inspector since November, 2000. He stated that on 02.02.2019, he received telephonic information from the Station House Officer, Police Station Kondagaon, regarding the commission of a murder at E- Com Express Courier Service, M.D.K. Flex Road, Bazarpara, Kondagaon, and was directed to inspect the scene of occurrence. Pursuant thereto, he visited and inspected the spot on 03.02.2019. 24 During inspection, he found a steel cupboard, a CPU, a switchboard, a water bottle, a steel glass, and a twenty-litre jar of SAI soft water at the place of occurrence. On applying appropriate developing powder to the said articles, palm impressions marked as A, B, C, D, E, F, G, and H were detected. He further deposed that the chalk board impressions marked A, B, C, D, E, F, and G were found unsuitable for comparison due to illegible and unclear markings and the absence of sufficient identifiable points, whereas the palm impression marked H was found suitable for comparison. 43. PW-7 further stated that the details of the points observed on the questioned palm impression marked ‘I’ and the specimen palm impression marked ‘S-3’, sent by the police station in triplicate enlarged photographs of the right palm (RP), were examined by him. He described eight ridge characteristics (isopoints), namely ridge ends, bifurcations, and short ridges, specifying their respective positions and distances in relation to each other. He opined that all eight isopoints were identical in their nature and relative position. On the basis of the said comparison, he expressed a firm opinion that the questioned palm impression marked ‘I’ was identical to the specimen palm impression S-3 (RP), which was the right palm impression of accused Barjesh Pandey. He proved his test report as Exhibit P-16, bearing his signatures at portions ‘a’ to ‘c’. 44. Thus, from the testimony of PW-7 and the expert report Exhibit P- 16, it stands established that the right palm impression of accused 25 Barjesh Pandey was found at the scene of occurrence, thereby indicating his presence at the place of incident. The said evidence remained unshaken during cross-examination, and no explanation has been offered by the defence to rebut or account for the presence of the palm impression at the scene. 45. Upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire oral and documentary evidence on record, and in light of the settled principles governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond reasonable doubt against appellant Barjesh Pandey, whereas it has failed to establish the guilt of appellant Rahul Shrivastava to the requisite standard of proof. 46. So far as appellant Barjesh Pandey is concerned, the prosecution has established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which conclusively points towards his guilt and is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. The homicidal death of the deceased Roshan Yadav stands conclusively proved by the medical evidence of PW-5 Dr. Sanjay Basak. The presence of appellant Barjesh Pandey at the place of occurrence is firmly established by the expert evidence of PW-7 Inspector Kamleshwar Singh, whose testimony and report (Ex.P-16) conclusively prove that the right palm impression of the appellant was found at the scene of occurrence. The said evidence remained unchallenged in cross- examination and no explanation whatsoever was offered by the 26 appellant as to how his palm impression came to be present at the scene. 47. Further, the conduct of appellant Barjesh Pandey in using the mobile phone of the deceased after the incident by inserting his own SIM card, as proved by PW-6 Sagarbati Sori and supported by the call detail records and certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (Ex.P-15), constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance. The recoveries effected pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant Barjesh Pandey under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, including blood-stained clothes, weapon of offence, robbed cash, mobile phone, ATM cards and other personal belongings of the deceased, further corroborate the prosecution case. The recoveries were made from places within the exclusive knowledge and possession of the appellant and have been duly proved through independent witnesses. 48. The motive for the commission of the offence has also been established through the testimony of PW-4 Deepak Thakur, who categorically deposed that appellant Barjesh Pandey was terminated from service by the deceased due to irregularities in monetary transactions and had developed personal enmity against him. The motive, coupled with the strong forensic, documentary and recovery evidence, completes the chain of circumstances against appellant Barjesh Pandey. 49. On cumulative consideration of the aforesaid circumstances, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution has proved beyond 27 reasonable doubt that appellant Barjesh Pandey, in furtherance of common intention, committed house-trespass, robbery and murder of deceased Roshan Yadav. The conviction and sentence recorded by the learned trial Court against appellant Barjesh Pandey, therefore, warrant no interference. 50. However, the case of appellant Rahul Shrivastava stands on an entirely different footing. Against him, there is no evidence of last- seen, no forensic evidence, no fingerprint or footprint evidence, no call detail record, and no independent evidence establishing his presence at the place of occurrence or his participation in the commission of the offence. His implication rests primarily on the memorandum statement of co-accused Barjesh Pandey and the alleged recovery of Rs.14,000/- and a blood-stained T-shirt. 51. It is well settled that the memorandum statement of a co-accused is not substantive evidence and can only be used to the extent permissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. The recovered cash has not been conclusively identified as part of the looted amount, and the alleged blood-stained clothes have not been scientifically linked to the deceased through FSL or DNA examination. No overt act or prior meeting of minds has been proved so as to attract Section 34 IPC against appellant Rahul Shrivastava. 52. In a case based purely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be proved beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record against appellant Rahul Shrivastava is wholly insufficient to 28 form a complete chain and does not exclude the hypothesis of innocence. The benefit of doubt, therefore, must necessarily go to appellant Rahul Shrivastava. 53. Consequently, Criminal Appeal No. 1260 of 2021 filed by appellant Barjesh Pandey is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.09.2021 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Kondagaon, District Kondagaon, so far it relates to appellant Barjesh Pandey are hereby affirmed. The appellant Barjesh Pandey shall continue to undergo the sentence awarded to him by the trial Court. 54. However, Criminal Appeal No. 1886 of 2022 filed by appellant Rahul Shrivastava is allowed. The conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned trial Court are hereby set aside. Appellant Rahul Shrivastava is acquitted of all the charges. He shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 55. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (now Section 481 of Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita) appellant Rahul Shrivastava is directed to furnish a personal bond in terms of from No.45 prescribed in the CrPC for a sum of Rs.25000/- with 2 reliable sureties in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid 29 appellant on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 56. 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. 57. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where appellant Barjesh Pandey is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Chandra