2026:CGHC:5929-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 221 of 2025 Nutan Kumar Kumar Sahu S/o Thansingh Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Charbhatha, P.S. Thelkadih, District- Khairagarh-Chhuikhadan-Gandai, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Bortalav District Rajnandgaon, C.G. --- Respondent(s) CRA No. 560 of 2025 Labhini Sahu W/o Govind Sahu Aged About 27 Years R/o Near Gauthan, Sanjay Nagar, Lakholi Ward No. 36, P.S. Kotwali, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Bortalav, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh ---Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------ For respective Appellants : Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, and Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, Advocates For Respondent/State : Shri SS Baghel, GA --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal Order on Board Per Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J. 03.02.2026 Heard Shri Rajesh Kumar Jain, and Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel for the respective appellants. Also heard Shri SS Baghel, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State. Digitally signed by V PADMAVATHI Date: 2026.02.07 13:36:56 +0530 Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 2 1. CRA-221 of 2025 has been filed by the appellant- Nutan Kumar Sahu, and CRA-560 of 2025 has been filed by the appellant- Labhini Sahu. 2. Both these appeals are arising out of the same Session Trial, and a common judgment, therefore, they are being heard, and decided together. 3. Appellants have filed these appeals against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.12.2024 passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Dongargarh, District-Rajnandgaon in Session case No.7 of 2023, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as under with default stipulation: Appellant- Nutan Kumar Sahu: Conviction Sentence Under Section 302/34 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- Under Section 201/34 IPC RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- (Both the sentences to run concurrently) Appellant- Labhini Sahu: Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 IPC Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.1,000/- Under Section 201 IPC RI for 7 years with fine of Rs.500/- (Both the sentences to run concurrently) Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 3 4. Brief facts of the case are that on 16.12.2022 at about 8 am, complainant- Dudheram, PW4 made a telephonic call to the Police Station- Boretalav informing that a half burnt dead-body is lying in the jungle near Garhmata Dongri Pahad, Village-Kotnapani. Police recorded Dehati merg intimation Ex.P6, and proceeded towards the spot. On the spot, Police found a naked half burnt dead-body of a male person, inquest Ex.P8 was prepared in presence of the witnesses, and the dead-body was sent for its postmortem to the Community Health Centre, Dongargarh, where PW5-Dr S Choudhary conducted the postmortem on it, and gave his report, Ex.P12. After the postmortem, he opined that cause of death is due to asphyxia due to throttling. However, visra was preserved and handed over to the Police for its FSL examination. Nature of death is homicidal, and time elapsed since death is 48-72n hours. Short postmortem report Ex.P30 was also prepared by the doctor. Dead-body of the deceased was identified by his family members PW10- Kamlesh Singh, and PW2-Gopal Singh, and dead- body identification Panchnama Ex.P3 was prepared. They identified the dead-body from its face, and identified it to be Chandra Bhushan Singh Rajput. Spot Map Ex.P10 was prepared by the Police, another Spot Map Ex.P10 was prepared by the Police, and Spot Map Ex.P1, and Ex.P5 were prepared by the Patwari. Blood stained and plain soil from the spot have been seized vide seizure memo ExP11. Maestro two wheeler vehicle of the deceased bearing registration No.CG08AB-5399 has been seized in front of the house of accused- Labhini Sahu vide seizure memo Ex.P26. Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 4 5. Prior to the above, a missing report Ex.P35 was lodged by Smt Jyotsana Thakur, PW8, wife of the deceased that the deceased was missing since 14.12.2022 at 11 hours. 6. During investigation, CCTV footage in a pen-drive was obtained from Akash fuels Petrol pump, Chikhli, Rajnandgaon, vide seizure memo Ex.P56. CCTV footage from Ram Darbar, RK Nagar, CIT bypass has been seized in a pen-drive vide seizure memo Ex.P57. Accused-Labhini Sahu was taken into custody, and her memorandum statement-Ex.P17 was recorded, based on which, one black colour dupatta, kurti, and leggies, one lady’s goggles, one Activa vehicle bearing registration No.CG04 MT 8578, and one mobile phone having two sim cards, have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P25. From accused- Labhini Sahu, one blue color plastic drum has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P28. Recovery Panchnama of the seized articles from accused-Labhini Sahu was also prepared, which are Ex.P19 and P20. 7. Accused-Nutan Kumar Sahu has also been taken into custody, and his memorandum statement Ex.P18 was recorded, and based on his statement, one mobile phone in damaged condition has been seized from Bhanpuri river vide seizure memo Ex.P27. One burnt water bottle, frame of the spectacles, cable of mobile charger, one burnt wrist watch, and one iron ring were seized vide Ex.P29, clothes of accused-Nutan Kumar Sahu were seized vide Ex.P30. Articles seized on the memorandum statement of appellant-Nutan Kumar Sahu were identified by the wife and children of the deceased that those articles belong to the deceased, and panchnama Ex.P4 Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 5 was prepared. Police made query from the doctor with respect to Dupatta seized from the accused Labhi Sahu, and blood and saliva on the seized articles Dupatta, leggies, kurti, shirt, lower, gamcha, and drum and the doctor has given query report Ex.P14 that by the said dupatta, death could have been caused by strangulation, and for presence of blood, and saliva, the articles were sent for FSL examination. Recovery Panchnama of the articles seized from the accused-Nutan Kumar Sahu was also prepared which are Ex.P21, P23, and P24. The video footage of witness Radhika Sahu in pen-drive has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P39. Certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act has also been obtained buy the Police from the Cyber Cell, Rajnanggaon. Visra of deceased has also been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P54, and it was sent for chemical examination to the FSL Raipur, from where, report Ex.P9 was obtained. Blood stained, and plain soil seized from the spot, shirt, lower, gamcha seized from the accused-Nutan Kumar Sahu and Dupatta, Kurti, leggins and plastic drum seized from the accused-Labhini Sahu were sent for FSL examination from where report Ex.P67 was received, and in the blood stained soil, shirt of Nutan Kumar Sahu and gamcha seized from him were found to be stained with blood. No blood was found on the other articles. As per the FSL report, there was no saliva found on the dupatta, and plastic drum seized from accused- Labhini Sahu. From the FSL report, it is also found that there is no poison on the visra of lthe deceased. Police has also send the soil seized from the Garhmata Dongri Pahad, Village-Kotnapani, and on its FSL examination, physical characteristics of both soils were found matched. Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 6 8. Statement of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC have been recorded, and after completion of usual investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the accused persons/appellants for the offence under Sections 302, 201, and 34 of the IPC before the learned JMFC Dongargarh. Case was committed to the learned trial Court for its trial. 9. Learned trail court has framed charges against appellant-Nutan Kumar Kumar Sahu under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC, whereas, against appellant-Labhini Sahu, charges were framed under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 10. Accused persons denied respective charges framed against them, and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge against the appellants, prosecution has examined as many as 21 witnesses, statement of accused persons under Section 313 of the CrPC have also been recorded, in which they denied the circumstances appearing against them pleaded innocence, and submitted that they have been falsely implicated in the offence. 11. After appreciation of oral, as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, learned trial Court convicted the accused persons/appellants and sentenced them as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment. Hence, these appeals filed by the appellants. 12. Shri Rajesh Jain, learned counsel appearing for accused/appellant- Labhini Sahu in CRA- 560 of 2025 would submit that prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt, there are material omissions, Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 7 and contradictions in evidence of prosecution witnesses, there is no eyewitness to the incident, and the case of the prosecution rests only on circumstantial evidence. The chain of circumstances has not been completed, and there are various missing links. Prosecution relied upon CCTV footage but it has not been proved that present appellants were seen in the footage. Memorandum, and seizure allegedly made from the appellant have also been proved in accordance with law. Merely on the basis of evidence, that two wheeler vehicle of the deceased was parked in front of the house of the appellant- Labhini Sahu, she cannot be connected with the alleged offence, particularly, when the dead-body of the deceased was found in the jungle, and from the house of the appellant-Labhini Sahu nothing incriminating evidence has been recovered by the Police. There is no witness who has seen the deceased with the company of appellant- Labhini Sahu. Therefore, in absence of cogent, and clinching evidence, she cannot be convicted under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC, and she is entitled for acquittal. 13. Shri Ishwar Jaiswal, learned counsel appearing for appellant-Nutan Kumar Sahu in CRA-221 of 2025 would submit that there is no evidence against the present appellant, that he also involved in the alleged commission of offence. Prosecution connected the appellant through the alleged seizure of articles belonging to the deceased but the seizures made from this appellant have not been proved by the prosecution in accordance with law, and the CCTV footage does not help the prosecution to prove its case. He would also submit that appellant-Nutan Kumar Sahu has also not Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 8 been identified in the CCTV footage obtained from the petrol pump, and the witnesses have stated that two persons were going on a Scooty, who covered their faces. Therefore, there is no identification that the appellant took a blue color plastic drum, and bypassed the petrol pump. 14. Circumstantial evidence against the appellant- Nutan Kumar Sahu is not sufficient to hold him guilty for the alleged offence, and he too is entitled for acquittal. 15. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the respective appellants, and submitted that, but for minor omissions, or contradictions, the prosecution witnesses are reliable, and they are sufficient to held the guilty of accused persons. Chain of circumstances is complete, and there is no missing link. Evidence of the witnesses is closely connected with each other , and made complete chain towards guilty of accused persons that the offence in question. He would also submit that from the FSL report, blood has been found in blood stained soil, and clothes seized from the appellant- Nutan Kumar Sahu, for which no explanation was offered by him. There is evidence on record that deceased was having some intimacy with appellant- Labhini Sahu, and he had gone to her house on the date of incident, parked his vehicle outside of the house. Appellant-Labhini Sahu with the help of Nutan Kumar Sahu took the dead-body of the deceased in a blue color plastic drum, and thrown it in the jungle after burning it. The articles belonging to the deceased have been recovered on the instance of the accused persons, and the same have been identified by the wife, and Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 9 children of the deceased that they belong to him. Therefore, there are sufficient, and overwhelming evidence against the appellants, and the learned trial Court after appreciating of the entire evidences available on record, convicted, and sentenced the appellants, which needs no interference. 16. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 17. The first question arises for consideration would be, whether the death of the deceased his homicidal, or by any other reason, and whether dead- body found in the jungle belongs to the deceased himself, or not. 18. On 15.12.2022, a missing report was lodged by wife of the deceased Jyotsana Thakur, PW8 that her husband was missing since 14.12.2022. In the report, she disclosed that her husband had gone to the office, and she received a blank call from mobile No.8817404434 but she could not receive the phone call. Thereafter, when she called back on the said number, she had a talk with accused-Labhini Sahu, who told her that though the deceased came to her house in the morning at 11 am, he left her house. On 16.12.2022 at about 8 am, PW4-Dhudheram informed the Police about a half burnt dead-body in the jungle near Garhmata Dongri Pahad, Village- Kotnapani, and then, the Police recorded Dehati Merg intimation, and went to the spot. The said dead-body was identified by brother and son-in-law of the deceased that it was the dead-body of deceased-Chandrabhushan Thakur, which also demonstrated by the document Ex.P3. The defence has Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 10 not specifically challenged that it was not the dead-body of deceased- Chandrabhushan Thakur but the dead-body of some other person. Therefore, it can safely be held that half burnt dead-body in the jungle found near Garhmata Dongri Pahad, Village-Kotnapani was the dead-body of the deceased-Chandrabhushan Thakur. 19. So far as the homicidal death of the deceased is concerned, prosecution has relied upon the evidence of PW5-Dr S Chaudhari, who conducted postmortem of the dead-body of the deceased, and found it in half burnt condition, and gave his report Ex.P12. He also gave short postmortem report Ex.P13. According to the postmortem report, cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia due to throttling. However, visra was preserved for its FSL examination. Doctor has opined that nature of death was homicidal. Further, from the Dehati merg intimation, the condition in which the body was found in the jungle in half burnt condition, no poison was found in the visra of the deceased, and from the inquest, it is found that the deceased died due to homicidal death, and the prosecution has also proved the same by the evidence produced by it. 20. Case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. The circumstances on which the prosecution relied upon to connect the appellants in the offence in question are, CCTV footage (Article A1), their memorandum and seizure with respect to the articles allegedly belong to the deceased. Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 11 21. On 17.12.2022, appellants were taken into custody, and their memorandum statements Ex.P17, and Ex.P18 were recorded, based on which, various seizures have been made. 22. The relevancy and evidentiary value of disclosure statement made by the accused persons came to be considered by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in case of Manoj Kumar Soni Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2023 SCC Online (SC) 984, wherein it has been observed in paragraph 21 to 25 as under : “21. The facts of the case reveal that all the accused persons made disclosure statements to the I.O. whereupon recovery of money, jewellery, etc. was effected. Although it is quite unusual that all five accused, after being arrested, would lead the I.O. to the places for effecting recovery of the stolen articles, we do not propose to disbelieve the prosecution plea only on this score. Manoj's involvement was primarily based on the disclosure statements made by co-accused Suleman and Jaihind where they admitted to selling the stolen articles to him and a similar statement made by Manoj himself which led to recovery under Section 27, Evidence Act. Similarly, both the courts below, in convicting Kallu, largely relied upon the disclosure statement made by Kallu himself as well as co-accused Jaihind, who confessed to giving Rs.3,000.00 to Kallu from the stolen money and storing a country-made pistol along with three cartridges at his house/tapra. Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 12 22. A doubt looms: can disclosure statements per se, unaccompanied by any supporting evidence, be deemed adequate to secure a conviction? We find it implausible. Although disclosure statements hold significance as a contributing factor in unriddling a case, in our opinion, they are not so strong a piece of evidence sufficient on its own and without anything more to bring home the charges beyond reasonable doubt. 23. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements under Section 27, Evidence Act made by the accused himself seems to be well established. The decision of the Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya and others vs. King-Emperor4 holds the field even today wherein it was held that the provided information must be directly relevant to the discovered fact, including details about the physical object, its place of origin, and the accused person's awareness of these aspects. The Privy Council observed: The difficulty, however great, of proving that a fact discovered on information supplied by the accused is a relevant fact can afford no justification for reading into s. 27 something which is not there, and admitting in evidence a confession barred by s. 26. Except in cases in which the possession, or concealment, of an object constitutes the gist of the offence charged, it can seldom happen that information relating to the discovery of a fact forms the foundation of the prosecution case. It is only one Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 13 link in the chain of proof, and the other links must be forged in manner allowed by law. 24. The law on the evidentiary value of disclosure statements of co-accused too is settled; the courts have hesitated to place reliance solely on disclosure statements of co-accused and used them merely to support the conviction or, as Sir Lawrence Jenkins observed in Emperor vs. Lalit Mohan Chuckerburty5, to "lend assurance to other evidence against a coaccused". In Haricharan Kurmi vs. State of Bihar6, this Court, speaking through the Constitution Bench, elaborated upon the approach to be adopted by courts when dealing with disclosure statements: 13. In dealing with a criminal case where the prosecution relies upon the confession of one accused person against another accused person, the proper approach to adopt is to consider the other evidence against such an accused person, and if the said evidence appears to be satisfactory and the court is inclined to hold that the said evidence may sustain the charge framed against the said accused person, the court turns to the confession with a view to assure itself that the conclusion which it is inclined to draw from the other evidence is right. 25. In yet another case of discrediting a flawed conviction under Section 411, IPC, this Court, in Shiv Kumar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh7 overturned the conviction under Section 411, declined Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 14 to place undue reliance solely on the disclosure statements of the co-accused, and held: 24…... the disclosure statement of one accused cannot be accepted as a proof of the appellant having knowledge of utensils being stolen goods. The prosecution has also failed to establish any basis for the appellant to believe that the utensils seized from him were stolen articles. The factum of selling utensils at a lower price cannot, by itself, lead to the conclusion that the appellant was aware of the theft of those articles. The essential ingredient of mens rea is clearly not established for the charge under Section 411 IPC. The prosecution's evidence on this aspect, as they would speak of the character Gratiano in Merchant of Venice, can be appropriately described as, "you speak an infinite deal of nothing." [William Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act 1 Scene 1.]” 23. Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant- Labhini Sahu, her clothes, and two-wheeler vehicle of the deceased were recovered vide recovery panchnama Ex.P19, and P20, and the blue colour plastic drum was also recovered from the house of Dipesh Dewangan, on the instance of appellant-Labhini Sahu. Likewise, memorandum statement of accused- Nutan Kumar Sahu, damaged mobile phone of the deceased was recovered from Bhanpuri river, and the articles belong to the deceased were also recovered near Gathapar vide recovery Panchnama Ex.P21 and P23. Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 15 Memorandum and seizure witnesses are PW6-Syamu @ Lokesh, and PW21- Mukesh. PW6 has not supported the prosecution case, and stated that nothing has been seized by the Police in his presence, though he admitted his signature over the documents. PW21-Mukesh too has not supported the prosecution case with respect to the memorandum and seizure from the accused persons, and have stated that on the instance of the Police, he signed the entire documents. He admitted in his cross- examination that he did not know about any incident, and the police has not taken him to Rajnandgaon, Bhanpuri, and Gatapar. He did not know about any articles seized in the case. The two-wheeler vehicle of the deceased has been seized in front of the house of the appellant-Labhini Sahu, which is an open place. 24. PW20- Omprakash Dhruv, Investigating Officer has stated in his cross- examination that the witnesses to the memorandum, and seizure were of village-Bortalav. He stated that he took 20-25 minutes in preparing the seizure memo, and recovery memo. He further admitted that in recovery of articles, and for preparing the seizure memo, and recovery memo, the time of 40-50 minutes would have been taken by them. He further stated that the two-wheeler vehicle of the deceased was recovered in front of the house of the appellant- Labhini Sahu, which was a running lane. The vehicle was not locked. He admitted that there is every possibility that the vehicle might have been kept there by any person. From a cumulative perusal of memorandum statement of the accused persons, and recovery panchnamas, the time mentioned in the documents, and the time stated by Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 16 the Officer, PW20, the recoveries allegedly made from the accused persons appear to be suspicious. The time gap between these proceedings are so close, which create a doubt in the procedure of investigation carried out by the Police. 25. So far as the identification of the accused persons in the CCTV footage is concerned, Article A1 has been seized by the Police from Aakash Fuels Petrol Pump, Chikhli, Rajnandgaon. Article A3- CCTV footage of RK Nagar, CIT Bypass, Ramdarbar in a pen drive, which have been proved by PW17-Lalit Singh Meravi, Police Constable, posted at Cyber Cell, Rajnandgaon. He stated in his evidence that he obtained the CCTV footage on 14.12.2022 between 14.18 to 14.28 houses from the places as mentioned above, in pen-drive. In the footage, it has been visually seen that a boy was driving the Activa two-wheeler carrying a girl who is pillion rider, and sitting on the vehicle having blue color drum. Though he stated that the actual CCTV footage was taken in pen-drive, and there is no manipulation, but he could not identify that they were the accused persons. 26. PW11-Shivkumar Verma had stated in his evidence that when he was working as a Mason at Village-Kotnapani, one male and one female came there on a scooty, who covered their faces by mask, and asked him about Bortalav road. They were having a blue colour drum. When he was confronted with the CCTV footage, then, he identified the blue color drum but he stated that when he saw the persons, they covered their faces by gamcha. He could not identify the accused persons that they are the same persons, who were seen in the CCTV footage, who had taken a blue color Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 17 drum on the scooty, and the persons who were taken the drum on the Scooty, covered their face by gamcha. 27. PW12-Akash Tiwari is the Accountant of Akash Petrol Pump, Chikhli, Rajnandgaon, from whom Article-A1 CCTV footage was seized. He stated in his evidence that he was maintaining the CCTV Camera in the Petrol Pump, and on request made by the Police, he gave the CCTV footage to the Police, on the time and date in a pen-drive. The Police persons obtained the certificate of Section 65B of the Evidence Act from him. He admitted in his cross-examination that he has not mentioned in the certificate the device on which he saved the CCTV footage. Even, he has not submitted any document before the Police about his employment with the Akash Petrol Pump. He could not say as to whether any data already is there in the pen- drive from earlier point of time. From the CCTV footage obtained from the Akash Petrol Pump, and other one i.e. A3, CCTV footage of RK Nagar, CIT Bypass, Ramdarbar, prosecution could not establish the identity of present appellants that they are the persons who were seen in the CCTV footage, carrying blue color drum on Scooty, particularly, the evidence of the witnesses that the persons who were carrying blue color drum on the Scooty covered their faces by gamcha. 28. So far as ‘motive’ is concerned, prosecution has tried to prove the motive that accused- Labhini Sahu is having intimacy ;with deceased, and the deceased came to her house on the date of incident, where he was being murdered by her. PW-8 Smt Jyotsana Thakur, wife of the deceased has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, her husband left her Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 18 in a religious function of Bhagwat, which was going on at Laxmi Nagar, Rajnandgaon. Later on, when she came to know that deceased has not reached to his office, and when she returned back from the religious function, she made telephonic call to her husband, and when she saw the missed call in her mobile phone, she called back in the said mobile number, then, appellant- Labhini Sahu received mobile call, and then, she informed her that deceased came to her house, left his vehicle, and went somewhere else. At about 5 to 5.30 pm in the evening, when she again made a telephonic call to her husband, his phone was switched off. Her daughter also asked to the accused-Labhini Sahu about her husband, then she evaded to give correct answer. She further stated in her evidence that though her husband financially supported the accused – Labhini Sahu, but he never demanded the money back from her, and she refused to return it. She further stated in her cross-examination that her husband taken loan for purchase of vehicle for the accused- Labhini Sahu. PW9- Ku Shivani thakur, daughter of the deceased has stated in her evidence that she did not know as to what amount was given by her father to the accused-Labhini Sahu. 29. In case of Niranjan Panja Vs. State of West Bengal, 2010 (6) SCC 525, in paragraph 10 of its judgment Hon’ble Supreme Court has held that motive has an important role in a case based on circumstantial evidence. However, in the present case, there is no sufficient evidence to prove that the accused persons have strong motive to commit murder of the deceased. Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 19 30. Further, in case of Pradeep Kumar Singh & Others Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, 2009 CrLJ 770, in paragraph 21, the Supreme Court has held as under: “21. In the present case entire case of prosecution is silent on the motive part and there is no evidence in this regard. Though in order to prove charge under Section 302, I. P. C. motive part is insignificant when the case of prosecution is based on direct evidence, however, if the case is based on circumstantial evidence motive part assumes great significance inasmuch as its existence is an enlightening factor in a process of presumptive reasoning. …..” 31. There is no eyewitness in the present case, and the case of the prosecution rests only on the circumstantial evidence. The Supreme Court in case of Ravindra Singh Vs. State of Punjab, 2022 (7) SCC 581 has held in para 10 as under:- “10. conviction of A2 is based only upon circumstantial evidence. Hence, in order to sustain a conviction, it is imperative that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and coherent. This court has consistently held in a long line of cases [See Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan AIR (1977 SC 1063); Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad (AIR 1956 SC 316); Earabhadrappa @ Krishnappa v. State of Karnataka (AIR 1983 SC 446); State of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors. (AIR 1985 SC 1224); Balwinder Singh @ Dalbir Singh v. State of Punjab (AIR 1987 SC 350); Ashok Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 20 Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P. (AIR 1989 SC 1890)] 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. 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. 10.1. In Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab (AIR 1954 SC 621), it was laid down that where the case depends upon the conclusion drawn from circumstances, the cumulative effect of the circumstances must be such as to negate the innocence of the accused and bring the offence home beyond any reasonable doubt. 10.2. We may also make a reference to a decision of this Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed that: “21. 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 Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 21 evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 32. In the matter of para Surendra Kumar and Another Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, 2021 (20) SCC 430, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held in 11 and 12 as under:- “11. As the case against the appellants is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to determine whether the available evidence lead only to the conclusion of guilt and exclude all contrary hypothesis. The enunciation on the law of circumstantial evidence stood the test of time since Hanumant Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh1 where Mahajan J., has written as under:- “10…………It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 22 accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused……………” 12. The nature, character and essential proof required in criminal cases was discussed in detail by Fazal Ali J in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra2 and the proposition of law culled out on circumstantial evidence was approved in many subsequent judgments and was recently reiterated by Krishna Murari J., writing the opinion for a three Judges Bench in Shailendra 1 AIR 1952 SC 343 2 (1984) 4 SCC 116 Rajdev Pasvan & Ors. Vs. State of Gujarat & Ors. 3 where it was succinctly laid down as under:- “17. It is well settled by now that in a case based on circumstantial evidence the courts ought to have a conscientious approach and conviction ought to be recorded only in case all the links of the chain are complete pointing to the guilt of the accused. Each link unless connected together to form a chain may suggest suspicion but the same in itself cannot take place of proof and will not be sufficient to convict the accused.” 33. In the matter of Digambar Vaishnav and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522, the Hon’ble supreme Court has held :- “14.One of the fundamental principles of criminal jurisprudence is undeniably that the burden of proof squarely rests on the Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 23 prosecution and that the general burden never shifts. There can be no conviction on the basis of surmises and conjectures or suspicion howsoever grave it may be. Strong suspicion, strong coincidences and grave doubt cannot take the place of legal proof. The onus of the prosecution cannot be discharged by referring to very strong suspicion and existence of highly suspicious factors to inculpate the accused nor falsity of defence could take the place of proof which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed, though a false plea by the defence at best, be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances unfailingly point to the guilt. 15. This Court in Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa, (1991) 3 SCC 27, has held that even if the offence is a shocking one, the gravity of offence cannot by itself overweigh as far as legal proof is concerned. In cases depending highly upon the circumstantial evidence, there is always a danger that the conjecture or suspicion may take the place of legal proof. The court has to be watchful and ensure that the conjecture and suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The court must satisfy itself that various circumstances in the chain of evidence should be established clearly and that the completed chain must be such as to rule out a reasonable likelihood of the innocence of the accused. Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 24 16. In order to sustain the conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence, the following three conditions must be satisfied: i.) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; ii.) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; and iii.) 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 it should also be incapable of explanation on any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. 17. In Varkey Joseph v. State of Kerala, 1993 Suppl (3) SCC 745, this Court has held that suspicion is not the substitute for proof. There is a long distance between 'may be true' and 'must be true' and the prosecution has to travel all the way to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 18. In Sujit Biswas v. State of Assam, (2013) 12 SCC 406, this Court, while examining the distinction between 'proof beyond reasonable doubt' and 'suspicion' has held as under: "13. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large differ- ence between something that “may be” proved, and something that “will be Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 25 proved”. In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between “may be” and “must be” is quite large, and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence pro- duced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between “may be” true and “must be” true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure con- clusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dis- passionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a com- plete and comprehensive appreciation of all fea- tures of the case, as well as the quality and credi- bility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so de- mand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely prob- able doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense". Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 26 34. The Supreme Court in case of Madhu Vs. State of Kerala, 2012 (2) SCC 399 has held in paragraph 5 as under: “5. The care and caution with which circumstantial evidence has to be evaluated stands recognized by judicial precedent. Only circumstantial evidence of a very high order can satisfy the test of proof in a criminal prosecution. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete unbroken chain of events leading to the determination that the inference being drawn from the evidence is the only inescapable conclusion. In the absence of convincing circumstantial evidence, an accused would be entitled to the benefit of doubt.” 35. In the matter of Nagendra Sah Vs. State of Bihar, 2021 (10) SCC 725 in paragraphs 17 and 18 replying upon the golden principles enumerated in case Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra, 1984 (4) SCC 116, the Supreme Court has held as under: “17. As the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, we may make a useful reference to a leading decision of this Court on the subject. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2, in paragraph 153, this Court has laid down five golden principles (Panchsheel) which govern a case based only on circumstantial evidence. Paragraph 153 reads thus : - “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 27 (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’ established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ‘may be proved’ and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra where the following observations were made: 19…..Certainly, 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. (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 consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 28 human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” (emphasis added). 18. Paragraphs 158 to 160 of the said decision are also relevant which read thus : “158. It may be necessary here to notice a very forceful argument submitted by the Additional Solicitor-General relying on a decision of this Court in Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar, to supplement his argument that if the defence case is false it would constitute an additional link so as to fortify the prosecution case. With due respect to the learned Additional Solicitor-General we are unable to agree with the interpretation given by him of the aforesaid case, the relevant portion of which may be extracted thus: 9…….But in a case like this where the various links as started above have been satisfactorily made out and the circumstances point to the appellant as the probable assailant, with reasonable definiteness and in proximity to the deceased as regards time and situation, . . . such absence of explanation or false explanation would itself be an additional link which completes the chain." 159. It will be seen that this Court while taking into account the absence of explanation or a false explanation did hold that it will amount to be an additional link to complete the chain but these Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 29 observations must be read in the light of what this Court said earlier, viz., before a false explanation can be used as additional link, the following essential conditions must be satisfied : (1) various links in the chain of evidence led by the prosecution have been satisfactorily proved, (2) the said circumstance points to the guilt of the accused with reasonable definiteness, and (3) the circumstance is in proximity to the time and situation. 160. If these conditions are fulfilled only then a court can use a false explanation or a false defence as an additional link to lend an assurance to the court and not otherwise. On the facts and circumstances of the present case, this does not appear to be such a case. This aspect of the matter was examined in Shankarlal case where this Court observed thus: 30……..Besides, falsity of defence cannot take the place of proof of facts which the prosecution has to establish in order to succeed. A false plea can at best be considered as an additional circumstance, if other circumstances point unfailingly to the guilt of the accused." (emphasis added)” 36. PW2-Gopal Singh Rajput is son-in-law of deceased, who is witness of dead-body identification panchnama, Ex.P3, and articles identification Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 30 panchnama, Ex.P4. Nothing significant in his evidence to connect the accused persons with the offence in question. 37. PW4- Dudheram, Kotwar of the village-Kotnapani, who gave merg intimation to the Police after seeing the dead-body at jungle. 38. PW7- Smt Rinu Dewangan is the witness in whose house, the blue color drum was kept by the accused persons, but she turned hostile, and not supported the prosecution case. 39. PW8- Jyotsana Thakur, wife of the deceased, and in her evidence also, nothing specific is there, which implicate the present appellants with the offence in question, except some sort of motive. PW9-Ku Shivani Thakur, daughter of the deceased, and in her evidence also, nothing specific is there, except the identification of articles belonging to the deceased, which have been, and identification memo Ex.P4. 40. PW10- Kamleshwar Singh, who identified the dead-body of deceased at jungle near Garhmata Dongri Pahad, Village-Kotnapani, by his face. 41. PW13-Divyansh Thakur, who is son of the deceased, stated in his evidence that when he accompanied the Police persons to the house of appellant- Labhini Sahu, he could not find any incriminating evidence from the house of appellant- Labhini Sahu. 42. It is settled principles of law that prosecution has Burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and where two views are possible, arising Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 31 based on the same evidence, the view which is favoruable to the accused should be taken into consideration and the accused should be given benefit of doubt. In the matter of Digambar Vaishnav (Supra) it has been held as under : “19. It is also well-settled principle that in criminal cases, if two views are possible on evidence adduced in the case, one binding to the guilt of the accused and the other is to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused, should be adopted. This principle has a special relevance in cases wherein the guilt of the accused is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence [See Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808]. 43. In view of the foregoing discussion, there are various components which are missing from the chain of circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the appellants are entitled for benefit of doubt, and accordingly, by giving the appellants benefit of doubt, their appeals are allowed. They have been acquitted from from the alleged offence. Impugned judgment of their conviction and sentence is hereby set aside. 44. Appellants are reported to be in jail since 17.12.2022. They be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 45. Keeping in view the provisions of section 481 BNSS, the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 Cra 221 and 560 of 2025 32 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs. 25,000/- each with one reliable surety in the like amount before the court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgement or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 46. The trial court records along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice padma