1 2026:CGHC:1838-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 617 of 2019 • The State of Chhattisgarh, Through - District Magistrate Bemetara, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant versus 1. Shiv Kumar Satnami, S/o Late Parasram Satnami, aged about 28 Years, 2. Loknath@Loku Satnami, S/o - Parasram Satnami, aged about 25 Years, 3. Smt. Ganga Bai, W/o - Sukhchand Satnami, aged about 38 Years, All are R/o - Village - Babai, Police Station - Lohara, District - Kabirdham Chhattisgarh. ... Respondents For Appellant : Mr. Rishi Raj Pithwa, Deputy Government Advocate. For Respondents : Mr. Vipin Singh, Advocate. Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal Judgment on Board 13.01.2026 Per Radhakishan Agrawal , J. 1. This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant/State arises out of the judgment dated 28.11.2014 passed by the Sessions Judge, Bemetara, District Bemetara, C.G. in Sessions Case No.38/2013, whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 34 of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) on the basis of benefit of doubt. AKHILESH BEOHAR Digitally signed by AKHILESH BEOHAR Date: 2026.01.15 16:50:30 +0530 2 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 14.03.2013, deceased- Parasram Satnami was sleeping on a cot in the shade adjoining his house at village Khairi. It is alleged that during the intervening night, the accused persons, suspecting the deceased to be a witch (tonha), assaulted him with sticks and sharp-edged weapons, resulting in his death. In the morning, information spread in the village that the deceased- Parasram Satnami was lying dead. PW-1 Khamkhan Singh Chauhan, Kotwar of the village, reported the incident to the police, pursuant to which, merg intimation was recorded vide Ex.P-1 and FIR (Ex.P-2) was registered against the accused persons/respondents. 3. During investigation, Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-4 and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination. PW-14 Dr. Smt. Anita Tiwari conducted the post-mortem examination and opined that the cause of death of deceased was likely caused by obstruction of the trachea due to strangulation and injury to the trachea by a sharp object, resulting in bleeding and that the nature of death was homicidal and gave post-mortem report vide Ex.P-21. Vide Exs.P-5 and P-13, memorandum statements of the accused persons/respondents No.1 and 2, namely Shivkumar and Loknath @ Loku, were recorded. From the spot, a blood-like stained Tendu wooden stick, a paddy threshing pan, a yellow plastic rope, plain and blood-stained soil and broken bangles allegedly belonging to accused/respondent No.3 were seized vide Ex.P-6. Vide Exs.P-7 to P-9, clothes of the accused persons were seized. The accused persons/respondents were taken into custody vide Exs.P-10 to P-12. 3 4. After completion of investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents before the concerned trial Court. The accused persons/respondents abjured their guilt and prayed for trial. 5. The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents of said charge leveled against them. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant/State submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. He further submits that there is sufficient evidence to establish that the accused persons/respondents are the perpetrators of the crime in question. He also submits that the accused persons along with deceased were residing in the same house and had quarreled with him prior to the incident, and that incriminating articles were recovered from the place of occurrence. These circumstances collectively form a complete chain of evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused persons. He also submits that the learned trial Court has extended undue benefit of doubt to the accused persons and has failed to properly appreciate the consistency and cumulative effect of the circumstantial evidence. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside. 7. Learned counsel for the respondents supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is no eyewitness to the incident and that the prosecution case rests solely on weak and incomplete circumstantial evidence. He further submits that most of the independent witnesses have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution and that the alleged recoveries and memorandum statements have not 4 been duly proved in accordance with law. He also contends that no motive has been established and that the deceased was admittedly mentally unstable. Therefore, the view taken by the learned trial Court is a plausible and reasonable view based on the evidence on record and does not warrant interference. Hence, it is prayed that the appeal filed by the Appellant/State be dismissed. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala1 has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:- “25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.” 10. The question that now arises for consideration is whether the respondents are the perpetrators of the crime in question. 11. Admittedly, the present case rests on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence available on record. The homicidal death of deceased is also not in dispute. The five golden principles, which constitute the panchsheel of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence, have been laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra2, wherein it was observed in paragraph 153 as under: 1 (2022) 8 SCC 440 2 (1984) 4 SCC 116 5 “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 : (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 v. State of Maharashtra3 where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047] 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 human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 12. In order to appreciate the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the parties, it is necessary to examine the evidence led by the prosecution. PW-1 Khamhan Chauhan, the village Kotwar and first informant, has categorically admitted in his evidence that he did not witness the incident. He reached the spot only after hearing about the occurrence. His statement regarding the involvement of the accused persons is based solely on information allegedly received from others and is, therefore, hearsay in nature. Further, PW-10 Rohit Kumar Koshle, who accompanied PW-1 Khamhan to the spot, has also stated that he merely saw the dead body of the deceased and has no knowledge as to who committed the murder. He has not attributed any 3 (1973) 2 SCC 793 6 overt act to any of the accused persons. Furthermore, PW-4 Sushil, PW-5 Laxman Gaikwad and PW-8 Johan Patre have turned hostile and not supported the case of the prosecution. No witness has stated that he saw the accused persons committing the offence or even entering or leaving the place of occurrence during the relevant time. 13. This apart, PW-2 Sadhuram has stated that the deceased was mentally unstable for about 2–3 months prior to the incident and used to wander in the village and frequently quarrel and fight with people. He has further stated that on the date of the incident, accused- Shiv Kumar had gone to his in-laws’ village, Tora. Furthermore, PW-7 Salikram Satnami has also admitted that the accused persons/respondent Nos.1 & 2, namely Shiv Kumar and Lokhnath, reached the village only in the morning of the date on which the deceased was found dead. These admissions create a serious doubt regarding the presence and involvement of the accused persons at the relevant time. Moreover, PW-6 Ballu Patre has admitted in his evidence that the deceased used to sleep in the shade adjoining the first room of his house. He has further admitted that all the sons of the deceased were residing in separate rooms and that the door of the room in which the deceased used to reside was broken and remained in that condition. This admission establishes that any person could have entered the said place and, therefore, the possibility of involvement of some other person in the crime in question cannot be ruled out. 14. With regard to the seizure and recovery, the seizure witnesses, namely PW-2 Sadhuram and PW-3 Amardas, have not supported the case of the prosecution. PW-2 Sadhuram has categorically stated that accused Shivkumar did not make any disclosure statement regarding the concealment of the Kalari or the stick and that the said articles had 7 already been recovered by the police from inside the house. He has further stated that accused-Shivkumar did not produce or hand over any articles from his house. He has also stated that nothing was seized from accused/respondent No.3- Ganga Bai. Similarly, PW-3 Amardas has stated that in his presence, the police did not ask anything from accused- Shivkumar. He has further stated that accused- Shivkumar did not disclose before him as to how the incident occurred, who committed the assault or anything regarding the seizure of the stick. He has also stated that in his presence, the police did not seize anything from the accused persons. In the absence of reliable and independent corroboration, the recoveries allegedly made at the instance of the accused persons cannot be held to be duly proved. Though certain articles were seized from the place of occurrence, but mere recovery of articles from the spot, without linking them to the accused persons, does not constitute a complete incriminating circumstance. 15. Besides above, the prosecution has also failed to establish any motive for the commission of the offence. The accused persons are the sons and sister of the deceased and no evidence has been led to show any prior enmity, dispute or other compelling reason which could have driven them to commit the alleged offence. 16. Thus, from perusal of the above evidence, it is quite vivid that the chain of circumstantial evidence is incomplete and does not unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused persons. The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that accused persons/respondents are the perpetrators of the 8 crime in question and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents of the said charge, extending the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. 17. After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the five golden principles constituting the ‘panchsheel’ for proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra). Consequently, the impugned judgment acquitting the accused persons/respondents of the said charge is just and proper and does not call for any interference. 18. Accordingly, the acquittal appeal filed by the appellant/State against the acquittal of the accused persons / respondents is hereby dismissed. Sd/- Sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Radhakishan Agrawal) Judge Judge Akhilesh