1 / 21 2026:CGHC:561-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 62 of 2025 Devchand Dhankar S/o Nemu Ram Dhankar Aged About 22 Years R/o Anjani, Police Station- Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, C.G. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station- Kanker, District- North Bastar Kanker, C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Mukesh Shrivastava, Advocate For State : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Dy. AG Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge (Judgment on Board) Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 06/01/2026 1. Challenge in this criminal appeal is to impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 12.12.2024 (Annexure A- 1) passed by learned Principal Sessions Judge, North Bastar ASHUTOSH MISHRA Digitally signed by ASHUTOSH MISHRA Date: 2026.01.10 13:59:39 +0530 2 / 21 Kanker, (C.G.), in ST No.27/2020, whereby the appellant stands convicted and sentence as under: Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC. Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 06 month additional RI. Under Section 201 of the IPC. Rigorous imprisonment for 03 years & fine of Rs.200/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 month additional RI. 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the complainant Bhagirati alias Bhagirati Yadav (PW 03) had given a written missing report Exhibit P-01 in the Police Station- Kanker to the effect that he is a resident of village- Puriara, his daughter Kumari Bharti Yadav had left the house on 18/01/2020 at around 11.00 am to go to Sarona market, but has not returned home till today i.e. 27/01/2020, no information was received after inquiring at the nearby places and relatives' places. The prosecution's case further states that, based on the aforementioned information from the Complainant, a missing person report, number 07/2020, was registered by the Kanker Police Station. The case was taken up for investigation. During the investigation, the investigating officer, Hiteshwari Chelak, a female head constable (PW 29), obtained the call details of the mobile phone number 6261964711 of the missing person/deceased Mrs. Bharti Yadav. While investigating after getting the call details from the cyber cell, on 05/06/2020, Ishan's 3 / 21 father Bhagrati Yadav, brother Jitendra Yadav and other villagers came to the police station and told that they were continuously searching for Bharti Yadav since 18/01/2020. During this, Bharti Yadav's elder sister Saras Bai Yadav, resident of Aadanbeda, Police Station- Keshkal, saw Bharti Yadav in the village-Bahigaon market and on investigation by her, it was found that she was staying with the accused Devchand Dhankar, resident of Anjani, on rent in the house of Kumari Taruna Maid of village-Bahigaon. On 05/07/2020, the family members and villagers went to village Bahigaon to inquire about Bharti Yadav, where Bharti Yadav was not found in the rented house. On asking the landlady Taruna, she stated that two months ago on 02/05/2020 at around 9.30 pm, the accused told that he had taken Bharti Yadav along with his Khalasi/accomplice accused Thanwar Yadav. 3. On suspecting the accused Devchand Dhankar, the complainant came to the police station and told the above fact. On 06/07/2020, accused Devchand Dhankar was called to the police station and on detailed questioning, he admitted to killing Bharti Yadav in front of Bharti Yadav's family members, villagers of village-Puriara, witnesses Saradhu Ram, Shekhar Yadav and burying her body in the sand under the Turi river bridge after slitting her throat. M.D. Deshmukh, Inspector (PW 30) interrogated the accused in front of witnesses Shekhar Yadav, Saradhu Ram and Devchandra and recorded his memorandum statement Exhibit P. 09 as above. 4 / 21 4. After knowing the above fact, M.D. Deshmukh, Inspector (PW 30) gave letter Exhibit P. 40, 49 to Sub-Divisional Officer (Revenue) Kanker to appoint an Executive Magistrate for the process of exhumation of the body and to get the post-mortem done by a lady doctor at the spot after exhumation of the body, in this context, after getting permission, informed the exhumation team, the accused, the medical team for post-mortem at the spot, the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Jagdalpur for inspection of the spot and to go to the place where the body was buried along with other witnesses and take action. 5. 5. Neeraj Kumar, Naib Tehsildar (PW 19), in the context of the letter received regarding the process of exhumation of the body, went to the spot on 06/07/2020 along with the medical team, FSL team, police force of Kanker police station and other independent witnesses and prepared the site panchnama Exhibit P. 11, inspected the said site and prepared the site panchnama Exhibit P. 12, after which the head of the deceased was found buried in the sand, which was recovered and the recovery panchnama Exhibit P. 13 was prepared and after exhuming the body from the place indicated by the accused Devchand Dhankar, the skeleton of the deceased was taken out and the exhumation panchnama Exhibit P. 14, site identification panchnama Exhibit P. 15, identification panchnama Exhibit P. 16 of the clothes, German lid, ladies bag recovered from near the skeleton at the spot were prepared. 5 / 21 6. Dr. B. Suri Babu, Joint Director, Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Jagdalpur (PW 13) gave the inspection report of the spot vide Exhibit P. 30 and during his inspection, a DVD containing photographs of the skeleton recovered from the spot and the videography of the exhumation proceedings was prepared by Dilip Jethwa, Head Constable (PW 26) which was seized by Somendra Sinha, Inspector (PW 22). 7. M.D. Deshmukh, Inspector (PW 30), after examining the skeleton, mobile phone, clothes and bag recovered from the spot, in the presence of witnesses Shekhar Yadav and Saradhu Ram, the complainant Bhagarati Yadav and Jitendra Yadav, identified the skeleton as belonging to the deceased Bharti Yadav, for which an identification panchnama (Exhibit P. 02) was prepared. He also prepared the spot map (Exhibit P. 05) of the incident. Thereafter, on the production of Neeraj Kumar, Naib Tehsildar (PW 19), the recovered human skull, 07 pieces of bones, black tangled hair, old German cover, used ladies bag, two pieces of Micromax company mobile, one market Mangalsutra, 26 pieces of black coloured bangles, 01 piece of lipstick in a plastic box, 01 piece of Boroplus, 01 box of Kajal, 01 tweezers, 03 pieces of eyebrow pencil, 02 pieces of medicine tablet Norflox 400 mg, spectacles with plastic cover, 01 bottle of Cipla syrup, henna, 01 torn packet of Stayfree were seized and seizure memo Exhibit P. 18 and 20 were prepared. 6 / 21 8. 6 / 21 8. Neeraj Kumar, Naib Tehsildar (PW 19) served notice Exhibit P. 17 to witnesses Uderam Yadav, Gajendra Yadav, Umendra Yadav, Shekhar Yadav and Saradhu Ram Gond for the proceedings of the post-mortem examination on the spot and prepared the post- mortem examination examination Exhibit P. 08 in their presence. M.D. Deshmukh, Inspector (PW 30) prepared the post-mortem examination application Exhibit P. 26A on the spot and issued duty certificate Exhibit P. 48 to Hiteshwari Chelak, Head Constable (PW 29) for getting the above proceedings done. Dr. A.K. Verma (PW 11) and Dr. Shripa Singh (PW 12) gave the PM Report of the skeleton of the deceased. 9. M.D. Deshmukh, Inspector (PW 30), on the basis of the above memorandum statement of the accused, on production of the accused, prepared search panchnama (Exhibit P 34) of the iron rod used in the incident as per seizure memo (Exhibit P 35) from the spot and after seizing the said rod, prepared its identification panchnama (Exhibit P 04) and after questioning the accused Thanwar Yadav, recorded his interrogation statement (Exhibit P 10). The DVD of the video prepared in connection with the memorandum statement of the accused Dhanwar Yadav was seized under Exhibit P 47 and its certificate under Section 65B of the Evidence Act (Exhibit P 75) was obtained. The said Investigating Officer prepared Inquest Intimation Exhibit P. 55, Rural Inquest Exhibit P. 56 and Inquest Intimation Exhibit P. 55 on the spot and on the basis of the above mentioned Rural Inquest 7 / 21 Intimation Exhibit P. 57 and on the basis of the Rural Inquest, registered First Information Report Exhibit P. 58 against the accused under Sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code and registered Crime No. 183/2020. 10. During the investigation, Inspector M.D. Deshmukh (PW 30) sent a letter to the Tehsildar Kanker regarding providing the map of the incident site from the Patwari. The Patwari map of the incident site was prepared by the Patwari (Exhibit P. 21) and its Panchnama (Exhibit P. 22). Dr. A.K. Markam (PW 10) took blood samples of the deceased's parents for DNA testing to confirm that the human skeleton recovered from the incident site belonged to the missing deceased Bharti Yadav, Exhibit P. 24 and 25, which were seized by Inspector M.D. Deshmukh (PW 30). 11. The seizure was made by Dr. Kiran Patil (PW 14) as per Exhibit P. 47. The seized human skeleton and the blood sample collected above were sent to Medical College, Jagdalpur for preservation for DNA testing. Dr. Kiran Patil (PW 14) preserved the above mentioned parts for DNA testing as per Exhibit P. 31 and 32. 12. During the investigation, Inspector M.D. Deshmukh (PW 30) seized the truck vehicle number CG 17 H 2650 used in the incident along with its keys and documents as per the seizure memo, Exhibit P. 41. The said investigator obtained the CDR report of accused Devchand Dhankar's mobile number 8 / 21 9399494865 and the deceased's mobile number 6261964711 and a certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act in this regard. Also, a certificate under Section 65 of the Evidence Act was obtained regarding the confession made by accused Thanwar Yadav regarding the crime and the videography/photography done at the scene of the incident. 13. The DNA profile prepared for DNA testing and the seized articles were sent for chemical testing through Superintendent of Police Kanker to Regional Forensic Science Laboratory Jagdalpur as per Exhibit P. 64 and 69 and receipt was obtained Exhibit P. 63 and 68 and subsequently DNA test report Exhibit P. 65 and chemical test report Exhibit P. 70 were received. During the investigation, the accused were arrested under arrest sheet Exhibit P. 52 and 54. Statements of the complainant and other witnesses were recorded. After completion of the investigation, a case was registered against the accused under sections 302, 201, 34 of the Indian Penal Code for the crime of murder of Bharti Yadav and destruction of evidence. The charge sheet was presented in the Court of Chief Judicial Magistrate Kanker, District North Bastar Kanker, from where the said case has been transferred to the Sessions Court for trial. 14. The accused were charged with the offences under Sections 302/34, 201 of the Indian Penal Code, the charge sheet was read out to the accused and explained to them, the accused denied the charges and requested for trial. 9 / 21 15. Prosecution in order to prove its case examined total 31 witnesses. Statement of appellant (accused) was also recorded under Section 313 of CrPC in which he denied all incriminating evidence appearing against him, pleaded innocence and false implication. However, no evidence was adduced by him in his defence. 16. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence available on record, the trial Court vide impugned judgment convicted and sentenced the accused/appellant in the manner as described in Para-1 of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 17. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the theory of last seen together has not been proved and even the dead body which was recovered was the skeleton of the dead body which was not identifiable. He would next contend that the appellant has been convicted only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, however, the chain of circumstances are missing. He would next contend that there are major contradiction and omission in the statement of the memorandum and seizure witnesses. He would next contend that there is no motive or intention of the appellant for committing murder of the deceased. In support of his contention he placed reliance upon the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of State of Himachal Pradesh Vs. Raj Kumar {(2014) 14 SCC 39} and in the matter of 10 / 21 Sharad Birchandani Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra {(1984) 4 SCC 116} and would submit that the appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 18. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State supporting the impugned judgment would submit that based on material/evidence available on record, trial Court has rightly passed the impugned order/judgment and convicted the appellant for the aforementioned offence/crime. Hence, present appeal being sans merits is liable to be dismissed. 19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court including the impugned judgment. 20. Perusal of the statement of the accused would show that the accused made a voluntary disclosure statement Ex. P/9, wherein he categorically narrated the manner of commission of the offence, the weapon used, and the place where the dead body and incriminating articles were concealed. Though a confession made to a police officer is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act, the information leading to discovery of a fact, given by the accused, is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 21. The prosecution has proved that the accused made a voluntary disclosure statement, recorded vide Exhibit P/09, wherein he disclosed the manner of commission of the offence, the weapon used, and the place where the dead body and incriminating articles were concealed. Though the confession made to a police officer is 11 / 21 inadmissible per se, the portion of the statement leading to discovery of facts is clearly admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. 22. Pursuant to the said disclosure, recoveries were effected strictly in accordance with law, thereby rendering the admissible portion of the statement highly incriminating against the accused. The recovery of the dead body and skeletal remains is duly proved through cogent documentary and oral evidence. The search and recovery of the skull were carried out vide Search Panchanama (Exhibit P/12) and Recovery Panchanama of Skull (Exhibit P/13). Thereafter, the dead body was exhumed in accordance with due legal procedure, as evidenced by the Dead Body Exhumation Panchanama (Exhibit P/14). The identification of the recovered skeletal remains was proved through the Identification Panchanama of Skeleton and German Lid (Exhibit P/16), wherein the relatives of the deceased identified the remains and articles belonging to the deceased. Further, the legality of the exhumation stands fortified by Memo to SDM for dead body exhumation (Exhibit P/40) and Memo for grant of permission for exhumation (Exhibit P/40A). 23. Thus, the recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused stands firmly established and constitutes a vital incriminating circumstance. The seizure of incriminating articles pursuant to the disclosure of the accused is proved through multiple seizure memos, namely Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit 12 / 21 P/18), Property Seizure Memos (Exhibits P/19 & P/20), Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/33), Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/35) and Property Seizure Memo (Exhibit P/39). These seizure memos were proved by reliable witnesses and no material infirmity has been shown in the seizure proceedings. 24. Ku. Taruna Sahu (PW-1) has stated that she knows the accused Devchand Chankar but do not recognize the other accused. She also knows the deceased, Bharti Yadav, whom the accused Devchand Dhankar had introduced as Dimple Yadav. The accused Devchand Dhankar lived as a tenant in her house. She is teacher at the Secondary School, Pipra Development Block, Keshkal. Her house is located near the National Highway in Bahigaon. Her house is divided into four and five parts, two of which were rented out. In one of the rented blocks, the accused Devchand Dhankar and his wife, whom he introduced as Dimple, lived together as tenants for approximately two months. The rented house consisted of three rooms, charging a monthly rent of ₹1,200. She inquired about Devchand Dhankar's rent before paying him rent, and he told her that he worked as a driver. She then asked for his Aadhaar card, after which she rented the house to him. She further stated that the accused told her that she will do farming work at his home in village Anjani and the accused Devchand Dhankar and his wife left her rented house, saying that they did not take the household items that day. After having dinner at around 9-10:00 pm, the accused Devchand Dhankar and his wife told her that a truck is 13 / 21 parked in front and they are going in that. While staying in her house on rent, the accused used to leave his wife Bharti Yadav and go for work in the truck and used to come and go in between. The statement of Ku. Taruna Sahu supported the prosecution case regarding the conduct of the accused and the surrounding circumstances, which clearly point towards his complicity in the offence. 25. Bhagrati (PW-3), who is the father of the deceased. He in his statement has stated that he knows the accused Devchand Dhankar, but he do not recognize the other accused. He also knows the deceased, Bharti Yadav; she was his daughter. He has eight children, two boys and six girls. Bharti Yadav was his youngest daughter, who had studied till the fifth grade. About a year ago, his daughter, the deceased, left home without informing him. He searched nearby and at relatives' homes, but could not find her. Then, he filed a written complaint at the Kanker police station, which is Ex.P.-1. The lockdown was going on and after a few days, his daughter Sarasbai, who had gone to village Adanbeda, district Kondagaon, told him over the phone that she had seen the deceased Bharti Yadav in village Adanbeda, go there and find out. Then he went to village Anjani to the parents of accused Devchand, but they told him that they do not have any information. After two-three days, he again went to village Anjani and enquired from the parents of accused Devchand that where is your son accused Devchand. Then accused Devchand had come 14 / 21 to his house in village Anjani. When he asked him, he told that Bharti has not gone with him. Then he asked the accused whether you were living in Bahigaon. Then the accused told that he was living in Bahigaon. Then he took his phone number from him and went to Bahigaon and called on the same number which was picked up by the accused and the accused showed him his house. Then on meeting the landlord of the accused and enquiring, he told him that the accused had brought a girl named Bharti, then we caught the accused Devchand and took him to Kanker police station and handed him over. Perusal of the statement would show that he being a close relative of the deceased, has proved the identity of the deceased and the circumstances preceding the incident. His testimony inspires confidence and remains unshaken in cross-examination. 26. Statements of Shekhar Yadav (PW-8) and Saradhu Ram (PW-9) have corroborated the prosecution version with respect to the disclosure statement of the accused, the recovery proceedings, and the seizure of incriminating articles. Their evidence is consistent, natural, and free from material contradictions. 27. The testimonies of these witnesses, when read conjointly, form a coherent and trustworthy chain of evidence. There is no reason to discard their statements merely on the ground of minor inconsistencies, which are natural and do not go to the root of the case. 15 / 21 28. From perusal of the above statements the prosecution has established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, namely: • The conduct and last-seen circumstances proved through prosecution witnesses; • The voluntary disclosure statement of the accused; • Recovery of the dead body and incriminating articles at the instance of the accused; • Seizure memos duly proved; • Corroboration by independent witnesses. 29. In case at hand, there is no direct eye-witness of commission of murder of the deceased and conviction of appellant rests mainly on circumstantial evidence i.e. recovery of dead body of deceased at the instance of the accused/appellant from the River situated in Village Puriyara. 30. It is well settled law that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the Court is required to be more cautious while analyzing the evidence available before it. Whenever any case is decided only on the basis of circumstantial evidence, following conditions are required to be fulfilled :- (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 16 / 21 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." 31. In case of Anuj Kumar Gupta v State of Bihar reported in (2013) 12 SCC 383, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has observed thus:- "18. In such circumstances, in the absence of any convincing explanation offered on behalf of the appellant-accused as to under what circumstances he was able to lead the police party to the place where the dead body of the deceased was found, it will have to be held that such recovery of the dead body, which is a very clinching circumstance in a case of this nature, would act deadly against the appellant considered along with rest of the circumstances demonstrated by the prosecution to rope in the appellant in the alleged crime of the killing of the deceased. Therefore, once we find that there was definite admission on behalf of the appellant by which the prosecuting agency was able to recover the body of the deceased from a place, which was within the special knowledge of the appellant, the only other aspect to be examined is whether the appellant came forward with any convincing explanation to get over the said admission. Unfortunately though the above incriminating 17 / 21 circumstance was put to the appellant in the Section 313 CrPC questioning where he had an opportunity to explain, except a mere denial there was no other convincing explanation offered by him. 19. Thus, we reach a conclusion that the said circumstance of recovery of the body of the deceased from the place called Maldiha Dhar (a river stream) at the instance of the appellant as spoken to by PW 9, is supported by the evidence of PW 4; we have to only see whether rest of the circumstances considered by the trial court, as well as the High Court, were sufficient to confirm the ultimate conviction of the appellant and the sentence imposed on him. On this aspect when we perused the judgment of the trial court, as well as the High Court, the following circumstances have been found to be established:" 32. In case at hand also, the incriminating circumstances were explained to the appellant in terms of Section 313 CrPC and was given an opportunity to respond, but except for denial and false implication, there was no other convincing explanation given by him. 33. Instead, the accused made a confessional letter (Ex. P/9), wherein he furnished specific information regarding the place of concealment of the dead body and incriminating articles. Pursuant to this disclosure, recoveries were effected strictly in accordance with law, including the recovery of the skull and skeletal remains, which were subsequently identified and subjected to forensic examination. The recovery proceedings are duly proved through contemporaneous documents and witness testimony. 18 / 21 34. The fact that the accused alone had the knowledge of the place where the dead body and articles were concealed lends considerable credibility to the prosecution case. The disclosure statement, to the extent it led to the discovery of material facts, thus stands corroborated by subsequent recoveries and scientific evidence. This admissible portion of the statement forms a vital link in the chain of circumstances and directly connects the accused with the commission of the offence. The defence has not been able to demonstrate that the disclosure was involuntary or that the recoveries were fabricated. Mere denial or bald suggestions in cross-examination do not weaken the evidentiary value of a discovery duly proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 35. The Supreme Court in the matter of Mehboob Ali and Another v State of Rajasthan (2016) 14 SCC 640 had an occasion to deal such mental state of fact wherein the Court observed that for application of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, the admissible portion of confessional statement has to be found as to a fact which were the immediate cause of the recovery, only that would be part of legal evidence and not the rest. Section 27 of the Evidence Act refers to the 'Fact'. The word 'Fact' has been defined in Section 3 of the Evidence Act which is reproduced hereunder:- “Fact”—“Fact” means and includes— (1) any thing, state of things, or relation of things, capable of being perceived by the senses; 19 / 21 (2) any mental condition of which any person is conscious. Illustrations (a) That there are certain objects arranged in a certain order in a certain place, is a fact. (b) That a man heard or saw something, is a fact. (c) That a man said certain words, is a fact. (d) That a man holds a certain opinion, has a certain intention, acts in good faith, or fraudulently, or uses a particular word in a particular sense, or is or was at a specified time conscious of a particular sensation, is a fact. (e) That a man has a certain reputation, is a fact.” 36. The DNA examination report issued by the State Forensic Science Laboratory (Ex. P/65) establishes that the biological samples recovered from the skeletal remains are genetically linked to the parents of the deceased. As per the DNA profiling conducted using standard and accepted scientific procedures, including PCR amplification and STR analysis. The DNA report clearly opines that the genetic markers of the skeletal remains are consistent with those of the biological parents, thereby conclusively establishing that the recovered skeletal remains are that of the deceased Bharati Yadav. The report further records that the DNA profiles matched at multiple loci, eliminating the possibility of coincidental 20 / 21 similarity or substitution. The scientific opinion is categorical and leaves no scope for ambiguity or doubt regarding the identity of the deceased. The defence has not been able to point out any procedural irregularity, contamination, or scientific infirmity in the collection, sealing, transmission, or examination of the samples. The DNA report has been proved by competent scientific authority and has remained unchallenged in material particulars. Being a form of scientific evidence of a conclusive nature, the DNA report carries a very high probative value and firmly corroborates the prosecution version regarding the identity of the dead body. Accordingly, this Court holds that the DNA evidence conclusively establishes the identity of the deceased and provides decisive scientific support to the prosecution case. 37. Cumulatively effect of the above circumstances found proved against the appellant i.e. recovery of dead body at the instance of accused/appellant and complicit conduct, is that they form a complete chain which points unerringly that none other than accused-appellant himself has committed the crime in question. 38. For the foregoing discussion and reasons, we are in agreement with the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial court against the appellant does not require any interference. It is hereby affirmed. The appeal being meritless is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 21 / 21 39. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Ashu