1 2026:CGHC:7287-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1058 of 2015 Salamat Khan S/o Maksud Khan Aged About 72 Years R/o Mudapar, Manikpur, Korba, District Korba Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ...Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Outpost Manikpur, District Korba Chhattisgarh , Chhattisgarh ---Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. C.R. Sahu, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Amit Baxy, Dy. G.A. Hon’ble Shri Sanjay K. Agrawal, Judge Hon’ble Shri Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge Judgment on Board 10/02 /202 6 Arvind Kumar Verma. J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.10.2013, passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C) District Korba (C.G.) in 2 Session Trial No. 77/2012, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction Sentence Section 302 of Indian Penal Code Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year additional R.I. Section 201 of Indian Penal Code R.I. for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 03 months additional R.I. 2. Brief facts of the case are that, the deceased, Smt. Chandtara, wife of Salamat Khan, was a resident of Mudapar. The accused Salamat Khan’s brother-in-law, Amrula Ansari, is a resident of Aurangabad (Bihar). About 7–8 months prior to the date of the incident, Amrula Ansari came to Korba and stayed at the house of Smt. Chandtara, where he initially drove a truck belonging to another person. After a few days, he started operating an old truck, which he obtained by paying part of the amount in cash and the remaining amount on credit. Without repaying the outstanding amount, he took the said truck to Bihar. Upon repeated demands for repayment of the balance amount, Smt. Chandtara undertook the responsibility of arranging the money; however, she could not repay the same. On this issue, the accused Salamat Khan used to frequently assault his wife. On 23.12.2011, in the morning, the accused assaulted Smt. Chandtara and threatened her, stating that she must go to Bihar and bring the money, failing which she would face serious consequences. Due to such threats and assaults, the deceased Smt. Chandtara went from Korba to Village 3 Bajrahi, Bihar, on 23.12.2011, to the house of her sister and brother-in- law. After staying there for two days, when the money could not be arranged, on 25.12.2011, one of her relatives put her on a bus for returning to Korba, seating her on seat No. 3, and instructed the bus helper (khalasi) Kundan Patel to ensure that she was dropped safely at Korba. Accordingly, on 26.12.2011 at about 4:15 a.m., Kundan Patel dropped the deceased at Korba Bus Stand. Thereafter, near Shankar Hotel, while she was having tea, the accused Salamat Khan assaulted his wife again over the issue of not bringing the money and, near Mudapar Tiraha, strangulated Smt. Chandtara to death. After committing her murder, the accused concealed the dead body in a pit and covered it with clothes. On 27.12.2011, the accused left for Bihar stating that he was going to search for his wife. After three days, on 31.12.2011, he returned to Korba in the morning and in the evening lodged information regarding the discovery of the dead body of his wife, Smt. Chandtara. On the basis of the said information, Chowki Manikpur, Police Station Kotwali, Korba, registered an offence and took up the investigation. During the course of investigation, sufficient evidence was found against the accused. Consequently, Crime No. 17/2012 was registered against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 (Part-B) of the Indian Penal Code. The accused was arrested, his memorandum statement was recorded, statements of witnesses were taken, and upon completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the competent court. 3. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, the appellant was charge-sheeted 4 before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence. 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 14 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 15 documents. However, the appellant in support of his defence has not examined any document. 5. The trial Court after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which he has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that except the evidence of PW-1 Mohd. Rafique, PW-2 Asma Khatun and PW-7 Sajjad Ansari there is no other evidence available on record to connect the appellant with the crime in question. Moreover, He also submits that P.W-14 Amarulla Ansari has denied the existence of loan due upon him due to purchase of truck and Deceased Chandtara being the guarantor of the loan, this witness has specifically stated that deceased Chandtara travelled to Bihar to recover the rent of house, therefore there is no basis upon which the prosecution has alleged that there was quarrel between appellant and deceased because of unpaid loan amount. 5 Further P.W 10 Kundan Patel who is helper of bus in which the decease travelled has turned hostile and has not seen the deceased after she got off the bus. Moreover the findings of Extra Judicial confession by the Trial Court against the appellant by relying upon statements of P.W1, PW2, P.W 7 is erroneous, since same was made during preparation of Spot Panchnama (Ex P/1) in front of the police, moreover the Extra Judicial Confession is a weak peace of evidence and cannot be basis of conviction. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the said charges. 7. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has brought home the offence against the appellant and has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the appellant has rightly been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 9. The first question for consideration would be whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P-15) proved by Dr. P.P. Singh Tawar (PW-13) which is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 6 10.Now the next question for consideration would be whether the Trial Court was justified in relying upon the theory of “last seen together” in the absence of cogent and reliable evidence establishing that the appellant was last seen with the deceased immediately prior to her death? Theory of Last Seen Together:- 11.One of the main incriminating circumstances which has been held to be proved by the Trial Court is the alleged theory of last seen together in respect of the appellant–accused Salamat Khan and the deceased Smt. Chandtara. However, a close and careful scrutiny of the prosecution evidence reveals that the said circumstance is not proved beyond reasonable doubt. As per the prosecution case, the deceased Smt. Chandtara returned from Bihar to Korba on 26.12.2011 at about 4:15 a.m., and was dropped at Korba Bus Stand near Shankar Hotel. The prosecution relies mainly upon the testimony of PW-10 Kundan Patel, the bus khalasi, to establish the presence of the deceased at Korba in the early morning hours. Kundan Patel (PW-10) has categorically stated that he dropped the deceased at Korba Bus Stand at about 4:15 a.m. on 26.12.2011 and thereafter left. Importantly, Kundan Patel PW-10 has nowhere stated that the appellant Salamat Khan was present at the bus stand or that he saw the appellant accompanying the deceased at that time or thereafter. Apart from PW- 10, the prosecution has examined other witnesses who have only spoken about prior matrimonial discord and monetary dispute between the appellant and the deceased. However, none of the prosecution witnesses have stated that they had seen the appellant and the deceased together on 26.12.2011, nor has any witness stated that the 7 appellant was seen taking the deceased from the bus stand or near Shankar Hotel towards the alleged place of occurrence. Significantly, the prosecution has failed to examine any independent witness from the bus stand area, hotel, or nearby locality to establish that the appellant and the deceased were together after the deceased was dropped at Korba. Thus, the alleged last seen circumstance is not supported by any direct, cogent or reliable ocular evidence. Furthermore, the dead body of the deceased was recovered subsequently from a different location, and the prosecution has not brought on record any evidence to establish a proximate time-gap between the alleged last seen point and the time of death. Therefore, the prosecution has utterly failed to establish that the appellant Salamat Khan was last seen in the company of the deceased Smt. Chandtara immediately prior to her death. The so-called last seen theory rests merely on presumptions and conjectures, and not on legally acceptable evidence. The Trial Court, therefore, committed a serious error in treating the theory of last seen together as a proved incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 12.The next question for consideration would be, whether there was any eyewitnesses to the incident or not? 13.Amrula Ansari (PW14), who is a close relative of the deceased Smt. Chandtara, deposed that 4–5 days prior to the recovery of the dead body, the deceased had come to his house in village Ambakolli/Bajrahi (Bihar) to collect rent of her house. After staying for one day, on the next day at about 2:30 p.m., the witness himself boarded the deceased on bus from the village and thereafter informed the accused Salamat 8 Khan over telephone that the deceased had been seated in the bus. He did not inform the exact arrival time at Korba, as the accused was familiar with the route and timing of the bus. He also stated that after the deceased did not reach Korba, the accused visited his village and thereafter returned to Korba. In cross-examination, the witness denied any dispute between the accused and the deceased regarding money or any truck transaction and stated that their marital relations were cordial. He reiterated that the deceased had gone to Bihar only for collecting rent and that he had personally boarded her on the bus for Korba. 14.PW-10 Kundan Patel who is the bus khalasi has stated that on 26.12.2011 at about 4:15 a.m., he dropped the deceased Smt. Chandtara at Korba Bus Stand near Shankar Hotel. His testimony only establishes the fact of the deceased reaching Korba in the early morning hours. He has not stated that the appellant Salamat Khan was present at the bus stand, nor has he stated that the appellant accompanied or met the deceased at any point. He has turned hostile. 15.PW-1 Md. Rafiq who is a rolling shutter mechanic has stated in his deposition that about 8–9 months prior, while returning from work in the evening near Gudapar Bypass Road, he saw police personnel present along with the accused and heard the accused allegedly stating before the police that he had killed his wife. In cross-examination, he admitted that he had not witnessed the incident. 16.PW-11 Bhaiyalal Yadav stated in his deposition that he knew the deceased Smt. Chandtara. He has deposed that after the arrest of the accused, the police interrogated him at the spot and the accused 9 allegedly made a statement before the police admitting that due to a dispute over money, he strangulated his wife Chandtara and concealed her dead body in a pit. PW-11 has put his thumb impression on the memorandum statement (Ex.P-10), spot panchnama (Ex.P-1) and arrest memo (Ex.P-11). However, in cross-examination, PW-11 admitted that he had not witnessed the occurrence, that the accused and the deceased had cordial marital relations, and that whatever he stated about the incident was on the basis of what the accused allegedly told the police. 17. Memorandum statement of the appellant is Ex.P/10 dated 28.06.2012. In the memorandum statement, the appellant stated that on 26.12.2011, after the deceased Smt. Chandtara returned from Bihar without bringing the money, a quarrel ensued between them near Murapaar Tiraha, whereupon he strangulated her to death and thereafter dragged the dead body to a nearby pit, concealed it therein and covered it with cloth. In the same memorandum statement, the appellant has also stated that thereafter he went to Bihar on the pretext of searching for his wife Chandtara. He returned on 31.12.2011 in the morning and in the evening, he came to know that the dead body of his wife had been seen by the villagers. Thereupon, he stated that he could show the place where he had killed Chandtara. 18. On a careful analysis of the prosecution evidence, it is appears that the case rests essentially upon (i) the testimony of witnesses who only establish the movements of the deceased till her arrival at Korba and who do not depose about the actual occurrence or the presence of the 10 appellant at the relevant time, and (ii) the alleged confession attributed to the appellant while he was in police custody, coupled with the memorandum statement (Ex.P-10) recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. None of the prosecution witnesses, including PW-14 Amrula Ansari, PW-10 Kundan Patel, PW-1 Md. Rafiq or PW-11 Bhaiyalal Yadav, claim to have witnessed the incident. Their evidence merely speaks about the deceased boarding a bus from Bihar, reaching Korba, or the appellant allegedly making statements before the police after his arrest. The so-called extra-judicial confession is not shown to have been made voluntarily before independent witnesses, and the memorandum statement is the sole circumstance relied upon by the prosecution without adequate corroboration from ocular, scientific or circumstantial evidence forming a complete chain. 19. PW-10 Kundan Patel, the bus khalasi, has not supported the prosecution case. He deposed that although he was working as a khalasi, he does not identify the accused and merely stated that about one year prior, an unknown woman had boarded the bus and was dropped at Korba in the early morning hours. He specifically stated that the said woman did not disclose anything to him and that he had no knowledge as to where she went or with whom she left after alighting at Korba. He was declared hostile by the prosecution and, despite being confronted with his police statement (Ex.P-14), he denied having made any incriminating disclosure. In cross-examination, he admitted that he does not know the seating details of passengers and that after reaching Korba, he usually parks the bus and goes to sleep. Thus, his 11 testimony does not establish the presence of the appellant with the deceased at any point of time and fails to support the theory of last seen or any other incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 20. The remaining material sought to be relied upon against the appellant is the alleged extra-judicial confession spoken by PW-1 Md. Rafiq PW- 11 Bhaiyalal Yadav and other village witnesses, who stated that the appellant allegedly admitted before the police and villagers that he had killed his wife Smt. Chandtara near Murapaar Tiraha. Though extra- judicial confession is not inadmissible in law, it is a weak piece of evidence and requires strict scrutiny and independent corroboration. In the present case, the evidentiary value of the alleged confession stands seriously diluted for the following reasons: 1 The so-called confession is stated to have been made while the appellant was in police custody and during police interrogation, albeit in the presence of villagers. To that extent, it is hit by Sections 25 and 26 of the Indian Evidence Act and is inadmissible, except to the limited extent permitted under Section 27, which, in the present case, has not resulted in recovery of any incriminating article. 2 There are material inconsistencies in the testimony of the prosecution witnesses regarding the time, place and manner of the alleged confession. 3 The circumstances in which a person accused of murder would voluntarily confess before multiple villagers and police, without any coercion alleged, are inherently doubtful. 21. As to the memorandum statement and recovery, the prosecution alleges that pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, the appellant disclosed the place where the deceased Smt. Chandtara was allegedly killed and where her dead body had been concealed. However, a 12 careful examination of the evidence on record reveals that no recovery of any incriminating article such as weapon, blood-stained clothes, or other material object was effected on the basis of the said memorandum. The dead body of the deceased was recovered on 31.12.2011 from a pit near the petrol pump. However, the alleged disclosure statement of the accused/appellant was recorded much later, on 28.06.2012. Since the dead body had already been recovered prior to the said memorandum statement, no discovery of fact can be said to have been made pursuant thereto within the meaning of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act. Consequently, the disclosure statement does not lead to any new or unknown fact and cannot be relied upon as a legally admissible circumstance against the appellant. The memorandum statement, therefore, does not lead to discovery of any new fact so as to attract the limited admissibility under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. In substance, the statement is purely confessional in nature and, to the extent it attributes guilt to the appellant, it is barred by Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Further, the part of the statement wherein the appellant stated that he had gone to Bihar to search for the deceased has not been rebutted or disproved by the prosecution by any independent evidence. Consequently, the memorandum statement does not advance the prosecution case in any legally admissible manner and cannot be relied upon to sustain the conviction. 22. The alleged motive put forth by the prosecution, namely that the appellant had quarrels with the deceased Smt. Chandtara over 13 monetary issues arising from her visit to Bihar to collect rent, is weak, vague, and inadequately proved. No independent or reliable evidence has been brought on record to establish that any such quarrel had taken place immediately prior to the incident. 23. In a case dependent on circumstantial evidence, the law is well settled that the chain of circumstances must be complete, conclusive, and exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622). Here, the chain is broken at multiple points: absence of eyewitnesses, hostile testimony from key relatives, unreliable extra-judicial confession, doubtful recovery, and no conclusive forensic link. 24. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab {(2012) 11 SCC 768} has held thus in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 & 15 which is reproduced hereunder:- “12.In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] a three-Judge Bench has laid down five golden principles which constitute the “panchsheel” in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [1973 2 SCC 793], it was opined that 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. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to lay down that 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; that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and 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 probability the act must have been done by the accused. 14 13. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706], this Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,the following tests must be satisfied: “10.........(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.” A similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P.[(2006) 10 SCC 172]. 14. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp(4) SCC 259], it has been laid down: “4. ........that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, howsoever strong they may be, to take the place of proof.” 15. In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 11 SCC 436], while dealing with the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasised 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 15 innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and further 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.” 25. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {(2023) 5 SCC 350} has observed thus in para 27:- 27. It is important to note that the cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to accused must be adopted. 26. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt and the case of the prosecution itself has negated the theory by their own evidence on record. Hence the conviction under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC deserve to be set aside. 27. For the foregoing reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under 302 & 201 of IPC and order dated 30.10.2013 is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charges levelled against him. Since the appellant is already on bail, his bail bonds shall continue for a period of six months in terms of Section 481 of BNSS Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita of 2023. 28.Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned and concerned Jail Superintendent for necessary information and action. SD/- SD/- (Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Arvind Kumar Verma) Judge Judge Jyoti