1 2026:CGHC:20911-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 288 of 2021 Deepak Sahu S/o Late Murli Ram Sahu Aged About 21 Years R/o Village Fundhar, P.S.-Telibandha, Raipur, District- Raipur, Chhattisgarh (died and abated) --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Chawki Birejhar, Police Station- Kurud, District- Dhamtari, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent CRA No. 374 of 2021 1 - Hitesh Sahu Son Of Late Mantram Sahu Aged About 21 Years 2 - Khomesh Kumar Nishad Son Of Pawan Nishad Aged About 21 Years Both R/o. Village Fundhar, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh) ---Appellants Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Out Post Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, District Dhamtari (Chhattisgarh) --- Respondent For Appellant- Deepak Sahu For Appellants- Hitesh Sahu and : Mr.Mayank Chandrakar, Advocate in CRA No.288/2021 Mr.Anil Gulati, Advocate in CRA No.374/2021 BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Digitally signed by BABLU RAJENDRA BHANARKAR Date: 2026.05.06 10:21:02 +0530 2 Khomesh Kumar Nishad For Respondent- State : Mr.Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 05/05/2026 1. As per the memo dated 27.02.2026 sent by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari to the Court of the Additional Judge, Kurud, District Dhamtari, appellant Deepak Kumar Sahu died on 24.01.2025. A death certificate has also been annexed, which shows that appellant Deepak Kumar Sahu died on 24.01.2025. 2. In view of the above, Criminal Appeal No. 288/2021 filed on behalf of appellant Deepak Sahu stands abated. 3. The present criminal appeal being CRA No.374/2021 preferred by appellants-Hitesh Sahu and Khomesh Kumar Nishad under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.2021 passed in Sessions Case No.38/2019 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Link Court, Kurud, District Dhamtari, whereby appellants Hitesh Sahu and Khomesh Kumar Nishad and deceased Deepak Sahu have been convicted for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of 3 payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months. 4. Case of the prosecution in brief is that complainant, Sundar Shyam Sahu, orally informed Police Outpost Birejhar, Police Station Kurud, that his nephew, Vedprakash Sahu, had gone on 24.04.2019 to attend a marriage ceremony at the house of Hiralal Sahu, a resident of village Chatoud, located on Karga Road. When he did not return till late at night, they tried to locate him but could not find any information about his whereabouts. On 25.04.2019 at about 12:00 P.M., Gaokaran Sahu of village Chatoud informed him that his nephew, Vedprakash Sahu, had died due to drowning in the water flowing beneath the siphon of Mahanadi main canal. Thereafter, when he went and saw, he found that his nephew, Vedprakash Sahu, had died due to drowning in the canal water. 5. On the basis of the complainant’s information, Police Outpost Birejhar, Police Station Kurud registered the FIR in Crime No.209/2019 for offence under Section 302 of the IPC vide Ex.P- 22. Entry regarding untimely and accidental death was recorded vide Ex.P-1. Spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-2. Inquest was prepared over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-4. Mobile and water were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-5. Another spot map was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-7. Memorandum statement of appellant Hitesh Sahu was recorded vide Ex.P-10 and on the basis of his 4 memorandum statement, T-shirt was seized at the instance of appellant Hitesh Sahu vide Ex.P-11. Memorandum statement of appellant Khomesh Nishad was recorded vide Ex.P-12 and on the basis of his memorandum statement, one stone was seized vide Ex.P-13. Plain soil was seized from the spot vide Ex.P-14. Appellant Khomesh Kumar Nishad was arrested on 28.04.2019 vide arrest memo Ex.P-15. Appellant Hitesh Sahu was arrested on 28.04.2019 vide arrest memo Ex.P-18. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the Civil Hospital, Kurud where Dr.Hemraj Dewangan (PW-16) conducted postmortem over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-25 and found following symptoms:- “The deceased was wearing a red, black, and white striped T-shirt, a brown vest, black jeans, a black belt, and red underwear. A tattoo was found on the right hand. There was a wound measuring 3 × 2.5 cm on the forehead, with a stone embedded in a 1.5 × 1 cm injury. Another injury measuring 1.5 × 1 cm was found on the head. Rigor mortis was present throughout the body. Due to immersion in water, skin changes were clearly visible. Abrasion marks were present on both ears, both eyes, nose, and lips. There was a scratch mark on the right side of the face, and multiple scratch marks were clearly visible on the neck, particularly on the front part of the neck. The left jaw was fractured, and the neck bones were broken. Grass was found clenched in the right hand. The fingernails had turned blue. Circular scratch marks were present all around the 5 right wrist. Both lungs were shrunken and had turned bluish in color. Dirty water was found in the throat.” The doctor has opined that cause of death was due to cardiorespiratory arrest as a result of asphyxia & its complication and death was likely to be homicidal. On the basis of merg, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-25. As per query report, the doctor has opined that cause of death was hypoxia & venous congestion to brain, nature of death was homicidal and mode of death was asphyxia (strangulation). Stone was also sent for examination and as per the opinion of the doctor, such a type of injury could have occurred with this stone. Patwari also prepared the spot map vide Ex.P-28. 6. After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused / appellants under Section 302/34 of the IPC in the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kurud, who in turn, committed the case to the Court of Sessions, Dhamtari, from where the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Link Court, Kurud received the case on transfer for trial. 7. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined as many as 19 witnesses in its support. Statements of the accused/appellants under Section 313 Cr.P.C were recorded, wherein they have pleaded their innocence and false implication in the matter. 8. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence 6 available on record, by its judgment dated 11.02.2021 convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in paragraph three of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 9. Mr.Anil Gulati, learned counsel for the appellants in CRA No.374/2021 submits that the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is wholly illegal, perverse, and unsustainable in law and on facts, and is therefore liable to be set aside by this Court. The learned Trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the oral as well as documentary evidence available on record. Material inconsistencies and deficiencies in the prosecution case have been ignored, resulting in a miscarriage of justice. He further submits that the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that there are major contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. These contradictions go to the root of the prosecution case and render the conviction of the appellants unsustainable in law. He also submits that the learned Trial Court has heavily relied upon the testimony of Khileshwar Sahu (PW-4) and Hushn Kumar Sahu (PW-5), who are witnesses to memorandum and seizure proceedings. However, their testimonies suffer from serious contradictions and material omissions. Their evidence is neither trustworthy nor reliable, particularly with regard to the alleged recovery and seizure, and thus ought not to have been relied upon for convicting the appellants. This vital aspect has not been properly considered by the learned Trial Court. 7 10. Learned counsel contended that the appellants have been convicted solely on the basis of circumstantial evidence. It is submitted that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the appellants. In the present case, the dead body was allegedly found near a canal, but none of the prosecution witnesses have seen the appellants at or near the alleged place of occurrence. Further, the prosecution has failed to establish any credible “last seen” theory linking the appellants with the alleged offence. He further contended that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the fundamental principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must prove the guilt of the accused / appellants beyond all reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution has miserably failed to discharge this burden. As such, the impugned judgment is illegal, erroneous, and contrary to the settled principles of law. The same is liable to be set aside by this Court in the interest of justice. 11. On the other hand, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellants and submits that the conviction of the appellants is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 8 13. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Vedprakash Sahu was homicidal in nature ? 14. The trial Court relying upon the statements of Dr.Hemraj Dewangan (PW-16), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased Vedprakash Sahu vide Ex.P-25, has clearly come to the conclusion that death of deceased Vedprakash Sahu was homicidal in nature. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants. We hereby affirm the said finding. 15. The trial Court in para 27 of its judgment has observed that so far as the question of motive is concerned, the prosecution has alleged that the deceased was killed due to a dispute that took place at a marriage house. However, no documentary evidence has been produced by the prosecution regarding the registration of the offence against the accused persons or their conviction on this ground. Nonetheless, prosecution witnesses PW-2 Vikas Kumar Sahu and PW-14 Shiva Dhruv have clearly stated that a dispute had taken place between deceased Vedprakash and the accused persons at the marriage house, and that the deceased was threatened by the accused persons with dire consequences. Therefore, the motive for causing the death of the deceased stands established, as the accused persons had enmity and, due 9 to this animosity, they had a motive to cause the death of the deceased. 16. Vikas Kumar Sahu (PW-2) has stated that he knows deceased Vedprakash Sahu as well as the accused persons. He had gone to the marriage ceremony of his uncle’s son in village Fundhar, Police Station Telibandha, Raipur, along with his friends Khilesh Sahu, Yogesh Sahu, Fanish, Shekhar Singh and others. During the community meal, when they were seated, Vedprakash was calling out loudly as some food items were being served late. At that time, Hitesh was staring at him angrily. A verbal altercation took place between Hitesh and Vedprakash, and Hitesh threatened Vedprakash with dire consequences. After the marriage ceremony ended, the next day there was a “Chauthiya” ceremony in the village, where he, Vedprakash, and Fanish were dancing, while the accused persons were also dancing in another group. During this, Vedprakash’s hand accidentally touched Hitesh, leading to another quarrel. Hitesh then said, “Enough is enough, they will not spare him now,” and while abusing him in filthy language, he threatened that he would not be spared that day. Thereafter, he pacified Vedprakash and they moved aside. When they were about to reach near Chauthiya house, Vedprakash received a phone call. Due to noise at the place, he went towards the canal area to talk. When the witness asked where he was going, Vedprakash said, “he is coming back after talking on the mobile phone.” Thereafter, the witness went inside 10 the house. After some time, Vedprakash called him and asked him to come near the canal immediately. He then went to the canal area on his motorcycle and tried calling Vedprakash, but his mobile phone was found switched off. He called out loudly, but received no response. At that time, he saw Tukesh and Monu sitting there and asked them whether they had seen Vedprakash. They replied that Vedprakash had called them there but he was not visible. They again called out and searched with a torchlight, but could not find him. The next day, his father informed him over phone that Vedprakash’s dead body had been found near the canal and asked him to come immediately. Upon reaching there, he suspected that Vedprakash had been killed by Hitesh and others. 17. Shiva Dhruv (PW-14) has stated that he knows deceased Vedprakash, who was his friend. There was a marriage function at Tosan Sahu’s house in his village, where a “Chauthiya” ceremony was being held and they were dancing. At that time, Vedprakash came and informed him that one boy was showing him his finger and threatening him, saying, “he will kill him.” Upon being counselled, Vedprakash went towards the marriage venue, and they sat near the Shiv temple under the canal bridge. After about 10 minutes, from the bridge side towards the main road, two boys were seen running, one of whom was wearing a white flower-printed T-shirt. Behind them, four other persons returned towards the marriage venue. When they were asked why they 11 were running, they did not reply and silently went back towards the marriage venue. The next day at about 12:00 noon, Narendra Yadav informed over phone that Vedprakash had been murdered. When the police came for investigation, he informed them that he could identify the person wearing the white T-shirt and would recognize him if seen again. He also expressed suspicion that those persons had killed the deceased. 18. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 19. Upon cumulative analysis of the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, at this stage, conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, which deals with punishment for murder, cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a chain of circumstances if that chain is not conclusively established. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the links in the chain of circumstances consistently point to the guilt of the accused. If there is any break or weakness in the chain, or if the circumstances are open to multiple interpretations, it creates doubt. Since a charge as serious as murder demands the highest standard of proof, Courts are cautious and do not convict based on an incomplete or unproven chain of events. Therefore, without a firmly established chain of circumstances, a conviction under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC cannot be justifiably recorded. 20. In a case dependent on circumstantial evidence, the law is well 12 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: hostile testimony from key relatives, unreliable extra-judicial confession, doubtful recovery, and no conclusive forensic link. 21. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagroop Singh v. 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 13 consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 13. 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: 14 “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 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.” 22. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh {(2023) 5 SCC 350} has observed thus in para 27:- 15 “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.” 23. When the case is entirely based upon the circumstantial evidence, the chain of such circumstantial evidence in all probabilities 'must' indicate towards guilt of accused and circumstances 'must be' and not 'may be' lead towards guilt of accused. 24. Upon careful consideration of the entire evidence on record and the settled principles of law governing cases based on circumstantial evidence, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete, cogent and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellants. 25. It is well settled that in a case resting purely on circumstantial evidence, each link in the chain must be firmly established and must exclude every hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. In the present case, though certain circumstances have been relied upon by the prosecution, the same are not of such a conclusive nature so as to form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the appellants. The evidence of prosecution witnesses, particularly regarding the alleged last seen 16 circumstance and the involvement of the appellants, is not free from doubt and suffers from infirmities and inconsistencies. The possibility of other hypotheses consistent with the innocence of the appellants cannot be ruled out. The prosecution has also failed to establish any direct evidence or any conclusive forensic or corroborative material linking the appellants with the commission of the alleged offence. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof. 26. In view of the law laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra) and Pradeep Kumar (supra), the prosecution has failed to satisfy the mandatory requirements that the chain of circumstances must be complete and must lead only to the guilt of the accused, excluding every possible hypothesis of innocence. 27. Accordingly, this Court is of the opinion that the learned Trial Court was not justified in convicting the appellants under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. 28. For the foregoing reasons, Criminal Appeal No.374/2021 filed on behalf of Appellants-Hitesh Sahu and Khomesh Kumar Nishad is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.02.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dhamtari, Link Court, Kurud in Criminal Case No.38/2019 is set aside. Appellants-Hitesh Sahu and Khomesh Kumar Nishad are acquitted of the charge levelled against them. The 17 appellants are on bail. They are not required to surrender. Their bail bonds are cancelled and sureties stand discharged. 29. Keeping in view of the provisions of Section 437-A CrPC (Now Section 481 of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023), Appellants-Hitesh Sahu and Khomesh Kumar Nishad are directed to furnish a personal bonds in terms of from No.45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25000/- with 2 reliable sureties each in the like amount before the Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months alongwith an undertaking that in the event of filing of special leave petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellants on receipt of notice thereon shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 30. The Trial Court record alongwith the 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 Bablu