1 2026:CGHC:21930-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1846 of 2022 Jaipal @ Korwa Singh S/o Bhagan Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Lodha, Police Station Ramchandrapur, District - Balrampur Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Ramanujganj, District Balrampur - Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Pushpendra Kumar Patel, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avi ndra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 11/05/2026 1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure has been preferred by the appellant assailing the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj (C.G.) in VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.05.15 21:02:43 +0530 2 Sessions Trial No. 91/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/-, and in default of payment of fine, to further undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Ajay Singh had gone from his house on 29.05.2019 at about 08:00 PM after having meals for the purpose of tendu patta work and thereafter did not return. According to the prosecution, during the intervening night of 29.05.2019 and 30.05.2019, the present appellant Jaipal @ Korwa Singh along with co-accused Basanti Singh (acquitted) and juvenile co-accused Mangru @ Dalai Singh assaulted Ajay Singh by mens of a sword at Baghaltwa Pahad situated within the jurisdiction of Police Station Ramanujganj, thereby causing his death by severing his neck. On 31.05.2019, information regarding a dead body lying in the forest area was received, whereafter Ramswarath Singh (PW-3), father of the deceased, along with villagers reached the spot and found the dead body of Ajay Singh lying in mutilated condition with severed neck. Thereafter merg intimation was lodged and merg inquiry was initiated. 3. On the basis of the merg inquiry and postmortem report indicating homicidal death, First Information Report bearing Crime No. 97/2019 was registered at Police Station Ramanujganj for offence punishable under Section 302 IPC against unknown persons. 4. During investigation, inquest over the dead body was conducted and the dead body was sent for postmortem examination. Spot map was 3 prepared. Statements of witnesses under Section 161 CrPC were recorded. The appellant was taken into custody and memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act was recorded, pursuant to which one sword alleged to have been used in the commission of offence was seized. Seized articles were sent for forensic examination and FSL report was obtained. Upon completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who committed the case to the Court of Session for trial. 5. The learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellant and co- accused persons under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B IPC along with Sections 25 (1-b) (B) and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellant abjured guilt and pleaded innocence. 6. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined 10 witnesses and exhibited documents. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 CrPC was also recorded, wherein he denied all incriminating circumstances appearing against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. No defence evidence was adduced by the appellant. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence and there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. It is argued that the prosecution has utterly failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant. It is further contended that prosecution witnesses Rambasawan Singh (PW-1) and Ramswarath Singh (PW- 3), who are close relatives of the deceased, merely stated that they came to know later that the appellant committed the murder, but not 4 disclosed the source of such information. Their statements are hearsay and inadmissible in evidence. It is also argued that independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Bhagwan Singh (PW-2) turned hostile and Vishwanath Singh (PW-4) specifically stated that he did not know who committed the murder. It is further contended that prosecution has failed to establish motive. Lastly, it is submitted that mere recovery of sword, in absence of conclusive forensic linkage, cannot form the sole basis for conviction. 8. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has duly proved homicidal death of the deceased and the memorandum statement of the appellant led to recovery of the weapon used in the offence. It is argued that the learned Trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence available on record and no interference is warranted. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the entire record with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the death of deceased Ajay Singh was homicidal in nature. 11. Dr. Kailash Kewartya (PW-8), who conducted postmortem examination over the dead body of the deceased and proved the postmortem report (exhibit P-19), deposed that the dead body was in decomposed condition and the neck of the deceased was found severed. Fracture of neck bones was also found. According to him, death was caused due to cut injury on neck and its complications. He categorically opined that the nature of death was homicidal. In his 5 cross-examination, the defence has not challenged about the nature of injury and opinion of homicidal death of the deceased. 12. The medical evidence available on record clearly establishes that the death of deceased Ajay Singh was homicidal in nature. Nothing substantial has been elicited in the cross-examination of the doctor so as to discredit his testimony. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court on this aspect is based on proper appreciation of evidence of Dr. Kailash Kewartya (PW-8), postmortem report (exhibit P-19), query report (exhibit P-20) and we do not find any infirmity or perversity in the said finding. 13. Having held that the death of deceased Ajay Singh was homicidal in nature, the next question for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the present appellant committed the murder of the deceased. 14. Admittedly, there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence. It is therefore necessary to examine whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant and excluding every hypothesis consistent with innocence. 15. The law with regard to circumstantial evidence is no longer res integra as held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116. Similarly, in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- 6 “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.” 16. Keeping the aforesaid principles in mind, the evidence available on record is required to be appreciated. 17. PW-1 Rambasawan Singh, uncle of the deceased, stated in his evidence that Basanti had allegedly called the deceased through mobile phone and thereafter got him murdered through the present appellant. However, in his entire deposition, he has not disclosed the source of such information. He admitted that he reached the spot only after receiving information regarding recovery of the dead body. Thus, he is not an eye-witness to the occurrence. His statement regarding involvement of the appellant is clearly hearsay in nature and cannot be treated as substantive evidence. 18. PW-3 Ramswarath Singh, father of the deceased, also stated that later on he came to know that Basanti and the present appellant had killed his son. However, he too did not disclose the source from which he received such information. He specifically admitted that he came to know about the incident after three days. Thus, his statement regarding involvement of the appellant is also hearsay in nature. It is also pertinent to mention that this witness was declared hostile by the prosecution. 7 19. Vishwanath Singh (PW-4) specifically stated that he did not know who committed the murder of the deceased or for what reason the incident occurred. Bhagwan Singh (PW-2) also did not support the prosecution case and was declared hostile. Thus, the independent witnesses examined by the prosecution have not supported the prosecution story. 20. The prosecution has heavily relied upon the memorandum statement of the appellant and consequent seizure of sword. Ramsoorat Singh (PW-6), witness to the memorandum and seizure proceedings, stated that the appellant gave memorandum statement leading to recovery of the sword allegedly used in the commission of offence and thereafter the sword was recovered at his instance. However, it is significant to note that the forensic report does not conclusively connect the said sword with the crime in question. The prosecution has failed to establish blood grouping of the stains allegedly found on the weapon. Mere recovery of weapon, in absence of cogent and reliable corroborative evidence, cannot by itself be made the sole basis for holding the appellant guilty of murder. The FSL report (exhibit P-34) shows that the sword seized in the case (article-E) stained with human blood, however, the blood group could not be determined, as the quantity of the blood found on the sword was not sufficient for its examination. 21. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Mustkeem @ Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, (2011) 11 SCC 724, has held that mere recovery of weapon without substantive corroborative evidence is insufficient to sustain conviction. 8 22. Further, the sword was allegedly seized from the old house of the appellant. The prosecution has failed to establish that the place from where the sword was allegedly recovered was within the exclusive knowledge or possession of the appellant. The witness to the memorandum and seizure Bhanwan Singh (PW-2) has turned hostile and has not stated against the appellant. He denied his presence at the time of memorandum and seizure and further stated that there was no memorandum and seizure from the appellant Jaipal. The other witness Ramsurat (PW-6) though has stated in his evidence that the appellant Jaipal gave his memorandum statement and a sword has been seized from his house, however in the later part of his evidence, he turned hostile. In cross-examination he stated that, as to on which date the documents (exhibit P-3 to P-10) was prepared, he did not know. He admitted that the police has already prepared the documents, in which they signed. He further admitted that in his presence the memorandum of the appellant Jaipal has not been recorded and he signed the documents at police station Vijay Nagar. He also stated that he did not know as to who was the resident of the house, from where the articles were seized. He also stated that the deceased Ajay was his nephew. Thus, the memorandum and seizure evidence, in absence of reliable corroboration and conclusive forensic linkage, is insufficient to sustain conviction. 23. The prosecution has also failed to establish several important links in the chain of circumstances. There is no evidence of “last seen together” connecting the appellant with the deceased immediately 9 prior to the incident. Likewise, no cogent motive for commission of offence has been established. 24. Though reference regarding mobile phone communication finds place during investigation, no call detail records or electronic evidence have been produced to substantiate the alleged involvement of the appellant. 25. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Trial Court itself acquitted co-accused Basanti Singh of all the charges and further acquitted the present appellant of offences under Sections 201 and 120-B IPC as well as offences under the Arms Act. Thus, material parts of the prosecution case have already been disbelieved by the learned Trial Court itself. 26. In a case resting entirely upon circumstantial evidence, each circumstance must be firmly established and all circumstances taken together must form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the accused. In the present case, the chain of circumstances is incomplete and suffers from serious missing links. 27. The evidence brought on record, at the most, creates suspicion against the appellant. However, it is well settled that suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. 28. 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: 10 “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: (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. 11 (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.” (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: 12 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 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 13 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.” 29. In Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, (1973) 2 SCC 808, the Hon’ble Supreme Court held:- “Another golden thread which runs through the web of the administration of justice in criminal cases is that if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted.” 30. It is settled principle of law that the prosecution has the burden to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and where two views are possible arising from the same evidence, the view which is favourable to the accused should be adopted and the accused should be given the benefit of doubt. In the matter of Digambar Vaishnav and Another Vs. State of Chhattisgarh, 2019 (4) SCC 522, it has been held as under: ‘19. It is also well-settled principle that in criminal cases, if two views are possible on the evidence adduced in the case, one pointing to the guilt of 14 the accused and the other 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]’” 31. Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, we find that the prosecution has failed to prove a complete chain of incriminating circumstances against the appellant and the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 32. Upon overall appreciation of the evidence available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant committed the murder of deceased Ajay Singh. Statements of PW-1 and PW-3 are hearsay in nature and do not constitute substantive evidence. Independent witnesses have not supported the prosecution case. Memorandum and seizure evidence also does not inspire confidence sufficient to sustain conviction in absence of complete and reliable corroboration. The chain of circumstances remains incomplete and fails to conclusively point towards the guilt of the appellant. 33. Consequently, the appeal is allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.10.2022 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur-Ramanujganj, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj in Sessions Trial No. 91/2019 convicting the appellant Jaipal @ Korwa Singh under Section 302/34 IPC is 15 hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Section 302/34 IPC by giving him benefit of doubt. 34. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 07.06.2019. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 35. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023, the appellant is directed to furnish a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the Court concerned, which shall remain effective for a period of six months. 36. Registry is directed to transmit the trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the Court concerned forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved