1 2026:CGHC:23932-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 568 of 2015 (Arising out of judgment dated 22.04.2015 passed in Sessions Trial No.63/2014 by the Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa) Smt. Shriwas, W/o. Khikhram Shriwas, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Tushar, Police Station Jaijaipur, Civil And Revenue District- Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through The Police Station Jaijaipur, Civil And Revenue District Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh. --- Respondent & CRA No. 574 of 2015 1 - Bharat Lal S/o Aajuram Bharatdwaj Aged About 35 Years R/o Village Bodsara, Police Station - Jaijaipur, Revenue And Civil District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh 2 - Murlidhar (Abated) as per Hon'ble Court Order Dated 14-07-2025 --- Appellant ASHOK SAHU Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU Date: 2026.06.17 14:55:40 +0530 2 Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Jaijaipur, District Janjgir Champa Chhattisgarh --- Respondents For Appellants : Mr. Anmol Gupta, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, Govt. Advocate Division Bench Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice & Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board (16.06.2026) Per : Ramesh Sinha, C.J. 1. Smt. Shriwas (A-3) has preferred Criminal Appeal No. 568/ 2015 and Bharat Lal (A-1) has preferred Criminal Appeal No.574/2015. Since common question of law and facts are involved in both the appeals and have arisen from Sessions Trial No. 63/2014, they have been clubbed together, heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment. 2. Both the appeals filed under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. are directed against the impugned judgment dated 22.04.2015 passed by learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa 3 in Sessions Trial No. 63/2014, by which, the appellants herein have been convicted and sentenced as under : Appellant- Smt. Shriwas in Cr.A. No.568/2015 CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s. 302/34 of IPC. : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. U/s. 302/120-B of IPC. : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. Both the sentence to run concurrently. Appellant- Bharat Lal in Cr.A. No.574/2015 CONVICTION SENTENCE U/s. 302 of IPC. : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 2 years. U/s. 302/120-B of IPC. : Life imprisonment and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous 4 imprisonment for 6 months. U/s. 201 of I.P.C. : Rigorous imprisonment for 2 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. U/s. 25 of Arms Act : Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 1 month. U/s. 27 of Arms Act : Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment of fine, further rigorous imprisonment for 6 months. All the sentences to run concurrently. 3. The prosecution case, in brief, is that deceased Jaglal was found lying dead during the intervening night of 04.01.2014 and 05.01.2014. On receiving information, merg intimation was recorded and thereafter First Information Report was registered. During investigation, the police prepared the inquest, spot map and seizure memos and sent the dead body for post-mortem examination. According to the prosecution, appellant Smt. Shrivas 5 was having previous disputes with deceased Jaglal. It was alleged that because of such enmity she entered into a criminal conspiracy with appellant Murlidhar and appellant Bharatlal for eliminating Jaglal. The prosecution further alleged that Smt. Shrivas paid Rs.2,50,000/- to appellant Murlidhar and Murlidhar paid Rs.1,50,000/- to appellant Bharatlal for carrying out the murder. It was further alleged that Bharatlal shot Jaglal by means of a country-made firearm causing his death. 4. During investigation memorandum statements of Bharatlal and Murlidhar were allegedly recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. Pursuant thereto certain recoveries including a country-made firearm and other articles were allegedly effected. The seized articles were sent for forensic examination. On completion of investigation charge-sheet was filed and the case was committed to the Court of Session for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellants abjured their guilt and entered into defence stating that they have not committed any offence and they have been falsely implicated. 5. In order to bring home the offences, prosecution examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 45 documents and the accused/ appellants in support of their defence had neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document. 6 6. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellants herein for the aforesaid offences as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeals have been preferred. 7. Mr. Anmol Gupta, learned counsel appearing for the appellants, would submit that the entire prosecution case rests upon circumstantial evidence and admittedly there is no eyewitness to the occurrence. It is argued that the prosecution has attempted to build its case primarily on the basis of alleged conspiracy, motive, memorandum statements and recoveries. However, none of these circumstances have been proved in accordance with law. It is further submitted that the prosecution case regarding payment of Rs.2,50,000/- by Smt. Shrivas to Murlidhar and payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by Murlidhar to Bharatlal is based solely upon alleged statements made before the police during investigation. Such statements are inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act and cannot be treated as substantive evidence against the accused persons. 8. Learned counsel would further submit that the independent witnesses to the memorandum and seizure proceedings, namely Purushottam (PW-1) and Ramlalla (PW-2) have not supported the prosecution case in material particulars. Their evidence completely 7 demolishes the prosecution story regarding discovery and recovery. It is argued that even the alleged recovery of the firearm does not advance the prosecution case. No witness has seen Bharatlal carrying or using the firearm. The prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain connecting the recovered firearm with the offence in question. Learned counsel would further submit that motive has not been satisfactorily established. Even assuming that previous disputes existed between Smt. Shrivas and the deceased, motive alone cannot be treated as proof of guilt. At best, motive may raise suspicion but cannot replace legal evidence. It is therefore submitted that the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstances remains incomplete. The conviction is based on conjectures and inadmissible evidence, therefore, the appellants are entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserve acquittal. 9. Mr. Rahul Tamaskar, learned State counsel, would submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offences beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants herein, therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 10. Learned State counsel would further submit that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing motive. The evidence on record shows that there existed previous disputes between Smt. Shrivas 8 and the deceased and such evidence furnishes a strong motive for commission of the crime. It is further submitted that memorandum statements were recorded during investigation and recoveries were made pursuant thereto. The firearm recovered at the instance of Bharatlal constitutes a highly incriminating circumstance against him. He would also argue that merely because some witnesses did not fully support the prosecution, the entire prosecution case cannot be discarded. The testimony of the Investigating Officer and other official witnesses remains admissible and can be relied upon if found trustworthy. He would further submit that the learned Sessions Judge has recorded detailed findings after appreciating the evidence and no ground is made out for interference in these appeals, therefore, both the appeals deserve to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 12. The first question for consideration as to whether the death of deceased Jaglal was homicidal in nature has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the post-mortem report (Ex.P-21) proved by Dr. Manoj Rathore (PW-7), according to which, cause of death was stated to be coma due to laceration of brain matter and nature of death was homicidal, which in our 9 considered opinion is a correct finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the said finding. 13. The case of the prosecution is not based on direct evidence, it is based on circumstantial evidence. The five golden principles which constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra 1 , which must be fulfilled for convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence in paragraph 153 as under: - “153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established: (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra2 where the following observations were made: Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 2 (1973) 2 SCC 793 10 can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty, (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 14. Upon consideration of the rival submissions and the evidence on record, the following questions arise for determination: (i) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants entered into a criminal conspiracy to commit the murder of Jaglal? (ii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that during the intervening night of 04.01.2014 and 05.01.2014 the appellants caused the homicidal death of Jaglal in furtherance of such conspiracy? 11 (iii) Whether the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that appellant Bharatlal was in unlawful possession of the country- made firearm allegedly recovered during investigation and that the same was used in commission of the offence? 15. We will discuss the aforesaid questions one by one. (i) The prosecution sought to establish conspiracy principally through evidence relating to prior disputes between deceased Jaglal and appellant Smt. Shrivas, the alleged payment of money by Smt. Shrivas to Murlidhar and thereafter by Murlidhar to Bharatlal, and the memorandum statements allegedly made during police investigation. Upon careful scrutiny of the evidence, it is found that no witness has deposed regarding any meeting, discussion or agreement amongst the appellants to commit the murder of Jaglal. There is no direct evidence whatsoever regarding formation of the alleged conspiracy. Equally significant is the fact that no independent witness has stated that he witnessed payment of Rs.2,50,000/- by Smt. Shrivas to Murlidhar or payment of Rs.1,50,000/- by Murlidhar to Bharatlal. No documentary evidence has been brought on record to establish such transactions. The trial Court substantially relied upon the statements allegedly made by accused Bharatlal and Murlidhar during police interrogation. However, any confession made before a police 12 officer is inadmissible under Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act. Only that portion which distinctly relates to a fact discovered can be admitted under Section 27. The alleged statements regarding payment of money, involvement of co-accused and commission of the offence are clearly inadmissible and cannot be treated as substantive evidence. The prosecution also relied upon previous disputes between deceased Jaglal and accused Smt. Shrivas as motive. Even if such disputes are accepted, motive alone cannot establish conspiracy. Suspicion, however strong, cannot substitute proof. In the absence of legally admissible evidence showing a meeting of minds between the appellants, the essential ingredients of criminal conspiracy remain unproved. Accordingly, Question No.1 is answered in negative. (ii) The prosecution first sought to establish the fact of homicidal death. The evidence of Dr. Manoj Rathore and the post-mortem report clearly establish that Jaglal sustained a firearm injury on his head and died as a result thereof. The medical evidence satisfactorily proves that the death was homicidal in nature. However, proof of homicidal death is only one circumstance. The prosecution was further required to establish the identity of the assailants. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the actual 13 occurrence. No witness has stated that he saw Bharatlal firing at Jaglal. No witness has stated that he saw Murlidhar or Smt. Shrivas participating in the occurrence. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of witnesses who allegedly heard a gunshot sound and thereafter noticed certain persons near the place where Jaglal had been sleeping. Such evidence does not constitute eyewitness testimony. The conduct attributed to these witnesses is not free from doubt. Though they allegedly noticed the presence of the accused persons after hearing the gunshot sound, they neither raised immediate alarm nor disclosed the names of the accused persons at the earliest opportunity. Their evidence suffers from omissions and contradictions noticed in cross-examination. The prosecution further relied upon the alleged memorandum statements and recoveries. However, the memorandum witnesses Purushottam (PW-1) and Ramlalla (PW-2) did not fully support the prosecution case regarding the manner in which the memorandum and recoveries were allegedly effected. Once the independent witnesses to the recoveries fail to support the prosecution version, the evidentiary value of such recoveries becomes substantially weakened and requires strong corroboration from independent circumstances. The prosecution has not been able to produce any independent circumstance connecting the appellants with the actual commission of the 14 offence. The evidence on record, therefore, establishes merely a suspicion against the appellants. The law is settled that suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of legal proof. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants caused the death of Jaglal. Accordingly, Question No.2 is also answered in negative. (iii) The prosecution alleges that pursuant to the memorandum statement of Bharatlal a country-made firearm was recovered and sent for forensic examination. As already noticed, the witnesses associated with the recovery proceedings did not fully support the prosecution case. Consequently, the recovery itself becomes doubtful. Even assuming that the firearm was recovered from Bharatlal, the prosecution was further required to establish beyond reasonable doubt that the recovered weapon was the very weapon used in the commission of the offence. Though ballistic and forensic reports were brought on record, the evidence does not conclusively establish that the bullet recovered from the body of the deceased had been fired from the firearm allegedly recovered from Bharatlal. There is no eyewitness who saw Bharatlal carrying or using the weapon at the time of occurrence. The chain linking the recovered firearm with the crime remains incomplete. In a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, such a missing link 15 assumes great significance and creates a reasonable doubt regarding the prosecution version. Consequently, the prosecution has failed to establish the offences under Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act beyond reasonable doubt. Question No.3 is accordingly answered in negative. 16. From the foregoing discussion, it is evident that the prosecution has succeeded in proving only the homicidal death of Jaglal. However, it has failed to establish the alleged conspiracy, failed to prove the alleged payment of money, failed to prove the participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence, failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence and failed to conclusively connect the recovered firearm with the fatal injury. The conviction recorded by the learned trial Court is substantially founded upon inadmissible portions of police statements, doubtful recovery evidence and circumstances which do not form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the appellants. The settled principles governing criminal jurisprudence require that whenever two views are possible, the view favourable to the accused must be adopted. The prosecution is required to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and cannot derive benefit from weaknesses in the defence. 16 17. In the present case, the evidence on record falls short of the standard required for sustaining a conviction for offences punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 and 27 of the Arms Act. The appellants are, therefore, entitled to the benefit of doubt. Accordingly, both the appeals are allowed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.04.2015 passed by the learned Second Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa in Sessions Trial No.63/2014 are hereby set aside. The appellant Bharatlal is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302, 302/120-B & 201 of the Indian Penal Code and Sections 25 & 27 of the Arms Act and appellant Smt. Shrivas is acquitted of the charges under Sections 302/34 and 302/120-B of the Indian Penal Code. 18. The appellants are on bail, they need not surrender; however, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C. 19. Let a certified copy of this judgment along-with the original record be transmitted to the concerned trial Court forthwith for necessary information & action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Ashok