1 CGHC010368032022 2026:CGHC:34457-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1799 of 2022 Peer Mohammad S/o Late Tar Mohammad Aged About 30 Years Resident Of Ashadeep Colony, Near Kusht Basti, Police Station Chhawani, District Durg Chhattisgarh At Present Resident Of Ramnagar, Chikhali, District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station Kotwali, Rajnandgaon District Rajnandgaon Chhattisgarh., District : Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh ...Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Uday Pratap Singh Sahu, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 06 .08.2026 1. Heard Mr. Uday Pratap Singh Sahu, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. S.S. Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2026.08.13 10:33:54 +0530 2 2. This criminal appeal, preferred under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, "the CrPC"), is directed against the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned Upper Sessions Judge (FTC), Rajnandgaon (C.G.) (for short, "the trial Court"), in Sessions Trial No. 74 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as follows: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 450 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 02 months R.I. more. Section 302 of the IPC R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 02 months R.I. more. Section 382 of the IPC R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine, 02 months R.I. more. All the sentences run concurrently 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased, Devkunwar Bai, was engaged in the business of selling vegetables. On 06.06.2019, after selling vegetables in the morning, she returned to her house situated at Shanti Nagar at about 12:00 noon. In the evening, when she did not come to Raman Bazar to sell vegetables, her daughter, Purnima Dewangan (PW-14), telephoned her son, Manish Dewangan (PW-2), and informed him that his grandmother, Devkunwar 3 Bai, had not come to Raman Bazar and asked him to go to her house and check on her. Thereafter, Manish Dewangan went to the house of the deceased and found her lying on the bed. He informed his parents and the neighbours, who, upon reaching the spot, found that Devkunwar Bai had died. Scratch marks were noticed on both sides of her neck and on her left cheek. Her nine-leaf gold necklace and gold earrings, which she was wearing, were found missing. Besides, one pair of silver anklets, a silver waist chain and one pair of gold earrings kept in the almirah were also found missing. 4. On the report lodged by Manish Dewangan at Police Outpost Chikhli, Police Station City Kotwali, a Zero FIR was registered under Sections 382 and 302 of the IPC and a Zero Merg Intimation was also recorded. Notices were issued to the witnesses for their presence during the inquest proceedings and the inquest panchnama was prepared. The dead body was thereafter sent for postmortem examination. Following the postmortem examination, various articles and biological samples, including viscera, vaginal swab, pieces of bone, blood-stained and plain samples, blood and throat swabs, fingernail scrapings of both hands, vaginal slides and clothes of the deceased, were preserved and seized. The spot map as well as the Patwari map of the place of occurrence was also prepared. 5. On 16.07.2019, at the Community Building situated behind the Government Press, the memorandum statement of the appellant, Peer Mohammad, vide Ex.P/14, was recorded in the presence of witnesses 4 Ashish Tiwari and Lalit Naidu. Pursuant to the disclosure made in the memorandum statement and at the instance of the appellant, an iron screwdriver, allegedly used in the commission of the offence, and a small designer rexine purse bearing the inscription “Jindatt Jewellers” were recovered from beneath a stone near the Gatula Nala cremation ground. From inside the said purse, one new silver waist chain, one old pair of silver anklets, seven gold leaves and the Aadhaar Card of the deceased were also recovered. The aforesaid articles were seized in the presence of the aforesaid witnesses. 6. The appellant was thereafter served with a notice under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. requiring him to produce receipts or other documents in respect of the gold and silver ornaments recovered from him. As the appellant failed to produce any such document, the recovered ornaments were examined and weighed by a goldsmith and a panchnama in that regard was prepared. The appellant was arrested and information regarding his arrest was furnished to his family members. The statements of witnesses Ramshila Bai, Manish Dewangan, Ashish Tiwari and Lalit Naidu were recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. An identification proceeding in respect of the ornaments recovered from the appellant was also conducted through witness Ramshila Bai. The statements of other witnesses were recorded during the course of investigation. 7. Upon completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Rajnandgaon, in 5 connection with Crime No.316/2019 registered at Police Station Kotwali for offences punishable under Sections 382, 302 and 450 of the IPC. The case was thereafter committed to the Court of Session and, upon transfer, was received by the learned trial Court for trial in accordance with law. 8. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 450, 302 and 382 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant, who denied the same and claimed to be tried. 9. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 22 witnesses and exhibited 43 documents. The appellant did not examine any witness in his defence nor did he adduce any documentary evidence. 10. Upon conclusion of the trial and after appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by the impugned judgment dated 29.09.2022, convicted the appellant and sentenced him as detailed in paragraph 2 of this judgment. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant has preferred the present appeal questioning the legality, propriety and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 11. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the appellant is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is contended that the learned trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence on record and has convicted the appellant on the basis of an incomplete and unreliable chain of circumstances. 6 According to learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish, beyond reasonable doubt, the presence of the appellant at the place of occurrence or his participation in the homicidal death of the deceased. It is further submitted that the alleged recovery of ornaments and other articles at the instance of the appellant does not, by itself, establish that he committed the murder, particularly when the prosecution has failed to establish an unbroken chain of circumstances connecting him with the crime. 12. It is further contended by the learned counsel for the appellant that the prosecution has not established any motive on the part of the appellant to commit the alleged offence and that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions, omissions and inconsistencies. Learned counsel also questions the evidentiary value of the alleged memorandum and recovery and submits that the statutory requirements governing such recovery have not been satisfactorily established. It is argued that the mere recovery of certain articles allegedly belonging to the deceased cannot, in the absence of other clinching circumstances, form the sole basis for recording a conviction for murder. Learned counsel, therefore, submits that the prosecution has failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt and that the appellant is entitled to acquittal by extending to him the benefit of doubt. 13. Per contra, learned State counsel, while supporting the impugned judgment, submits that the prosecution has established a complete and 7 cogent chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. It is contended that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that the medical evidence conclusively establishes that she died due to asphyxia resulting from strangulation. It is further submitted that soon after the occurrence, the ornaments and other articles belonging to the deceased were found missing and that several such articles, including gold and silver ornaments and the Aadhaar Card of the deceased, were subsequently recovered at the instance of the appellant pursuant to his memorandum statement. 14. Learned State counsel further submits that the recovery was duly proved through the witnesses and that the recovered ornaments were subjected to identification. The appellant failed to offer any satisfactory explanation regarding his possession of the recovered articles or to produce any receipt or document establishing his lawful possession thereof. According to the learned State counsel, the circumstances proved by the prosecution, when considered cumulatively, form a complete chain leading only to the guilt of the appellant and exclude every reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. It is, therefore, submitted that the learned trial Court has rightly appreciated the evidence and that no interference with the impugned judgment is warranted in the present appeal. 15. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at length, considered their rival submissions and carefully perused the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, as also the impugned 8 judgment. 16. In order to appreciate the rival submissions and to examine the correctness of the findings recorded by the learned trial Court, it would be appropriate to consider the evidence adduced by the prosecution in its proper perspective and determine whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution form a complete and unbroken chain pointing towards the guilt of the appellant. 17. The first question which arises for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the death of Devkunwar Bai was homicidal in nature. 18. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the testimony of Dr. Akshay Kumar Ramteke (PW-8), who conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased on 07.06.2019 and proved the postmortem report (Ex.P/18). On external examination, the doctor found multiple ante-mortem injuries on different parts of the body, including abrasions over the face, elbow, forearm and legs and, more significantly, multiple abrasions and contusions over the neck. On internal examination, multiple contusions were found in the muscles of the neck and haemorrhage was present over the laryngeal mucosal surface. The face was congested and the lips and nails were bluish in colour. The medical witness opined that the injuries were ante-mortem and that the death had occurred approximately 12 to 36 hours prior to the postmortem examination. Most importantly, he categorically opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and that the 9 death was unnatural. 19. The testimony of PW-8, read with the postmortem report (Ex.P/18), leaves no room for doubt that the deceased had not died a natural death. The multiple ante-mortem injuries over the neck, the underlying contusions of the neck muscles and haemorrhage over the laryngeal mucosal surface, coupled with the opinion of the autopsy surgeon that death was caused by asphyxia due to strangulation, conclusively establish the homicidal nature of the death. Nothing material has been elicited in the cross-examination of PW-8 so as to discredit his medical opinion. We, therefore, concur with the finding of the learned trial Court that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and was the result of strangulation. 20. The next and more crucial question which arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has established, by legally admissible and reliable evidence, that it was the appellant who caused the homicidal death of the deceased and committed the offences alleged against him. 21. The present case rests principally upon circumstantial evidence. There is no eyewitness to the actual occurrence relied upon by the prosecution. The prosecution case is founded upon a series of circumstances, including the homicidal death of the deceased, the disappearance of her gold and silver ornaments and other belongings immediately after the occurrence, and the subsequent recovery of several such articles from the appellant pursuant to his memorandum statement. The evidentiary value of these circumstances, individually as 10 well as cumulatively, therefore, requires careful examination. It is also necessary to ascertain whether the recoveries relied upon by the prosecution were duly proved and whether they form a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the appellant and inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of his innocence. 22. Manish Dewangan (PW-2) deposed that, on being informed by his mother on the date of occurrence, he went to the house of his grandmother, Devkunwar Bai, and found her dead. He noticed that the nine-leaf gold necklace worn by the deceased and the gold earrings worn by her were missing. He further noticed that a pair of silver anklets and a silver waist chain were missing from the almirah and that the almirah was found broken. The witness further stated that, about two days prior to the incident, the deceased had called him and his maternal aunt, Ramshila, and informed them that, for the last few days, a person named Peer Mohammad had been following her up to her house and had, on occasions, thrown lemons at her. 23. Ramshila Dewangan (PW-15) stated that, upon receiving information about the incident, she reached the house of the deceased and found a large number of persons gathered there. Her sister Purnima was crying. She noticed scratch marks on the left cheek and both sides of the neck of the deceased. The gold earrings and the nine- leaf gold necklace worn by the deceased were missing and the locker of the almirah was found broken. She further stated that a rexine purse 11 bearing the name “Jindatt Jewellers”, which contained gold earrings, a pair of silver anklets, a silver waist chain, the Aadhaar Card of the deceased and receipts relating to the gold and silver articles, was also missing. She further deposed that on 04.06.2019, at about 8:30–9:00 p.m., the deceased had informed her and Manish that a person had been following her while she returned home from work and had come to her house on the pretext of asking for lemons, while looking around the house. According to the deceased, the said person had disclosed his name as Peer Mohammad and stated that he was a resident of Basantpur. Ramshila stated that she had asked Manish whether any person by that name worked in his company, to which he replied in the negative. Manish had then stated that if the said person came again, he should be identified and reported. 24. Dev Kumar Dewangan (PW-3) also stated that, upon entering the house, he found that his mother-in-law had been murdered and that her gold earrings and silver ornaments were missing. Purnima Dewangan (PW-14) stated that, on reaching the house of the deceased after receiving information about the incident, she noticed a scratch mark on the left cheek of her mother. Ramshila, who was residing with the deceased, also arrived there and informed her that the gold earrings and the nine-leaf necklace worn by the deceased were missing. The locker of the almirah was broken and the silver anklets, silver waist chain, gold earrings and some cash kept therein were also missing. 25. Independent witness Krishna Mohan Gupta (PW-6) stated that 12 Devkunwar Bai had been killed and that some articles had also been taken away from her house. Manbodh Sahu similarly stated that Devkunwar Bai had been murdered and that the person who committed the murder had taken away her gold and silver ornaments. 26. Learned counsel for the appellant has contended that the evidence of Manish Dewangan (PW-2) and Ramshila Dewangan (PW- 15) regarding the deceased having been followed by Peer Mohammad cannot be relied upon, as both witnesses admitted in cross-examination that they had not disclosed this fact to the police at the time of lodging of the report. 27. It is true that the Zero FIR (Ex.P/2) does not contain any recital regarding the deceased having been followed by Peer Mohammad. However, such omission, by itself, does not render the entire testimony of these witnesses unreliable. Apart from this particular circumstance, there is no material contradiction or inconsistency in their evidence regarding the occurrence, the condition of the deceased, the missing ornaments and the broken almirah. Their testimony in Court is also substantially consistent with their police statements and statements recorded under Section 164 of the Cr.P.C. Their version further receives corroboration from the evidence of Dev Kumar Dewangan, Purnima Dewangan, Krishna Mohan Gupta and Manbodh Sahu. 28. Krishna Mohan Gupta (PW-6) further stated that, on the date of occurrence, when the deceased returned home from the market and entered her house, a Muslim boy was following her and entered the 13 house immediately thereafter. Bhagwat Nishad (PW-9) also stated that, two to four days prior to the incident, the deceased had told him that a person used to follow her while she travelled to and from the market and had, on one or two occasions, come to her house on the pretext of purchasing vegetables. The deceased had also told him that the person was named Peer Mohammad. 29. The prosecution has relied heavily upon the memorandum statement of the appellant and the consequent recoveries. Lal Munai Singh, Sub-Inspector (PW-19), stated that during investigation, on 16.07.2019, notices under Section 160 of the Cr.P.C. were issued to Ashish Tiwari and Lalit Naidu requiring their presence during the police proceedings. He further stated that on the same day, at about 8:00 p.m., one pair of gold earrings along with the gold chain attached thereto was produced by the appellant from his possession in the presence of the said witnesses and was seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/15. 30. PW-19 further deposed that on 18.07.2019, at about 9:10 a.m., at the Community Building situated behind the Government Press, the memorandum statement of the appellant was recorded in the presence of Ashish Tiwari (PW-18) and Lalit Naidu (PW-7) vide Ex.P/14. Pursuant thereto, at about 10:25 a.m., the appellant led the police and the witnesses to a place near the Gatula Nala cremation ground and, from beneath a stone, took out and produced an old iron screwdriver and a small designer rexine purse bearing the inscription “Jindatt Jewellers”. On opening the purse in the presence of the witnesses, it was found to 14 contain one silver waist chain, one pair of old silver anklets, seven gold leaves and the Aadhaar Card of the deceased. The articles were seized under Ex.P/16. 31. The memorandum (Ex.P/14) and seizure memos Exs.P/15 and P/16 show that the proceedings were conducted in the presence of independent witnesses, namely, Lalit Naidu and Ashish Tiwari. Both witnesses have admitted their signatures on the relevant documents and have supported the factum of recovery. 32. Lalit Naidu (PW-7) specifically stated that the police had interrogated the appellant in his presence and that the appellant disclosed that, after murdering Devkunwar Bai and taking away her ornaments, he had concealed the stolen articles beneath a stone near the Gatula Nala, on the Mukti Dham Road. The witness further stated that the appellant had disclosed that he had entered the house of the deceased at about 2:00 p.m., strangulated her, broke open the almirah and removed the ornaments. 33. The witness identified his signature on Ex.P/15 and stated that the gold earrings and the chain attached thereto had been seized from the appellant in his presence. He also identified his signature on Ex.P/16 and stated that the appellant himself took out and produced the iron screwdriver, the small rexine purse, the silver waist chain, the pair of silver anklets, seven gold leaves and the Aadhaar Card of Devkunwar Bai from beneath the stone, whereupon the same were seized by the police. 15 34. Significantly, in cross-examination, Lalit Naidu denied the suggestion that the appellant had merely been apprehended by the police and taken directly to the police station or that the entire recovery proceedings had been subsequently prepared at the police station. He stated that the police interrogated the appellant and, pursuant to the information furnished by him, took him to the Gatula cremation ground, where the appellant himself took out and produced the articles. He also denied that his signature on the memorandum had been obtained at the police station. His testimony on the material aspects of the recovery has remained substantially unshaken. 35. Ashish Kumar Tiwari (PW-18) also supported the prosecution version. He stated that, after being served with notice, he and Lalit Naidu were taken to the Community Building by the police. On seeing them, the appellant attempted to flee but was apprehended. Upon interrogation, he disclosed his identity as Peer Mohammad and stated that he had been observing the movements of the deceased for some days, as he was in need of money, and thereafter entered her house and strangulated her. He further disclosed that he had removed ornaments and cash from the almirah. 36. PW-18 identified his signature on memorandum Ex.P/14 and stated that the appellant produced the gold earrings with the chain attached thereto, which were seized vide Ex.P/15. He further stated that the appellant disclosed that the remaining articles had been concealed near the cremation ground at Gatula Nala and, thereafter, the appellant, 16 along with the police and the witnesses, proceeded to the said place, where he took out the concealed articles from beneath a stone. The Aadhaar Card of the deceased, gold and silver ornaments, the screwdriver and the purse were seized vide Ex.P/16. 37. In cross-examination, PW-18 denied the suggestions that the police had not conducted any proceedings in his presence, that the appellant had not been found near the Community Building, or that he had been taken directly to the police station. He further denied that the seizure memos had been signed by him at the police station. He specifically stated that the seizure proceedings were conducted at the Community Building and at the cremation ground. The Investigating Officer, PW-19, has also stated that the police party proceeded to the place of recovery in the official vehicle. Thus, the minor variations regarding the mode of conveyance used by the witnesses do not affect the core of the recovery evidence. 38. On a cumulative consideration of the testimony of PW-19 Lal Munai Singh, PW-7 Lalit Naidu and PW-18 Ashish Kumar Tiwari, we find that there is no material contradiction with regard to the recording of memorandum Ex.P/14, seizure of the gold earrings and chain under Ex.P/15, and the subsequent recovery of the iron screwdriver, rexine purse, silver waist chain, pair of silver anklets, seven gold leaves and Aadhaar Card of the deceased under Ex.P/16. 39. The defence has not been able to establish any prior enmity or animosity between these witnesses and the appellant which could 17 furnish a plausible reason for their falsely implicating him in the recovery proceedings. Their evidence, on the material aspects, has remained intact in cross-examination. The fact that the witnesses may have differed on peripheral details concerning the sequence of police proceedings or their mode of transportation cannot, in our view, discredit the substantive recovery proved through their testimony. 40. The recovery of the Aadhaar Card of the deceased is also a significant circumstance, as it is not an article of ordinary circulation and its recovery from a place allegedly concealed by the appellant lends assurance to the prosecution version regarding the concealment of the articles. 41. PW-19 further stated that, on 10.07.2019, notices under Section 91 of the Cr.P.C. (Exs.P/31 and P/32) were served upon the appellant requiring him to produce receipts or documents evidencing his ownership or lawful possession of the gold and silver articles recovered from him. The Investigating Officer identified the signatures of the appellant on the said notices. The appellant, instead of producing any document, endorsed “not available” and signed the notices. 42. The prosecution evidence further shows that the appellant did not offer any explanation during trial as to how the ornaments and other articles belonging to the deceased came into his possession. The absence of any satisfactory explanation assumes significance when considered along with the recovery of the articles pursuant to his memorandum statement and the subsequent identification of those 18 articles by the relative of the deceased. The learned trial Court has relied upon the presumption under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act in this context. In our considered opinion, the circumstance of unexplained possession cannot be viewed in isolation; its evidentiary value has to be assessed in conjunction with the nature of the articles recovered, the manner of their recovery, the place of concealment and the identification of the articles. 43. The prosecution also examined Champalal Soni (PW-21), a goldsmith, to establish the nature and identity of the recovered ornaments. PW-19 stated that on 16.07.2019 a notice (Ex.P/33) was issued to Champalal Soni for examination and weighing of the recovered gold and silver ornaments. 44. PW-21 stated that, pursuant to the said notice, he went to Police Outpost Chikhli, where four sealed packets were produced before him. Upon opening the packets, he found a ladies' purse bearing the name “Jindatt Jewellers”, containing a silver waist chain weighing approximately 200 grams and seven gold leaves weighing approximately 3 to 3.5 grams. Another packet contained a pair of silver anklets, while another contained the gold earrings. An Aadhaar Card bearing the name of Devkunwar Dewangan, was also found in one of the packets. 45. PW-21 examined the ornaments with the instruments brought by him and thereafter re-sealed the articles. He issued the certificate Ex.P/43. In cross-examination, he stated that he had approximately 40 19 years' experience in the business of gold and silver and denied the suggestion that the police had shown him an already opened purse. He specifically stated that the articles were produced before him in sealed packets, which were opened in his presence. 46. The evidence of PW-21 establishes that the recovered articles comprised silver anklets, a silver waist chain, gold earrings with chain and seven gold leaves. His long experience in the business of gold and silver lends credibility to his evidence regarding examination and identification of the nature of the recovered ornaments. Nothing material has emerged in cross-examination to discredit his testimony or the certificate Ex.P/43. 47. The prosecution further relied upon the identification proceedings conducted in respect of the recovered ornaments. PW-19 stated that, during investigation, a requisition (Ex.P/36) was sent to the concerned Executive Magistrate for conducting the identification proceedings and that Ramshila Bai was served with notice Ex.P-21 to remain present for such identification. 48. Ramshila Dewangan (PW-15) stated that, pursuant to the notice, she went to the Tehsil Office at about 11:00–12:00 noon. She identified her signature on the identification memo Ex.P/19 and stated that the identification proceedings were conducted by the Naib-Tahsildar. Various ornaments, including the silver anklets, silver waist chain, gold earrings, gold leaves and the gold chain, were shown to her, from amongst which she identified the articles belonging to the deceased. 20 49. The identification memo Ex.P/19 shows that the proceedings were conducted in the presence of witnesses Chandrashekhar Vaishnav (PW-22) and Komal Prasad (PW-16). Komal Prasad, who was a Kotwar, admitted his signature on the identification memo but did not fully support the identification proceedings. Chandrashekhar Vaishnav, however, stated that he had been called to the office of the Executive Magistrate, where the Magistrate, the Kotwar and another woman were present. He identified his signature on Ex.P/19 and stated that several gold and silver ornaments had been kept there and Ramshila Dewangan identified five articles, including a waist chain, a portion of the necklace, a gold earring and other articles. 50. The fact that one of the witnesses to the identification proceedings did not fully support the prosecution does not, by itself, render the identification evidence wholly unreliable. The substantive evidence of Ramshila Dewangan regarding identification of the ornaments remains relevant, particularly when considered along with the evidence of recovery, the description of the missing articles furnished by the family members immediately after the occurrence, and the evidence of the goldsmith regarding the nature of the recovered articles. 51. The evidentiary significance of the recovery in the present case lies not merely in the fact that certain gold and silver articles were found in the possession of the appellant. The prosecution has sought to establish a connected chain: the ornaments and other articles were found missing from the house of the deceased immediately after her 21 homicidal death; certain articles were recovered from the appellant and, pursuant to his memorandum, other articles were recovered from a concealed place; the recovered articles included the Aadhaar Card of the deceased and a purse bearing the name of the jeweller; the ornaments were examined by an experienced goldsmith; and the articles were thereafter identified by Ramshila Dewangan. 52. The recovery of the articles from beneath a stone at a place indicated by the appellant is a circumstance of greater significance than a mere recovery from an open or accessible place. The prosecution evidence is that the appellant himself led the police and the independent witnesses to the place and took out the concealed articles. The defence has not been able to demonstrate that the place of concealment was within the exclusive knowledge of anyone other than the appellant or that the articles had been planted by the police. 53. Thus, the evidence of PW-7 Lalit Naidu, PW-18 Ashish Kumar Tiwari and PW-19 Lal Munai Singh, read with the evidence of PW-21 Champalal Soni and PW-15 Ramshila Dewangan, establishes the recovery and subsequent identification of material articles belonging to the deceased. The said circumstance, however, has to be considered along with the remaining circumstances forming part of the prosecution case, particularly the homicidal death of the deceased and the other evidence connecting the appellant with the occurrence. 22 54. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., reported in (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 55. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(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 23 (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.” 56. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 57. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable 24 hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 58. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- “(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 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.” 59. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, reported in (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make 25 inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus: “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 26 60. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., reported in AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 61. Applying the aforesaid settled principles to the facts of the present case, we find that the circumstances proved by the prosecution are not isolated circumstances. They constitute a continuous and mutually corroborating chain. The deceased had disclosed shortly before the occurrence that a person identifying himself as Peer Mohammad had been following her; thereafter, she was found homicidally dead and her ornaments were missing; the almirah was found broken; the gold and silver ornaments were recovered from the appellant and at his instance; the deceased’s Aadhaar Card was recovered from the concealed place; the recovered ornaments were examined by PW-21 and identified by PW-15; and the appellant failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation for his possession of the articles. 62. The recovery assumes further significance because the articles were not recovered merely from an open or accessible place. The appellant led the police and independent witnesses to the concealed 27 place and himself took out the articles from beneath a stone. The recovery of the deceased’s Aadhaar Card along with the ornaments and the purse bearing the name “Jindatt Jewellers” provides further assurance to the prosecution case and substantially connects the recovered property with the deceased. 63. The appellant was also unable to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding his possession of the recovered articles. The evidentiary value of such unexplained possession is not being considered in isolation; rather, it is being considered together with the nature of the articles, their immediate disappearance after the homicidal death, the manner and place of recovery, their identification and the other circumstances proved by the prosecution. 64. The minor discrepancies relied upon by the defence regarding peripheral details of the recovery proceedings or the mode of transportation do not affect the core of the prosecution case. The material witnesses have consistently supported the memorandum, seizure and recovery proceedings, and their evidence on the material aspects has remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination. 65. We are, therefore, of the considered view that the circumstances established by the prosecution, when taken cumulatively, form a complete chain leading towards the guilt of the appellant. Each material circumstance receives assurance from the other circumstances, and the chain so formed is inconsistent with any reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant. 28 66. The prosecution has thus succeeded in establishing beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was connected with the occurrence and with the articles belonging to the deceased. The defence has failed to create any reasonable doubt in the prosecution case or to furnish any plausible alternative explanation for the circumstances proved against the appellant. 67. On a cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence on record and applying the principles governing circumstantial evidence as laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy (supra), Padala Veera Reddy (supra), Ashok Kumar Srivastava (supra), Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), Suresh (supra) and Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan (supra), we find that the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant and excluding any reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence. 68. Consequently, we find ourselves in complete agreement with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges against the appellant beyond reasonable doubt, and the conclusions arrived at by the learned trial Court are fully borne out from the evidence on record. We find no perversity, illegality or material infirmity in the impugned judgment warranting interference in the present appeal. 69. Consequently, the appeal, being devoid of merit, is hereby dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant 29 by judgment dated 29.09.2022 passed by the learned trial Court are hereby affirmed. 70. It is reported that the appellant is in custody. He shall serve out the remaining part of the sentence imposed upon him by the learned trial Court. 71. The learned trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. 72. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan