1 CGHC010423452025 2026:CGHC:34472-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 2104 of 2025 Jaylal Korwa S/o Munna Korwa Aged About 59 Years (57 In Copy Of Judgment) Occupation Farmer / Labor, R/o Village Petla- Gomhapara, P.S. Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sitapur, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh --- Respondent (Cause title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Chetan Singh Chauhan, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Govt. Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri R avi ndra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06/08/2026 1. The present appeal has been listed for consideration on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail. Considering the fact that the appellant is in jail since 24.06.2020, with the consent of the parties, the appeal is being heard finally. Accordingly, the I.A. No. 1 of 2025 is disposed of. VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Digitally signed by VED PRAKASH DEWANGAN Date: 2026.08.19 10:48:46 +0530 2 2. Present is a criminal appeal under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 against the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence dated 13.04.2023, passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Surguja (Ambikapur), in Sessions Case No. 79 of 2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced for R.I. for life with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for three months. Conviction Sentence U/s. 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional R.I. for 3 months. 3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that, on 21.06.2020, the complainant Manoj Yadav (PW-1) lodged a merg intimation (exhibit P-1) at police station Sitapur that he took the deceased and her husband to his house at village Dhodhegaon as labourer. On 19.06.2020, he left them at village Petla. On 20.06.2020, they again came back to village Dhodhegaon and after putting their luggage in their room, they had gone for a walk towards vicinity. When they had not returned, their whereabouts could not be found. On 21.06.2020, the village Sarpanch informed that the dead body of his labourer is lying in front of the house of Kampa Nagwanwhi. He saw the dead body and informed it to the police. During the merg inquiry inquest (exhibit P-10) of the dead body of the deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses, who noticed injuries on her body and therefore, the dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem to Community Health Centre, Sitapur. Dr. Martin Nikunj 3 (PW-7) conducted postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave his report (exhibit P-15). While conducting the postmortem, the doctor noticed various injuries on her body and opined that the deceased died due to shock resulted from head injuries. Her death is homicidal in nature. 4. Spot map (exhibit P-2) was prepared by the police and exhibit P-4 was prepared by the patwari. Blood stained and plain soil have been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P-7). Statement of the witnesses have been recorded and then the FIR (exhibit P-19) was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC. The appellant was arrested on 24.06.2020 and his memorandum statement (exhibit P-6) was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, the t-shirt has been seized vide seizure memo (exhibit P- 8). The mangalsutra of the deceased, broken pieces of bangles, one torch and one wooden club have also been seized from the spot vide seizure memo (exhibit P-17). The wooden club was sent for query report of the doctor, who gave his report (exhibit P-16) and opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased would have been caused by the said wooden club. The blood stained and plain soil, wooden club seized from the spot, clothes of the deceased and t-shirt of the appellant were sent for its chemical examination to Regional FSL Ambikapur, from where report (exhibit P-22) was received and blood was found on the wooden club seized from the spot and t-shirt of the appellant. 5. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant was filed before the 4 learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Sitapur. The case was committed to the court of learned Sessions Judge, Surguja, Ambikapur for its trial. The learned trial Court framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 of IPC. The denied the charge and claimed trial. 6. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 14 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 CRPC has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances that appears against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as has been mentioned in the earlier part of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses and their statements are inconsistent. There is no eyewitness to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on the circumstantial evidence. Although the prosecution’s case is based on last seen evidence, however the said circumstance of last seen have also not been proved by the prosecution. There is no motive proved by the prosecution to commit the murder of the deceased. Even no weapon of offence has been seized from the appellant. The chain of circumstances have not been proved and 5 there are various missing links. The learned trial Court relying upon the uncorroborated evidence and the conduct of the appellant that he also ran away from the place after the incident, therefore, by drawing presumption against the appellant, he has been convicted. He would also submit that the dead body was found in an open place and in view of the evidence produced by the prosecution, the same are not sufficient to hold him guilty. Therefore, the appeal may be allowed and the appellant may be acquitted. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that there is sufficient evidence available in the case against the appellant that he committed the murder of the deceased Sampatti Korwa, who was the wife of the appellant. The appellant was last seen with the company of the deceased. Thereafter, the appellant went absconding and the dead body of his wife was found on the road. Post occurrence conduct of the appellant is also suspicious. On the t-shirt of the appellant blood has been found int eh FSL report, for which there is no explanation. He would also submit that when both of them left the house together then it is for the appellant to explain as at what point of time, he departed her company. On these circumstances, form a complete chain pointing towards guilt of the appellant for commission of murder of his wife. The judgment passed by the learned trial Court is well reasoned and does not require any interference. 10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 6 11. So far as the homicidal death of the deceased is concerned, the defence have not specifically denied the homicidal death of the deceased. The prosecution relied upon the evidence of Dr. Martin Nikunj (PW-7), who conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased. He stated in his evidence that on 21.06.2020, the dead body of the deceased was brought before him and he conducted its postmortem and found lacerated wound on his right side of forehead. Another lacerated wound on right temporal region, ecchymosis present on left cheek, right buttock and back side. All injuries were antemortem in nature and he opined that the deceased Sampatti died due to shock resulted from head injuries, which is homicidal in nature and he proved it in homicidal report (exhibit P- 15). In his cross-examination, he admitted that the injuries found on the body of the deceased, could have also been caused by dashing in hard object or fall on the hard and rough surface. He did not found any alcohol contents in the abdomen of the deceased. Relying upon the evidence of the doctor, who conducted the postmortem, the learned trial Court held that the death of the deceased was homicidal, which in the opinion of this Court does not suffer from any perversity or illegality. 12. So far as the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question is concerned, we again examined the evidence. The case of the prosecution is based on the last seen evidence, presence of blood in the t-shirt of the appellant and his post occurrence conduct and non- explanation of the circumstances, under which his wife is found to be in homicidal death. 7 13. PW-1, Manoj Kumar Yadav is the person in whose property the appellant and the deceased were employed as a labourer. He stated in his evidence that the appellant and the deceased were with him and they came there just a day before the date of incident. On 20.06.2020, he took them to village Dhodhegaon and after putting their luggage in the house, they went for a walk towards vicinity. He searched them up to 9-10 PM in the night, but there whereabouts could not be found. In the next morning, his driver Guleshwar informed him that the dead body of his labourer is lying near the house of Kampa Nagwanshi. When he went there, he found that it was the dead body of the deceased Sampatti Korwa. He tried to search the appellant, but his whereabouts could not be found and then he lodged merg intimation (exhibit P-1). Though this witness has turned hostile, but he supported that both the appellant and deceased went together from their house and thereafter, the deceased was found dead and the appellant was missing. Though in cross-examination, he stated that the relation between the appellant and the deceased were good and there was no quarrel between them, but the evidence of this witness supported the fact that, both of them were together, when they left their house. 14. PW-2 is Duryodhan Yadav, who is the father of PW-1/Manoj Yadav. He stated in his evidence that his son Manoj Yadav took the appellant and the deceased for work of labourer just a day before the date of incident and in the next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found in front of the house of Kampa Nagwanshi, since the appellant was not present there, they suspected that he 8 committed her murder. This witness has also declared hostile, however from the evidence of this witness, the conduct of the appellant surfaced that he was absconding. 15. PW-4 Sushila Minj has stated that the appellant and the deceased both had come to village Dhodhegaon for their work. On 21.06.2020, on receiving information of the incident, she too had gone there and saw the dead body of the deceased. At some distance of the dead body, the wooden club, her clothes, broken pieces of bangles, mangalsutra and torch were lying. Police also reached there. Since, she also not supported the prosecution case, leading question has been asked by the prosecution. However, nothing specific in her evidence either in support of the prosecution or in defence. 16. PW-5, Ajay Korwa is the son of the appellant, who turned hostile and not supported the prosecution’s case. 17. PW-11, Rajesh Minj has stated in his evidence that, on the date of incident, when he was going towards his field, he saw the dead body lying near the house of Kampa Nagwanshi and her other wearings were lying there. When he called Manoj Yadav, he identified the dead body and informed that she had come along with the appellant for working in her field. He participated the police investigation and witness of memorandum and seizure. However he turned hostile and has not supported the memorandum and seizure. 18. PW-12, Alrik Lakra, PW-13, Anup Kumar Ekka, and PW-14, Manish Dhurve are the Inspector of Police, who conducted part of the 9 investigation and proved the same on their part of investigation, which they conducted. 19. From the aforesaid evidence, it is quite vivid that, a day before the date of incident, the appellant and the deceased came to village Dhodhegaon and after putting their luggage in their house, they proceeded towards vicinity for walking. In the very next morning, the dead body of the deceased was found in front of the house of Kampa Nagwanshi in injured condition and the appellant was absconding, who could be arrested only on 24.06.2020. there is no explanation from the appellant, as to when he departed from the company of the deceased and how his wife is found injured. His post occurrence conduct is also relevant in the present case as their present with the deceased at the time of the incident is established by the prosecution. 20. The circumstance of last seen also assumes significance in the present case. From the evidence of PW-1 Manoj Kumar Yadav, which, despite the witness having been declared hostile, remains intact to the extent that the appellant and the deceased had come together to village Dhodhegaon and, after keeping their luggage in the house, had proceeded together towards the vicinity for a walk. The evidence further establishes that thereafter the deceased was found dead on the following morning, whereas the appellant was not found at the place and remained untraceable until his arrest on 24.06.2020. Thus, the presence of the appellant and the deceased together immediately prior to the occurrence stands established. The fact that the appellant was the husband of the deceased and was 10 admittedly accompanying her shortly before her death assumes considerable significance in the facts of the present case. 21. It is true that the circumstance of last seen, by itself, may not invariably be sufficient to record a finding of guilt unless the proximity of time between the accused being last seen with the deceased and the death of the deceased is so close as to rule out the possibility of intervention by any other person. In the present case, however, the appellant and the deceased were together when they left their house on the evening of 20.06.2020, the appellant was thereafter found missing, and the dead body of the deceased was discovered in the very next morning. No material has been brought on record to indicate that, during the intervening period, the deceased had parted company with the appellant and was seen alive in the company of any other person. Further, the appellant has offered no explanation as to when or in what circumstances he parted company with the deceased. Therefore, the circumstance of last seen, when considered along with the subsequent conduct of the appellant and the other circumstances proved by the prosecution, constitutes a relevant incriminating circumstance against him. 22. In the case of “Rohtash Kumar v. State of Haryana” 2013 (14) SCC 434, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held that:- “32. In cases where the accused was last seen with the deceased victim (last seen together theory) just before the incident, it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim occurred. 11 (Vide Nika Ram v. State of H.P.1 and Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra2.) 33. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra3 this Court held as under: (SCC p. 694, para 22) "22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime." (See also Prithipal Singh v. State of Punjab 31.) 34. Thus, the doctrine of "last seen together" shifts the burden of proof on the accused, requiring him to explain how the incident had occurred. Failure on the part of the accused to furnish any explanation in this regard, would give rise to a very strong presumption against him. 23. The post-occurrence conduct of the appellant also assumes significance in the facts and circumstances of the present case. It is not a case where the appellant, after finding his wife lying in an injured condition, made any attempt to inform the owner of the 1(1972)2 SCC 80 2(1992)3 SCC 106 3(2006)10 SCC 681 12 property, the villagers, the police or any other person regarding the incident or sought medical assistance for her. On the contrary, immediately after the occurrence, the appellant was found missing from the place where he and the deceased had stayed together, while the dead body of the deceased was discovered in the vicinity on the following morning. The appellant remained unavailable and could be apprehended only on 24.06.2020. Such conduct, particularly when the appellant was admittedly in the company of the deceased shortly before the occurrence, is a relevant circumstance against him. His conduct after the occurrence is inconsistent with the conduct ordinarily expected from a husband who had discovered his wife lying injured or dead and, therefore, lends corroboration to the other incriminating circumstances appearing against him. 24. Mere abscondence, by itself, cannot be treated as conclusive proof of guilt. However, in the present case, the abscondence of the appellant is not being considered in isolation. It has to be appreciated along with the established circumstance that the appellant and the deceased were last seen together shortly before the occurrence, the deceased was thereafter found dead with injuries, and the appellant failed to furnish any plausible explanation as to when and under what circumstances he parted company with the deceased or how she sustained the fatal injuries. The silence of the appellant in respect of facts especially within his knowledge, coupled with his conduct of leaving the place of occurrence and remaining unavailable thereafter, constitutes an additional incriminating circumstance which, when considered cumulatively with the other circumstances proved by the 13 prosecution, points towards his involvement in the commission of the offence. 25. The facts of the present case can be connected with the principle laid down in Rohtash Kumar (supra), inasmuch as the present case also involves the circumstance of the appellant having been last seen in the company of the deceased shortly before the occurrence, followed by his unexplained absence from the place of occurrence and his failure to explain the circumstances in which he parted company with the deceased. The subsequent conduct of the appellant is therefore not being considered in isolation, but in conjunction with the established circumstance of last seen and the other incriminating circumstances on record. As held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Rohtash Kumar (supra), where the accused was last seen with the deceased immediately before the incident, it becomes incumbent upon him to explain the circumstances under which the death occurred, and failure to furnish such explanation constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance. In the present case also, the appellant has failed to offer any plausible explanation as to when and under what circumstances he parted company with the deceased, while his subsequent abscondence and other conduct lend further corroboration to the prosecution case. 26. The presence of blood on the t-shirt of the appellant is also a significant incriminating circumstance against him. The said t-shirt was seized pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant and, upon chemical examination, blood was found on it as per the FSL report (Exhibit P-22). The appellant has not offered any 14 explanation whatsoever as to how blood came to be present on his t- shirt, particularly when the deceased, who was last seen in his company, was subsequently found dead with injuries. The absence of any plausible or reasonable explanation from the appellant regarding the presence of blood on his wearing apparel assumes considerable significance, especially in the backdrop of the other circumstances proved by the prosecution. Thus, the said circumstance provides further corroboration to the prosecution case and strengthens the chain of circumstances pointing towards the involvement of the appellant in the homicidal death of the deceased. 27. The another aspect of the case that the witnesses have been declared hostile, however, before declaring them hostile,they sufficiently supported the prosecution’s case regarding last seen and conduct of the appellant. In the case of Rohtash Kumar (supra) the Hon'ble Supreme Court has also considered the reliability of the evidence of hostile witnesses and has been held that:- “25. It is a settled legal proposition that evidence of a prosecution witness cannot be rejected in toto, merely because the prosecution chose to treat him as hostile and cross-examined him. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as effaced, or washed off the record altogether. The same can be accepted to the extent that their version is found to be dependable, upon a careful scrutiny thereof. 26. In State of U.P. v. Ramesh Prasad Misra4 this Court held, that evidence of a hostile witness would not be rejected in entirety, if the same has 4(1996)10 SCC 360 15 been given in favour of either the prosecution, or the accused, but is required to be subjected to careful scrutiny, and thereafter, that portion of the evidence which is consistent with either the case of the prosecution, or that of the defence, may be relied upon. 27. Therefore, the law permits the court to take into consideration the deposition of a hostile witness, to the extent that the same is in consonance with the case of the prosecution, and is found to be reliable in careful judicial scrutiny.” 28. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of K.P. Tamilmaran v. The state By Deputy Superintendent of Police 2025 Livelaw (Sc) 493 has observed that:- “36. It is though trite and much overstated but the maxim "falsus in uno, falsus in omnibus, is not applicable to our criminal justice system. It is for the Court to distinguish the wheat from the chaff while dealing with the depositions of a hostile witness. Courts can rely upon that part of the deposition of a hostile witness which is corroborated by other evidence on record. This Court in Bhajju v. State of Madhya Pradesh (2012) 4 SCC 327 discussed the worth of the evidence of a hostile witness in the following words: "36. It is settled law that the evidence of hostile witnesses can also be relied upon by the prosecution to the extent to which it supports the prosecution version of the incident. The evidence of such witnesses cannot be treated as washed off the 16 records, it remains admissible in trial and there is no legal bar to base the conviction of the accused upon such testimony, if corroborated by other reliable evidence…" If part of the evidence of a hostile witness corroborates with other reliable evidence, then that part of the evidence is admissible. Once a prosecution witness has been declared hostile and then cross-examined by the prosecution, then it is for the Court to evaluate the veracity of the testimony. There can be several reasons for a witness to turn hostile and the court must also look into these factors while evaluating the evidence given by a hostile witness. It is an uncomfortable reality in our criminal Courts for a prosecution witness to turn hostile. But then the purpose of a Trial Court is to go to the truth of the matter. Whatever evidence is there before the Court must be examined, tested, corroborated (whenever necessary), before a verdict can be finally given. 29. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances against the appellant. The circumstance of last seen, the subsequent abscondence and post-occurrence conduct of the appellant, coupled with his failure to offer any plausible explanation as to when and under what circumstances he parted company with the deceased and presence of blood in the t-shirt of the appellant, constitute relevant and incriminating circumstances pointing towards his involvement in the homicidal death of his wife. Accordingly, this Court finds no infirmity 17 or perversity in the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court warranting interference in the present appeal and the appeal filed by the appellant is hereby dismissed. 30. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 24.06.2020. He shall serve the entire sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. 31. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant Jaylal Korwa undergoing his jail sentence 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 High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 32. Let a copy of this judgment and the original records be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice ved