1 2026:CGHC:2145-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 833 of 2016 Deep Kumar S/o Shri Madho Kunjam Aged About 26 Years R/o Bajrang Chowk, Rajhara, Ward No. 11, P.S. Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Rajhara, District Balod, Chhattisgarh., Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Vipin Tiwari, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate. Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Mr. Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 14/01/2026 1. Heard Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for the State/respondent. 2. Challenge in this appeal 昀椀led under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 is to the judgment of conviction and order of 2 sentence dated 09.03.2016 passed in Sessions Trial No. 96/2015 by the learned Sessions Judge, Balod, District Balod, by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Jail Sentence (Rigorous) Fine Default Jail sentence (Rigorous) 460 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, the IPC) 10 years Rs. 500/- 2 months 394/397 IPC 10 years Rs. 500/- 2 months 302 IPC Life imprisonment Rs. 500/- 2 months 3. The appellant/convict Deepakumar Kunjam was charged under Sections 460, 394/397 and 302 of the IPC with the allegation that during the intervening night of 20/21.09.2015, within the jurisdiction of Rajhara Police Station, in Ward No. 16, at the house of Jugabai (hereinafter referred to as ‘the deceased’) situated in front of Lal Maidan, which is used as a human dwelling and for custody of property, he entered at night with the intention of committing theft/robbery/murder, pushed Jugabai, strangled her, tied her hands, forcibly snatched and robbed utensils, silver strip, bangles, necklace, gold ear-ornaments, chains etc. from her house, and while committing robbery committed house-breaking by night, and intentionally or knowingly strangled and assaulted Jugabai and caused her death. 4. The prosecution case in brief is that Maltibai Sahu’s (PW-10) elderly mother Jugabai, who was also known in the neighbourhood as Banglahindai, lived alone in a house situated in Ward No. 16, opposite Lal Maidan, Rajhara. On 21.09.2015 in the evening, neighbour Kamlabai saw that the window of the deceased’s house was broken and a tin trunk was lying outside near the door. She then informed 3 neighbour Kishore Kumar Sahu (PW-2). Kishore Kumar Sahu informed Jugabai’s daughter PW-10 Maltibai Sahu (resident of Mohanpur, Police Station Baghnadi, District Rajnandgaon), and Khilawanram (PW-1) (resident of Vicharpur, Navagaon, Police Station Dongargaon, District Rajnandgaon), and also informed the police. On this information, Sub-Inspector Murarilal Sahu (PW-8) registered Merg intimation (Exhibit P/4) and First Information Report (Exhibit P/5). Because it was night, Maltibai and Khilawan came the next day. There the Trainee DSP and Station House O昀케cer Abhishek Maheshwari (PW-9), after giving notice (Exhibit P/1) to panch witnesses prepared the inquest report (Exhibit P/2) of the deceased’s dead body which was lying on the ground. Articles and clothes were lying scattered. The cloth below the deceased’s waist was lifted up, both her hands were tied in front with cloth. Blood was coming out of her nose and mouth. A yellow nylon rope was tied around her neck. Thereafter, the spot map (Exhibit P/3) was prepared. The body was sent for post-mortem through Constable Baldev (PW-7) by issuing duty certi昀椀cate (Exhibit P/12). Statements of witnesses were recorded. On 27.09.2015, the accused was examined and his memorandum statement (Exhibit P/6) was prepared. On his disclosure, when he took police to his house at Ward No. 11, Bajrang Chowk, Rajhara, and produced them, utensils like lota, glass, box, bowl, plate, brass vessel etc., and bangles, ear-ornament, necklace, chain, silver strip, coins etc. were seized and seizure memo (Exhibit P/7) was prepared. He was arrested and arrest memo (Exhibit P/8) was prepared and information to his relatives was given vide Exhibit P/16. Photographs of the spot were taken and after completion of investigation, charge-sheet was 昀椀led in court of Judicial Magistrate 4 First Class, Dallirajhara, which was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 03.11.2015. 5. Charges were framed against the appellant/convict for the o昀昀ences under Sections 460, 394/397 and 302 of the IPC to which the appellant abjured the guilt and prayed for trial. 6. In order to bring home the o昀昀ence, the prosecution examined as many as 10 witnesses, namely Khilawan Ram (PW-1), Kishore Kumar Sahu (PW-2), Ganesh Yadav (PW-3), Dr. R. Ramteke (PW-4), Ashish Sharma (PW-5), Tirupati Malik (PW-6), Baldev Singh Mandavi(PW- 7), Murarilal Sahu (PW-8), Abhishek Maheshwari (PW-9) and Malti Bai Sahu (PW-10) and exhibited as many as17 exhibits. 7. The statement of the appellant/convict under section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded wherein he stated that he was innocent and has been falsely implicated in this case. He expressed his ignorance with respect to some of the questions and some of them were denied as well. 8. The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as detailed in the opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the appellant/convict. 9. Mr. Vipin Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the appellant/convict submits that the case is based on circumstantial evidence and there is no eye witness to the incident. The prosecution witnesses namely Ganesh Yadav (PW-3) and Tirupati Malik (PW-6) who are the witnesses of memorandum and seizure have not supported the prosecution story and have turned hostile. There is no FSL report about the blood group from the seized clothes from the appellants nor 5 any 昀椀nger prints of the appellant have been tried to be obtained. The chain of the circumstances could not be completed by the prosecution and the appellant has been falsely roped in this case. The Investigating O昀케cer, Abhishek Maheshwari (PW-9) has stated that he had neither sealed the seized property nor done identi昀椀cation and has also not mentioned in the seizure memo that the name of the deceased is mentioned in the property. There is nothing on record to connect the appellant with the commission of the crime. 10. On the other hand, Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned counsel appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial Court has rightly arrived at a 昀椀nding with regard to the guilt of the appellant and the learned trial Court was fully justi昀椀ed in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the o昀昀ences in question. The judgment is based on evidence available on record and as such, the same does not warrant any interference and the appeal deserves 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. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 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 Maharashtra1, which state as under :- “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 6 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.” 13. Dr. R. Ramteke (PW-4) stated that on 22-09-2015 at 2.15 p.m., when Constable Baldev (PW-7) brought the deceased’s body, he conducted post-mortem and prepared report (Exhibit P/9) and short report (Exhibit P/10). According to him, the deceased was an elderly woman of average build. Her face was bluish, both hands were bent at the elbow and tied in front with cloth. Eyes were closed and red. Mouth was half open with teeth visible. Tip of the tongue was caught between the teeth. Blood was present in the mouth and nose. Nails were dark blue. Lower abdomen was exposed. Rigor mortis was present mainly in the legs. Neck veins were congested. There was swelling and scratch marks on the right side of the neck. Blood was present under the skin and muscles. The windpipe was broken and 7 cartilage rings were fractured. A thin yellow nylon rope was tied around the neck below the thyroid with a knot in front. There was a faint ligature mark. There was a deep wound about 2 inches long on the left side of the neck. He Dr. Ramteke gave the opinion that death was due to asphyxia caused by strangulation combined with throttling. The nature of death was homicidal, and the time since death was 24– 48 hours. The above is a 昀椀nding of fact and we hereby a昀케rm the same. Even otherwise, the said fact has not been disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. 14. Among the witnesses examined by the prosecution, Khilawanram (PW-1) and Maltibai (PW-10) are respectively the grandson-in-law and the daughter of the deceased, who had reached the spot on receiving information. Kishore Kumar Sahu (PW-2) is her neighbour, who, on the information given by Kamlabai, saw that the window of the deceased’s house was broken and a tin trunk was lying near the door. He then informed the deceased’s relatives and the police. Ganesh Yadav (PW-3) and Tirupati Malik (PW-6), residents of Rajhara, are the witnesses to the appellant’s memorandum statement (Exhibit P/6), the seizure (Exhibit P/7), and the arrest (Exhibit P-8). Dr. R. Ramteke (PW-4) stated that he conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased and prepared report (Exhibit P/9)and the brief report (Exhibit P/10). Patwari Ashish Sharma (PW-5) stated that on the written order of the Additional Tehsildar, he prepared the spot map (Exhibit P/11) at the place of occurrence in the presence of witnesses. Constable Baldevsingh Mandavi (PW-7) stated that on the direction of the Station House O昀케cer and on the basis of duty certi昀椀cate (Exhibit P/12) he took the dead body for post-mortem examination, brought back the slides prepared by the doctor and the 8 clothes of the deceased, and seized them at the police station, and handed over the dead body on Supurdnama (Exhibit P/13). Sub- Inspector Murarilal Sahu (PW-8) stated that on the information given by Kishore Kumar Sahu, he recorded the Merg intimation (Exhibit P/4) and the First Information Report (Exhibit P/5) at the police station and sent a copy to the Judicial Magistrate, Dalli Rajhara, whose acknowledgment is Exhibit P/15. Trainee Deputy Superintendent of Police Abhishek Maheshwari (PW-9) is the Investigating O昀케cer of the case. 15. The case basically rests on circumstantial evidence and it is an admitted position that there is no eye witness to the incident. 16. The learned trial Court has convicted the appellant on the basis of seizure made by the police on the basis of his memorandum. The witnesses of memorandum (Exhibit P/6) and seizure (Exhibit P/7) are Ganesh Yadav (PW-3) and Tirupati Malik (PW-6). Both these witnesses have turned hostile and have not identi昀椀ed the appellant nor stated that any seizure was made from the appellant in their presence. Further, there is no FSL report which may connect the appellant with the o昀昀ence in question. There is nothing incriminating on record which may suggest that it was the appellant only who had committed the o昀昀ence in question. The Investigating O昀케cer could have at least obtained the 昀椀nger prints from the seized articles or from the place of incident so as to connect the appellant with the o昀昀ence, which is also missing. Even the motive suggested by the prosecution also appears to be very weak in nature. According to the prosecution, when the appellant entered the house of the deceased to commit theft, the deceased woke up and in order to save himself, the appellant 9 committed murder of the deceased. In fact, the deceased was an old lady of about 75 years of age. Had it been a case that the appellant had entered the house of the deceased for committing robbery, he could have easily escaped and ran away from the spot even if the deceased would have seen the appellant committing the theft. There was no necessity for the appellant to cause death of the deceased by strangulating/ throttling. There is no witness who had either seen the appellant near or around the house of the deceased nor seen him entering or exiting from the house. The entire prosecution story rests on the memorandum of the appellant and there is no independent witness or evidence to uphold the prosecution story. A memorandum of an accused is a weak form of evidence and cannot by itself prove guilt. 17. From the above analysis, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant deserves to be given the bene昀椀t of doubt and as such, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court needs to be interfered with by this Court. 18. Accordingly, the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 09.03.2016 passed by the learned trial Court is set aside and the appellant-Deep Kumar is acquitted of the charges. 19. Consequently, the appeal stands allowed. 20. The appellant is stated to be on bail. He need not surrender, however, his bail bonds shall remain e昀昀ective for a period of six months from today in view of the provisions of Section 437-A of the Cr.P.C.{Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023}. 10 21. Let a copy of this judgment alongwith the original record be transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and action, if any. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE Amit AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Digitally signed by AMIT KUMAR DUBEY Date: 2026.01.15 19:45:41 +0530