Raipur (C.G.) v. State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station
Case Details
1 KUNAL DEWANGAN Digitally signed by KUNAL DEWANGAN HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 2025:CGHC:36132 NAFR CRA No. 255 of 2005 Smt. Deep Shikha, W/o Shri Anuj Mishra agaed about 26 years R/o Tatibandh, Tahsil and District-Raipur (C.G.) ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh through Police Station- Kawardha District- Kabirdham (C.G.) ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Surfaraz Khan, Advocate. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Order on Board 25/07/2025 1. 2. Heard Mr. Surfaraz Khan, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Hariom Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. During the pendency of the present appeal, it has been brought to the notice of this Court that the original appellant, Ambrish Sharma, who was serving as the Station House OfÏcer (SHO) at Police Station Kawardha, has passed away. The said appellant was convicted by the learned trial Court in connection with the custodial death of one Baldau Kaushik, which allegedly occurred while the deceased was in illegal detention at the said police station under his 2 charge. In light of his conviction under Section 304 Part II and other related offences, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a period of 10 years, and consequently, his retiral benefits were withheld by the concerned department. Following the death of the original appellant, his legal heir (daughter) has expressed her intention to pursue the present appeal, asserting that a favourable outcome would entitle them to claim the withheld retiral benefits of the deceased appellant. Hence, the appeal is now being pursued by the legal representative of the deceased appellant- Ambrish Sharma. 3. Challenge in this appeal is to the Judgment of Conviction and order of Sentence dated 28.02.2005 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge Kabirdham (C.G.) in Sessions trial No. 66/2004, in case of (State of Chhattisgarh Vs. Ambrish Sharma), by which the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 304-II/ 149 of R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs. Indian Penal Code. 50,000/- in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for 01 year. Under Section 330/149 of R.I. for 7 years and fine of Rs. Indian Penal Code. 5000/- in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for 06 months. Under Section 348/149 of R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. Indian Penal Code. 5000/- in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for 06 months. 3 Under Section 201 of Indian R.I. for 3 years and fine of Rs. Penal Code. 5000/- in default of payment of fine amount to further undergo R.I. for 06 months. All the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 4. Brief facts of the case are that in connection with the murder of Sunaina of Village Hathlewa (Crime No. 81/2002 registered under Section 302 IPC), even after the arrest of accused Charan and Bodhan, the deceased Baldau Kaushik was illegally detained at the police station on the night of 22.05.2002 by the accused Ambrish Sharma in conspiracy and common intention with other co-accused. During the illegal custody, Baldau Kaushik was subjected to physical assault. When he died as a result of the beating, the accused persons, in furtherance of the conspiracy, attempted to portray the custodial death as suicide by hanging him inside the police station. On the morning of 23.05.2002, constable Boloram shouted “hanging!” due to which Charan and Bodhan woke up. Thereafter, Boloram and the accused Ambrish Sharma brought the body back from his house. After several phone conversations with senior ofÏcers, Ambrish Sharma, along with other accused persons, secretly removed the body from the police station and dispose it of by throwing into the Birkona Canal using the motorcycle of ASI Astakar. Subsequently, the body was retrieved from the Birkona Canal and taken in a vehicle bearing registration number CG- 07/1167 to Supkhar Forest, where it was buried in a pit. Later, on 26.05.2002, despite having full knowledge of Baldau’s death, a 4 false Missing Person Report (No. 14/2002) was registered at the instance of his brother Ramavatar Kaushik. To suppress the fact of Baldau’s presence at the police station, a forged Sanha (daily diary entry) was prepared by Rajendra Pandey, in which a false arrest under Section 109 CrPC of a surveillance-listed individual, Santosh, was shown, pretending that he was brought to the police station on the night of the incident. On 26.05.2002, with criminal intent to further destroy evidence related to the disposal of Baldau’s body, the accused took a Gypsy vehicle bearing registration number CG- 03/0717 under the pretext of a Naxalite operation and transported the body to Supkhar forest near Muthahi Mouha Nala. There, the body was burned and buried in a pit with the intent to obliterate the identity of the deceased. On 06.06.2002, based on the memorandum of accused Vijay (constable), and on 07.06.2002, the memorandum of accused Manoj Upadhyay, and on 10.06.2002, the memorandum of accused
Legal Reasoning
Rakesh Shrivastava, various pieces of evidence were seized. These included the shovel and pickaxe used to dig the pit, partially burned clothes of Baldau, pant hooks, clips, matchsticks, charred pieces of white polythene and burnt gunny bag fragments. Meanwhile, under the directions of the Superintendent of Police, Kawardha, the Missing Person Case was assigned to a special team headed by Rampher Jaiswal. During the search for the missing person, on 01.06.2002, Rampher Jaiswal and his team, based on the statements of Shankar and Manharan, learned that when Shankar and Manharan visited Dongargarh Jail on 5 31.05.2002 to inquire from Charan and Bodhan regarding Baldau, both jail inmates asked them whether Baldau’s body had been found. They stated that on the night of 22–23.05.2002, constable Boloram had shouted “hanging!” and that the accused had taken Baldau’s body away in a white jeep. Rampher Jaiswal submitted a progress report on 01.06.2002, wherein the Superintendent of Police gave a written directive to the Station House OfÏcer, Kawardha, stating that, based on the report, Baldau had died at the police station and the fact was concealed. Consequently, an FIR was registered under Sections 302, 306, 330, 201/34 IPC, which was Exhibit P-25A, and the entire investigation culminated in a charge-sheet being filed before the competent Court. As per the charge sheet, the competent Court framed charges against the accused Ambreesh Sharma under Section 330 IPC, alternatively 330 read with Section 149 IPC, alternatively 330 read with Section 120(B) IPC, Section 302 IPC, alternatively 302 read with Section 149 IPC, alternatively 302 read with Section 120(B) IPC, Section 348 read with Section 149 IPC, alternatively Section 348 read with Section 120(B) IPC, Sections 201 and 176 IPC. During the course of trial, charge under Section 306 IPC was also framed. 5. In order to prove the guilt of the accused/appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 40 witnesses and exhibited the documents (Exs.P-1 to P-95). The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CrPC was also recorded in which he denied the 6 material appearing against him and stated that he is innocent and he has been falsely implicated in the case. After appreciation of evidence available on record, the learned trial Court has convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in para 2 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the trial Court failed to consider that all individuals are equal before the law. The appellant has been sentenced more severely than other co-accused despite the same allegations, which is arbitrary and violative of the principle of equality enshrined in the Constitution. He further submits that the missing person report of Baldau Kaushik was lodged by his brother Ramavatar Kaushik at 7:30 P.M. on 01.06.2002, whereas the FIR in the present case had already been registered at 6:00 P.M. the same day. This prior registration of the FIR raises serious doubts on the prosecution’s version. Further, the prosecution failed to establish whether the head injury found on the deceased was sufÏcient to cause death and whether it was ante- mortem or post-mortem. Dr. Sanjay Kumar Dadu, who conducted the post-mortem, could not definitively opine on the nature or cause of the injury. He further submits that the identity of the deceased was claimed by his brother based on facial features and height. However, as per Dr. Dadu’s opinion, the body was fully decomposed and facial recognition was not possible. This raises doubt as to whether the body recovered was actually that of Baldau Kaushik. The appellant had earlier arrested accused persons Charan and Bodhan in connection with the Sunaina murder case. 7 Hence, there is a strong possibility of false implication due to personal enmity. Furthermore, Baldau Kaushik had already been released from the Police Station on 22.05.2002 at 9:55 P.M., as recorded in the daily diary (Rojnamcha Sanha). He further submits that the prosecution has failed to establish that the death of Baldau Kaushik occurred in police custody or even outside. In fact, it has not been conclusively proved whether he is dead or alive. Mere suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. Conviction cannot be based on presumption or conjecture. As per the forwarding note to CFSL, only 7 teeth were sent for superimposition, whereas the post-mortem report states that 10 teeth from the upper jaw and 14 from the lower jaw were received. This major contradiction undermines the reliability of the prosecution’s evidence. Videography of the case was done, but despite Court directions, its copy was never supplied to the appellant. This constitutes a violation of Section 207 Cr.P.C., denying the appellant a fair opportunity of defence. He further submits that the independent witness Jage Lal, who could have provided crucial testimony, was not examined by the prosecution. Additionally, material witnesses such as Santosh, Anand Tiwari, Choubelal, and even the Superintendent of Police were not examined, thereby affecting the fairness and completeness of the trial. Dr. Dadu stated that the brain matter was completely decomposed, making it impossible to determine the actual cause of death. He could not definitively conclude whether the death was due to hanging, homicide, or an accident. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant further submits that the 8 prosecution failed to prove essential ingredients of the offence under Section 304-II IPC. There is no conclusive evidence that the death was a result of culpable homicide. Hence, benefit of doubt must go in favour of the appellant. The memorandum recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not substantive unless corroborated by independent witnesses, which is missing in the present case. Further, the map prepared by the Patwari does not clearly indicate the place of occurrence. It is also not shown from where Charan and Bodhan were present at the Police Station. The appellant has three daughters who are of marriageable age and if the appellant continues to remain incarcerated on the basis of a false and unproven allegation, it may adversely impact their marriage prospects and family life. 8. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the respondent/State, submits that the trial Court after considering the evidence and material available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the applicant, in which no interference is called for. 9. 10. I have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. In order to appreciate the contentions of the parties, I have examined the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. The injury found over the body of the deceased and cause of death is not substantially disputed by the appellant, otherwise established by the evidence of Dr. Dadu (PW-30). 11. It is an undisputed fact that on the night of May 22–23, 2002, 9 Ambrish Sharma/appellant was serving as Station House OfÏcer (SHO) at Kawardha police station. The original case of this incident is Sessions Case No. 119/3, in which the accused are: Rajendra Prasad Pandey, Sub-Inspector (duty ofÏcer), Head Constable No. 146 Mehara Ram, writer, Constable No. 105 Boloram, station guard, Constable No. 130 Tukaram, station sentry, Constable No. 79 Manoj Upadhyay, in-charge of attendance register, Constable No. 136 Sumer Singh, store room assistant (night duty), Constable No. 132 Rakesh Srivastava, station guard, and Home Guard No. 273 Vijay Singh, night reserve duty. Madan Singh Rajput, a retired Sub-Inspector (A.S.I. No. 19), confirmed based on witness (PW- 42), the duty details of the above-mentioned accused personnel at Kawardha police station from May 22 till 8:00 AM on May 23, 2002. It is also undisputed that Sunaina, who was the wife of accused No. 3 Charan and daughter-in-law of accused No. 4 Bodhan, was murdered in village Hathlewa. In the said connection, Crime No. 81/02 under Section 302 IPC was registered at Kawardha police station. As the Investigating OfÏcer (Inspector), the accused (Ambrish Sharma) investigated the case and arrested Charan (accused No. 3) and Bodhan (accused No. 4) for the murder of Sunaina. The arrest took place on May 22, 2002, at 3:20 PM and 3:30 PM, respectively, at village Hathlewa, as documented in Exhibit P-93 and Exhibit P-94. In his statement, in response to Question Nos. 1 and 114, the accused has admitted these facts to be true. 12. (PW-3) Charan has clearly deposed against the appellant that he 10 can identify the appellant, present before the trial Court. He knew the deceased Baldau Kaushik, who was a resident of his village. Baldau is now deceased. He deposed that on May 22, 2002, Ramji Kaushik, Bala alias Santosh Kaushik, Raju Khan, Kutumbdas (village Kotwar), Mohan Kevat, Sarpanch Ramkrishna, Ubhe Pali of Achankpur, and Baldau Kaushik were summoned to the police station by the present accused Ambrish Sharma (then SHO). All of them arrived at the station between 12 noon and 1 PM. Around 6–7 PM, they were interrogated. Baldau was detained, and the rest were allowed to leave. Around 10 PM, Sarpanch Ramkrishna returned to the police station and asked the accused/appellant if Baldau would go home with them. The accused replied that Baldau would not went home and would be sent the next morning. Ramkrishna then returned home. After the Sarpanch left, in the police station courtyard, the accused Ambrish Sharma, Shriram Asatkar, and a few others, including Rakesh Shrivastava, were seen interrogating Baldau Kaushik. During the interrogation, the accused and Asatkar were physically assaulted Baldau Kaushik. They were questioning him about the murder of Sunaina, which had taken place in the village. Baldau kept repeating that he did not kill Sunaina, to which the accused responded, “The villagers are taking his name.” Baldau replied, “It was Raju Khan and Ramji who killed Sunaina. After that, the accused had Baldau brought into his room by two police personnel. A curtain had been drawn inside the room. He, along with his father Bodhan and Jagelal Sahu, was kept 11 outside the police lock-up area in handcuffs. From inside the room, they could hear sounds of beating and Baldau’s voice pleading, “He didn’t do it, he didn’t do it.” The interrogation continued for a long time. We eventually fell asleep. Around 4:00 AM, he was woken up by Boloram, who was shouting “Baldau! Baldau!” loudly 6–7 times. Boloram and Rakesh Shrivastava were saying that Baldau was just here, where has he gone? Then, they went to search around the courtyard, near the well. Suddenly, Boloram screamed that Baldau had hanged himself. He then went inside and informed Munshi Mehara Ram that Baldau had committed suicide by hanging. Later, the three of them, Boloram, Mehara Ram and Rakesh Shrivastava, moved Baldau’s body to the middle quarters where the clerks (munshis) usually sit. Meanwhile, the lights of the place where they were sleeping, were turned off and the doors were closed. After this, Boloram went to the house of the accused, calling out “Sahab! Sahab!” and knocking on the door. He then brought the accused Ambrish Sharma back to the police station. The accused connected a telephone wire in the open ground and made a call. After that, Rajendra Pandey, Asatkar, and 2–4 other persons (whose names he do not know) arrived. After everyone gathered, Boloram, Mehara Ram, and Rakesh Shrivastava placed Baldau’s body into a white vehicle with a red beacon, in which accused Vijay, Ambrish Sharma, and Asatkar left. The driver had come from outside, and he does not know his name. He does not know where Baldau’s body was taken. Around 8–9 AM on the morning of May 23, 2002, the same vehicle returned to the 12 police station. On that same day, they were taken to the trial Court in that same vehicle. They were not allowed to meet their family members at Court. On May 24, 2002, they were sent to Dongargarh Jail. On May 31, 2002, Shankar and Manharan (both from village Hathlewa) came to meet them in jail. They asked them if Baldau had been sent to jail along with them, as they were searching for him. They told them that they had inquired at the police station, but the accused (Ambrish Sharma) had told them that Baldau was released at midnight on the same day. Thereafter, they told Shankar and Manharan that Baldau Kaushik died at the police station and the accused and other police personnel had taken his body away in a vehicle. They did not know where they took him. On June 2, 2002, Vinod Tiwari and Mr. Sharma from Pandariya came to Dongargarh Jail and interrogated him and recorded his statement. 13. (PW-4) Bodhan has clearly deposed against the appellant that he identify the accused Ambrish Sharma, who is present before the trial Court. He also knew Baldau Kaushik, a resident of village Hathlewa, who is now deceased. On 22nd May 2002, eight people, including Baldau, were summoned to the police station. These individuals were called by the present accused for questioning in connection with the murder case of Sunaina. His son Charan and he had been repeatedly summoned to the police station for questioning since 1st May 2002. On 22nd May 2002, the following individuals were called to the police station for interrogation: Sarpanch Ramkrishna, Kotwar Kutumbdas, Raju Khan, Ramji Kaushik, Santosh alias Bala, Mohan Kevat and Ubhe of Achankpur, 13 and Baldau Kaushik. Around 6:30 to 7:00 PM, all of them were released after questioning, except for Baldau. The accused asked Baldau what he knew about the Sunaina murder case. Baldau, visibly trembling, responded that he had gone out in the morning to cut firewood and around 9:00 AM, while returning, he saw three men exiting the house of Kunwaria Bai. He identified those three men as Raju Khan, Santosh alias Bala, and Ramji Kaushik, the same house from where Sunaina’s body was later recovered. After 9:00 PM, Sarpanch Ramkrishna came to the police station again and stayed until approximately 11:00 PM. During this time, he was sitting inside with the senior ofÏcers. Baldau was made to sit in Tejram’s ofÏce. After the Sarpanch left, the accused called Baldau into the police station courtyard and began questioning him again. The accused said, “Tell the truth. Why he was trembling?” and then slapped Baldau 6–7 times. He then returned to his own room. Shortly after, the accused called Baldau into his room. At that time, he was handcuffed and positioned near the gate. From there, he could hear the sounds of interrogation from the room. He heard Baldau’s voice saying repeatedly, “he didn’t kill her, he didn’t kill her.” Later that night, Baldau was made to sleep in Madam’s ofÏce. At that time, he was still alive. He also heard the sound of 2–4 sticks hitting from inside the room. He eventually fell asleep. Around 4:00 AM, Boloram, began shouting, “Baldau! Baldau!” but there was no response. Boloram then went toward the well and returned. Upon coming back, he said, “He died without even hanging himself.” Boloram then went to the accused’s room to inform him. He 14 knocked loudly and called out, “Sir, Sir,” and also rattled the door latch. After that, the accused, along with Boloram, came to the police station. Upon arrival, the accused made a phone call, first to the Superintendent of Police concerned (S.P.), informing him that “Baldau is dead. He then called his own staff. OfÏcer Astatkar arrived first, followed by other police personnel. The accused then instructed Boloram, come on, bring him out. At that time, Ramphal and Vijay were sleeping in the courtyard. Boloram went to wake them up and asked Ramphal to help. Upon returning, Boloram turned off the lights near the courtyard and the main gate. After that, Baldau’s body was taken out, by then, he had already died. The body was placed into a white vehicle. In that vehicle were the accused, Astatkar, and two or three other people. The vehicle then drove away. He do not know where it went. At around 10:00 AM, when Boloram’s duty resumed, he asked him, “Baldau’s son has brought food for him, where is Baldau?” Boloram replied that Baldau had left around 10:00 PM the previous night. On the same day, at 3:00 PM, they were presented before the trial Court and brought back to the police station around 4:00 PM, where they were kept overnight. The next morning, they were transferred to Dongargarh Jail. On 31st May 2002, two villagers from their village, Shankar and Manharan, came to meet them at Dongargarh Jail. They asked him whether Baldau had been formally charged along with us. He told them that Baldau had not been charged with them; rather, he was taken out of the police station in a dead condition 15 and taken away. On 2nd June 2002, the police came to Dongargarh Jail to record his statement and he narrated the entire incident to them. 14. (PW-5) Ashok Meshram, who was Head Constable had deposed against the appellant that he was posted at the Reserve Police Centre, Kawardha, until around six months prior to the year 2002. He recognize the accused present before the trial Court. At that time, the accused was posted as the Station House OfÏcer (SHO) at Police Station Kawardha. On 23rd May 2002, he was posted at the Police Lines, Kawardha, as a Head Constable and Moharrir (record keeper). On that morning, at around 6:00 AM, T.I. Ambrish Sharma, the accused present before the trial Court, came to the Police Lines and said, “Give him the keys of the blue jeep bearing registration number CG-03/1167. The S.P. concerned has instructed him to go toward the town. Accordingly, he handed over the keys of the blue jeep to T.I. Ambrish Sharma. He then personally drove the jeep toward the town. Later, around 11:00 AM, the keys of the said jeep were returned to him by Constable Sunil Yadav. 15. (PW-30) Dr. Sanjay Kumar Dadu, has deposed that he has conducted post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased on 11th June 2002, which was presented before him by Constable Ratnesh (No. 69) from Police Station Kawardha, along with a reference letter dated 10/06/2002 from the Medical OfÏcer, Community Health Centre (CHC), Bodla, District Kawardha, Chhattisgarh. The 16 deceased was identified as Baldau Kaushik, son of Bhaduram Kaushik, aged 42 years, resident of village Hathlewa, Police Station Kawardha. The body was identified by Constable Ratnesh and the deceased’s brother, Ramavatar Kaushik. The body was received in a sealed condition, reasonably well-preserved but with an unreadable seal. It was wrapped in a plastic sheet, further covered by a white cloth from inside and outside. A slip attached to the body read: “CHC Bodla – Body of deceased Baldau, son of Yadvaram Kaushik, aged 42 years, male, resident of village Hathlewa, Police Station Kawardha, District Kawardha, accompanied by Constable Ratnesh Singh (No. 69), with sealed sample. The slip also borne the signature of Dr. K.P. Jangde, Medical OfÏcer, CHC Bodla, District Kawardha (C.G.). Upon unsealing, the body was that of a male, in an advanced stage of decomposition and adipocere formation. Mud was present at various places on the body. The body was unclothed and emitted a foul smell from the feet. Skin had peeled off from the entire body, and the skin from the hands and feet had slipped off like gloves (glove formation). Postmortem burn marks were visible on the back, genitals, occipital region of the head (where hair appeared burned and singed), and on the posterior parts of the feet. Decomposition fluids were present beneath the body on the plastic sheet. Both eyeballs were softened and decomposed; the mouth was open, with teeth visible. The tongue was inside the mouth. Arms and legs were in an extended position. Hair on the scalp could be easily pulled out with slight pressure. Skeletal changes were present on the left shoulder. 17 Identifying features of the deceased included: Height: 5 feet 3.5 inches, Foot length: 8.5 inches, Scalp hair: black, 2.5 to 3 inches in length, Beard hair: sparse, about 0.5 cm, Dental examination: All teeth (1 to 8) were present in both upper and lower jaws; some teeth remained in position, while others had dislodged postmortem. Signs of dental wear were observed. Except for the postmortem burn marks, no external injuries were found on the body. There were no injury marks on the neck. However, signs of postmortem dis-articulation (joint separation after death) were observed at both ends of the hyoid bone. The thyroid cartilage was found to be intact and healthy. Head: Congestion of blood was observed beneath the scalp over the frontal region of the brain. The skull bones were intact. Accumulation at the cranial sutures was noted, anteriorly at the sagittal suture and internally at the coronal suture. The meninges were intact. The brain matter was decomposed and appeared as a thick, pulpy substance. Chest: The diaphragm, ribs, and costal cartilages were healthy. Both lungs were soft and decomposed. The pericardium was intact. The heart was soft, decomposed, and empty in both chambers. The great vessels were intact. Abdomen: The peritoneum and intestinal membranes were intact but appeared oily due to decomposition. The mouth, pharynx, and esophagus were normal. Approximately 250 grams of semi- digested food material, including visible rice grains, was found in the stomach. The stomach wall was reduced to a thin layer. The 18 small intestine contained a small amount of semi-digested material and the large intestine had thick fecal matter in small quantity. Both intestines were reduced to thin, oily membranes and contained gases. The liver, spleen, and kidneys were soft and decomposed. The urinary bladder was empty and intact. The genitalia were identifiable. Items Preserved: 1) Skull and jaw along with 7 dislodged teeth, the right tibia bone, scalp hair, neck skin along with the trachea, thyroid, and hyoid bone were preserved in formalin solution. 2) Fingerprints from both hands were preserved, except for the right little finger, which was missing. Viscera Preserved: Stomach and its contents and intestines. Liver, spleen, and kidneys. Preservative fluid: Common salt solution. Autopsy Video Cassette: The video cassette of the postmortem examination was sealed and handed over to the concerned constable. He opined that the body was in an advanced stage of decomposition and showed features of adipocere formation. Further no external injuries were present on the body, except for a head injury, which was superficial in nature. Hence, the exact cause of death could not be determined at this stage. Viscera were preserved, sealed, and handed over to the concerned constable for chemical analysis. The neck skin, tissue, trachea, thyroid cartilage, and hyoid bone were also preserved in formalin, sealed, and handed over. The skull, jaw, 7 dislodged teeth, right tibia bone, scalp hair, and fingerprint samples from both hands were preserved in formalin, sealed separately, and given to the concerned constable for further identification. The postmortem video cassette 19 was also sealed and submitted to the concerned constable. Estimated time since death was between 2 to 4 weeks prior to the autopsy. Identifying features of the deceased were documented. 16. (PW-34), Ramkrishna Mandavi,(Sarpanch), who has also deposed against the appellant that he know the accused Ambrish Sharma, who is present before the trial Court. He also knew Baldau, a resident of village Hathlewa, who is now deceased. His death occurred approximately two years ago. He heard that Baldau died while in custody at Police Station Kawardha. He also knew Sunaiana Bai, who was murdered. The investigation of Sunaina’s murder case was being conducted by the present accused. In connection with the investigation of Sunaiana’s murder, he was summoned to Police Station Kawardha. Along with me, Raju Khan, Mohan Nishad, Girvar Lala, Baldau Kaushik, Kotwar Kutumbdas, and Ubhay Gadariya were also called. That day, after questioning, all of us returned to their village in the evening. The accused ofÏcer had instructed them to return to the station again the next day. Accordingly, the next day, they all went back to Kawardha Police Station around 10:00 AM. While waiting outside the station, he happened to be standing separately from the others when Baldau came up to him and said that he had just been called in for questioning by the ofÏcer. He asked him what they had asked, to which Baldau replied that he was questioned about whether he had an illicit relationship with Geetabai. He told him that he admitted to having such a relationship. At around 5:30 PM, he left for the 20 hospital, and later that night, between 10:00 and 11:00 PM, he returned to his village, Hathlewa. The accused ofÏcer had arranged for a vehicle to drop them back. However, Baldau was not allowed to leave with them, he was detained at the station. Ashok Dhruv accompanied them from the station and the next day he brought the other summoned persons back to the station. He did not return the next day. Before leaving that night, he had requested the accused ofÏcer to let Baldau go with them, but the ofÏcer responded that further questioning was required, so Baldau would have to stay. Consequently, they left for the village without him. Two to three days later, they returned to Kawardha Police Station to inquire about Baldau. The day after they had left the station, Baldau’s son Anil, along with some others, had gone to the station to ask about his father. Anil was informed that his father had already been released. Anil later told him this and asked him to accompany him to the police station to inquire further. So, two or three days later, they went to the station. When they asked the accused ofÏcer about Baldau, he told them that he had released him after they had left. Baldau’s brother Ramavatar was with them. He searched for Baldau in neighboring villages but was unable to find him. Ramavatar said that one of their relatives lived in Mitan, Kusumghata, and wanted to go there for checking. Ramavatar and others went to Kusumghata to look for Baldau, but returned saying he was not there either. Later, a meeting was held in their village where it was decided that since villagers had left Baldau at the station on that day and two others, Charan and Bodhan, were also 21 in custody at the same time and had been sent to Dongargarh Jail, they might know something. Hence, Shankar and Manharan from their village were sent to Dongargarh Jail to inquire from Charan and Bodhan about Baldau. After returning, Shankar and Manharan told him that Baldau had died on the same day the villagers had left him at the police station. 17. Now coming to the Forensic Science Laboratory Report, As per FSL, a superimposition test was conducted wherein the skull and mandible marked as Exhibit-E1 and the photograph marked as Exhibit-E2, purportedly of deceased Baldau Kaushik, were superimposed and analyzed. During the superimposition, the following key observations were recorded: (a) The anthropometric landmarks of the skull and the face in the photograph were found to be in alignment; (b) The facial outline and the skull contours were in good agreement; and (c) The occlusion line (the line where the upper and lower jaws meet) matched accurately between the skull and the face depicted in the photograph. On the basis of these observations, the expert opined that the skull and mandible marked as Exhibit-E1 could be of the same person as shown in the photograph marked as Exhibit-E2, which was submitted as that of Baldau Kaushik. Hence, the anatomical features between the skull and the photograph were found to be consistent and matching. Along with the report, two superimposed photographs were enclosed for reference, and the remnants of the exhibits were returned with sample seals afÏxed. 18. At this stage, learned counsel for the appellant submits that the 22 original appellant has passed away during the pendency of this appeal. The present appellant, who is the daughter of Ambrish Sharma (the accused), has approached this Court seeking quashing of the impugned judgment and the order passed by the trial Court, whereby the original appellant was convicted for the for the aforesaid offences which is mentioned in para No.2 of this judgment, including under Section 304 Part-II of the IPC, and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 10 years. Since the original appellant was serving as the Station House OfÏcer (SHO) at the relevant time, his retiral benefits have been withheld by the department due to his conviction. However, in light of the serious allegations against him particularly that the deceased died while in custody at the police station under his charge, the impugned judgment of conviction passed by the trial Court does not warrant any interference by this Court. 19. Having carefully considered the entire material on record, including the eyewitness testimonies, the medical evidence, and the forensic (FSL) superimposition report, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The prosecution has successfully established, through consistent and corroborated evidence, that the deceased Baldau Kaushik was last seen in custody at Police Station Kawardha, under the authority of the appellant-accused Ambrish Sharma. Several witnesses have testified regarding the presence of the deceased in the police station, his prolonged illegal detention, and subsequent disappearance, followed by the recovery of a 23 decomposed body later identified through superimposition as that of Baldau Kaushik. Further, the FSL report clearly supports the identification of the deceased, and the medical report, though noting an advanced stage of decomposition, indicates that there were injuries consistent with custodial assault. The postmortem findings, when read in conjunction with the chain of events, point towards custodial death under suspicious circumstances. Moreover, the accused has failed to offer any plausible explanation as to the whereabouts of the deceased after he was last seen in police custody. The burden to explain such custodial disappearance rests heavily on the ofÏcer in charge, which in this case, the appellant has utterly failed to discharge. 20. In view of the detailed evaluation of the evidence on record, particularly the consistent eyewitness accounts, the medical and forensic evidence, and the uncontroverted fact of last-seen custody, the Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The circumstances leading to the custodial disappearance and subsequent death of Baldau Kaushik point unmistakably towards gross dereliction of duty and abuse of power by the appellant-accused, then a serving police ofÏcer. 21. The Supreme Court in D.K. Basu v. State of West Bengal, (1997) 1 SCC 416, has categorically held that “custodial violence, including torture and death in the lock-ups, strikes a blow at the rule of law and demands strict accountability from those who are duty- bound to protect citizens.” 24 22. Further, in State of M.P. v. Shyamsunder Trivedi, (1995) 4 SCC 262, the apex court emphasized that where a person was last seen in police custody and no explanation is offered for his subsequent disappearance or death, the burden lies heavily on the concerned police ofÏcer to explain the circumstances. 23. Applying these principles, this Court finds that the appellant has failed to discharge such burden or rebut the prosecution’s case. There is no illegality or perversity in the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence. 24. Accordingly, the criminal appeal stands dismissed. The conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court are hereby afÏrmed. 25. The Registry is directed to transmit a certified copy of this judgment along with the case record to the learned trial Court for necessary compliance and further proceedings, if any. Kunal Sd/- (Ramesh Sinha) Chief Justice