Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 2025:CGHC:27195-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 820 of 2024 Prabhat Yadav @ Gudda S/o Kishan Yadav Aged About 38 Years R/o Milan Chowk Kududand, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House OfÏcer, Police Station Civil Line, District Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent For Appellant For Respondent/State : : Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, Advocate. Mr. Shashank Thakur, Deputy Advocate General. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 24 .06.2025 1. Heard Mr. Dharmesh Shrivastava, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, appearing for the respondent/State. BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.06.30 18:00:55 +0530 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is 2 directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 15.08.2024, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) in Session Case No. 29 of 2021, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Section 302 of the Indian Sentence Rigorous imprisonment (for short, Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year R.I. more. Section 201 of the IPC R.I. for 07 years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year R.I. more. Both the sentences have been directed to run concurrently. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in connection with Missing Person No. 05 of 2020 registered at Civil Line Police Station on 16.01.2020, Investigating OfÏcer Kalim Khan (PW-20) conducted an inquiry and found that the deceased, Seema @ Rani @ Tinu Mali, was murdered by the accused, Prabhat Yadav @ Gudda. The accused had allegedly forced the deceased to consume alcohol and then attempted to establish a physical relationship with her. When she refused, he strangled her and threw her body into a canal. A Dehati Merg Intimation was registered, and an investigation was initiated. The case began with a
Legal Reasoning
missing person report filed by Smt. Durga Mali (PW-2), the mother of the deceased, on January 05.01.2020, stating that her daughter had left home without informing anyone at 6:30 p.m. and had not returned. During 3 the investigation, the mobile location of the suspect, Prabhat Yadav, was found to be in Bircona Khar. Upon interrogation, the accused confessed to the crime, stating that he had planned to take the deceased to Bircona Khar canal on the pretext of repairing a geyser. He allegedly intoxicated her with excessive alcohol and attempted to establish a physical relationship, but when she resisted, a dispute ensued. The accused, fearing that the deceased would reveal this fact to his wife and family, strangled her with his hands and threw her body into the canal. Based on this investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 4. During the investigation, the Civil Line Police Station prepared a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P/32) and Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P/33) under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C based on the aforementioned grounds. Notices (Ex.P/16) were issued to witnesses to be present during the investigation. A spot map (Ex.P/10) and naksha panchayatnama (Ex.P/17) were prepared in the presence of witnesses. The body of the deceased, Seema @ Rani @ Tinu Mali, was sent to Bilaspur District Hospital for postmortem examination, and the postmortem report (Ex.P/28) was obtained. The memorandum statement of the accused (Ex.P/5) was recorded in the presence of witnesses, and a FIR (Ex.P/34) was registered against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The recovery panchnama (Ex.P/6) and dead body identification panchnama (Ex.P/7) were prepared. Based on the accused's memorandum statement (Ex.P/5), certain articles were seized in the presence of witnesses, including a nylon bag with a sharp-edged strip, a cloth bag containing two disposable items and two water pouches 4 (seizure memo Ex.P/14), a black Nokia mobile phone with an Airtel SIM (seizure memo Ex.P/15), and a Bajaj Platina motorcycle (seizure memo Ex.P/1). A blue-colored purse containing a voter's ID, employment registration certificate, and a white lined paper belonging to the deceased were seized (Ex.P/12). The spot inspection panchnama (Ex.P/8) and crime details form (Ex.P/9) were prepared. Patwari prepared a spot map (Ex.P/10) and panchnama (Ex.P/11), and a report was submitted to the SHO Civil Line (Ex.P/27). Call details of the accused and the deceased mobile phones were obtained. The accused was arrested (Ex.P/13), and his family was informed (Ex.P/15). After completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was filed against the accused under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. 5. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the CIMS, Bilaspur. Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-15) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P/28 and found that :- (i) The ligature material was present on the neck of the deceased with two knots. Skin was missing on the left side of the skull. Skin was present on the remaining part of the skull. The skull was healthy, the membranes were healthy. The brain had decayed into a fluid. The chest organs had decayed. The lower jaw was broken diagonally on the right side. The skin of the face was missing due to insect bites. There was 200 grams of semi-digested rice in the stomach. Gas was present in the small and large intestine. All the 32 teeth of the deceased were present. He opined that the cause and manner of death could not be determined with certainty. However, he noted that the fractured jaw and 5 presence of a scarf loop around the neck could be related to the cause of death. 6. Statements of the witnesses were recorded. After due investigation, the Police had filed the charge-sheet against the accused before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the Court of Session for trial from where the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, District Bilaspur (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 7. The learned trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated. 8. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 35 documents. The appellant has not examined any witnesses in his support. 9. The learned trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 15.04.2024 convicted and sentenced him as aforementioned, against which, this criminal appeal has been filed. 10. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the circumstantial evidence, without there being any eye witness, though the chain of circumstances are missing and not completed to each other. None of the witnesses have supported the case of prosecution. He also submits that 6 the evidences adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance. He further submits that the Police arrested the appellant on the basis of location of mobile phone after a period of more than one week from the date of incident as the victim/deceased left her house on 05.01.2020 and missing report was lodged on 07.01.2020 and dead body was found on 16.01.2020, but the Police failed to complete the chain of circumstances regarding commission of offence by the appellant. He would submit that the prosecution failed to establish that the cause and natuer of death of the deceased is a result of strangulation or throttling as the Doctor has cleared opined that they received a highly decomposed dead body, therefore, cause and nature of death could not be disclosed by them, but only observed that injury of jaw and presence of scarf over neck may be related to reason of cause of death, thus, it is clear that the appellant is entitled to be acquitted as the prosecution failed to establish that the death of deceased is homicidal in nature and the Doctor has clearly opined in cross-examination that the death may be caused due to drowing. Hence, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 11. On the other hand, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that there is ample evidence on record to connect the accused/appellant with the offence in question. The learned trial Court, after proper appreciation of the evidence and materials available on record, has convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused, which warrants no interference, and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their 7 rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 13. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 14. The first question for consideration would be, whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased was homicidal in nature ? 15. The learned trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-15), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased vide Ex.P/28, has come to the conclusion that the fractured jaw and presence of a scarf loop around the neck could be related to the cause of death. The said finding recorded by the learned trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby afÏrm the said finding. 16. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P/28) of Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-15) who conducted postmortem. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death 8 of the deceased was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which he failed to explain. 17. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the memorandum statement (Ex.P/5) of appellant and Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-15). 18. Durga Mali (PW-2), the mother of the deceased, stated in her deposition that on the date of incident, 05.01.2020, her daughter left home around 7:00 p.m. to buy chicken and did not return that night. She and her grandson searched for her, but could not find her. They also inquired with relatives, but there was no information about her daughter’s whereabouts. She then went to the Police Station and filed a missing person report. She further stated that the accused, Prabhat Yadav, who worked as an electrician, used to visit her daughter’s home. Her grandson, Ayush, told her that on the evening of 05.01.2020, the accused took her daughter on his bike to Bircona village. She also stated that three days after her daughter went missing, a jamadar named Ravi told her that her daughter had called him and said she was at the Railway Station near Budhwari market, in a jungle area where it was dark and she could not see properly. When Ravi called her daughter again, she did not answer the phone. Later, she learned that her daughter had been murdered by the accused, Prabhat Yadav @ Gudda. She had filed a missing person report (Ex.P/4) at the Civil Line Police Station on 07.01.2020. 19. Ayush (PW-4), corroborated the statement of Durga Mali (PW-2), in 9 his testimony. He stated that on the date of the incident, 05.01.2020, his mother, the deceased Seema @ Rina, left home between 6-8 p.m. to buy chicken and did not return that night. He and his uncle, Rakesh Sharma, searched for her, but could not find her. About 9-10 days later, he learned that the Police had arrested the accused, Prabhat Yadav, and during interrogation, he revealed the location of Seema's body in the Bircona canal. The Police took him to Bircona to identify his mother’s body, which he recognized by her sweater. He identified the body and signed the panchnama (Ex.P/7). He testified that his mother was killed by the accused, Prabhat Yadav @ Gudda. 20. Sharadchandra Pandey (PW-9), has stated in his deposition that he knew the deceased and the accused. The deceased went missing on the evening of 05.01.2020, and the said incident reported to the Civil Line Police Station on 07.01.2020. On 16.01.2020, the Police called him and Rakesh Sharma to the Police Station and interrogated the accused in their presence. The accused confessed to taking the deceased to Bircona Dabri Khar canal on his motorcycle, attempting to pull down her jeans, and strangling her to death with her dupatta when she resisted. He then threw her body into the canal. He further stated that the Police prepared a panchnama and seized various items, including the deceased's mobile phone, purse, and ID card, from the accused's father-in-law’s house in Bircona. The Police also seized a motorcycle (Ex.P/1), a nylon bag with a sharp-edged strip, and a cloth bag with disposable items and water pouches, examination of the body and preparation of documents, including the spot inspection panchnama (Ex.P/8) and site map (Ex.P/9), were conducted in the witness’s presence. The accused was arrested 10 (Ex.P/13) and gave a memorandum statement (Ex.P/5) confessing to the crime. The witness was also issued a notice (Ex.P/24) to attend the investigation. 21. Investigating OfÏcer, Mohammad Kalim Khan (PW-20), has stated in his deposition that on 16.01.2020, during the investigation, he recorded the memorandum statement (Ex.P/5) of the accused in the presence of witnesses. According to Investigating OfÏcer, based on the memorandum statement of the accused, the body recovered at the accused's instance was identified by the deceased’s family members, including her son Ayush Mali and brother Vikas Saini. They identified the body as that of the deceased, Seema @ Rina @ Tinu Mali, based on her clothing, jewellery, and physical appearance. Thereafter, he prepared the body identification panchnama (Ex.P/7), body recovery panchnama (Ex.P/6), and spot inspection panchnama (Ex.P/8) in the presence of witnesses. 22. The body identification panchnama (Ex.P/7) and body recovery panchnama (Ex.P/6) were corroborated by witnesses Rakesh Sharma (PW-3) and Sharadchandra Pandey (PW-9), in their statements, which remained intact during cross-examination. During cross-examination, the defence suggested questions to these witnesses that confirmed the Investigating OfÏcer’s actions at the crime scene, including the preparation of the body identification panchnama (Ex.P/7) and body recovery panchnama (Ex.P/6), which the witnesses acknowledged. The nature of the questions asked by the defence during cross-examination, thus, confirms the witnesses’ presence at the crime scene and the preparation of these documents based on the memorandum statement (Ex.P/5) of the accused. 11 23. Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-15), who conducted postmortem vide Ex.P/28 and he opined that the fractured jaw and presence of a scarf loop around the neck could be related to the cause of death. 24. Now, the question is, whether the prosecution has discharged its initial or general burden or primary duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 25. In this regard, the learned trial Court observed that the Investigating OfÏcer, Mohammad Kalim Khan (PW-20), testified that during the investigation of missing person case No. 05 of 2020, he obtained the call detail records (CDR) of the deceased’s mobile number 96444-38814. Upon analyzing the CDR, he found continuous calls to number 9589599522 on the date of the incident, which raised suspicion. He obtained the CDR of the suspected number and interrogated the accused, Prabhat Yadav @ Gudda Yadav, on 16.01.2020. During the interrogation, the accused confessed to the crime, and his memorandum statement (Ex.P/5) was also recorded. In his memorandum statement, the accused stated that he had communicated with the deceased via mobile phone and planned to meet her on the date of incident. He further stated that after killing the deceased, he switched off her mobile phone and hide her purse at his father-in-law’s house in Bircona. The mobile phone and purse were seized (Ex.P/12) based on the accused's memorandum statement. The Investigation OfÏcer’s testimony establishes that the accused took the deceased to Bircona Dabarakhar canal on 05.01.2020, killed her, and then hide her mobile phone and purse. The recovery of the deceased's body based on the memorandum statement of the accused, which corroborates the prosecution’s case. On the basis of all the above 12 circumstances and the statements of the witnesses to the incident etc., it is established beyond doubt that the offence has been committed by the accused. 26. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that, 1. 2. death of deceased was homicidal in nature; it is the appellant who has murdered the deceased by strangulating her. 27. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses and the investigation reveals that the prosecution has successfully proved the case against the accused beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant has not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. The circumstances proved by the prosecution are decisive and entirely inconsistent with the accused's innocence. The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and does not leave any doubt that could acquit the appellant. The proved circumstances, under all human probabilities, conclusively establish that the appellant is the person who committed the murder of the deceased, Seema @ Rani @ Tinu Mali, and destroyed evidence to shield himself from legal punishment, therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Hence, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the learned trial Court. 28.
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 13 29. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 30. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is 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. 31. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the learned trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan