Judgment Reserved on 09.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on 24.09.2025 1 - Krishna Soni, S/o Rikhiram v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through PS Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg C.G
Case Details
1 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR AFR VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR CRA No. 913 of 2013 Judgment Reserved on 09.09.2025 Judgment Delivered on 24.09.2025 1 - Krishna Soni, S/o Rikhiram Soni, aged about 26 Years, R/o Village Baikunthdham, Near Murkatta School, Camp-2, Bhilai, Thana Chhawani, Civil and Revenue, District Durg, C.G. ... Appellant versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through PS Bhilai Nagar, Distt. Durg C.G. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Sabhyasachi Bhaduri, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mrs. Sunita Sahu, P.L. Division Bench Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. CAV Judgment Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellant has challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment 2 of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.08.2013 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track Court), Durg, C.G. in Sessions Case No.51/2011, whereby and whereunder, the appellant stands convicted and sentenced as under:- Conviction Under Section 302 of Indian Sentence Imprisonment for life and fine of Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Rs.10,000/-, in default of payment Under Section 201 of IPC of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for three months. Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount to undergo additional rigorous imprisonment for two months. (Both sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. As per the prosecution case, the incident came to light on 13.11.2010, when Suresh Chandra Padhi, Station Master, Bhilai Nagar, submitted a written intimation (Exhibit P-18A) to Police Station Bhilai Nagar informing that the body of an unknown boy aged about 10 years was lying near the railway track, UP Line, KMS No. 859/7A-9A. The said information was received by him from the driver of train N/BRD at about 16:20 hours. On the basis of this information, a Rural Inquest Intimation was registered vide Ex. P-18. Thereafter, merg intimation was registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar vide Ex.P-19. During the course of inquiry, statements of Naresh Soni, father of the deceased- Ayush Soni, 3 and Prakash Soni, grandfather of the deceased, were recorded. Considering their statements, the circumstantial evidence collected during the inquiry and the post-mortem report, a First Information Report (Ex.P-22) under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against an unknown person. After that, the Investigating Officer prepared a spot map (Ex. P-20). From the spot, a blood-stained stone and a plain stone were seized vide Ex. P-15. The dead body was identified by Naresh Soni vide Ex.P-10, and post-mortem was conducted by PW-19 Dr. Lal Mohammed and gave his report vide Ex.P-16. According to him, cause of death of deceased was shock due to excessive bleeding and the nature of death was homicidal. The dead body was thereafter handed over to PW-7 Naresh Soni vide Ex.P-11. During the investigation, it surfaced that the accused- Krishna Soni, who is the maternal uncle of the deceased- Ayush, used to restrain his wife Jyoti Soni (PW-9) from visiting her parental home, as he suspected her of having an illicit relationship with her brother-in- law/Naresh Soni (PW-7), father of the deceased. On account of such suspicion, frequent quarrels took place between the accused- Krishna Soni and his wife. During the festival season, when PW-9 Jyoti went to her parental home for about a month, there had been a quarrel between her and the accused before her departure. It is further alleged that on the date of the incident, deceased- Ayush was last seen in the company of the accused. Based on this circumstance, suspicion fell upon him. On 4 interrogation, the accused/appellant gave a memorandum statement (Ex. P-1), wherein he disclosed that he had enticed the deceased- Ayush by offering him chocolates and had taken him near the railway track in front of Supela Chowk. There he assaulted him with stones, causing his death, with the intention of taking revenge upon PW-7 Naresh Soni, whom he suspected to be his wife’s lover. He further disclosed that in order to conceal the crime, he placed the dead body on the railway track. In consequence of the said memorandum (Ex. P-1), a blue jeans, a full-shirt as well as a black pant were seized from the accused- Krishna Soni vide Ex. P-2. The accused was arrested vide Ex. P-4. Vide Ex.P-14 clothes of deceased and other articles were seized. From the spot, plain soil and a blood stained soil were seized vide Ex.P-15. The deceased’s mother- Rekha Soni (PW- 11), identified the pant of the deceased vide Ex. P-13. The accused-Krishna Soni was medically examined and simple injuries were found on his right wrist vide Ex.P-23. The seized articles were forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur for chemical examination and as per FSL report (Ex.9-A), blood has been found on the articles marked as Articles ‘A, B, C, D & E’. 3. After due investigation, appellant was charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional Criminal Court and the case was committed to
Facts
the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence by stating that he has not committed the offence. 5 4. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 25 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 24 documents Exs.P-1 to P-24. However, the appellant in support of his defence has examined none and exhibited two documents i.e. Exs.D-1 & D-2. 5. The trial Court, after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which, he has preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC. 6. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellant for the aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the entire case of the prosecution rests upon a weak chain of circumstantial evidence, which does not constitute a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant. He would also submit that according to the evidence of PW-19 Dr. Lal Mohammad, the injuries observed on the body of the deceased could have been caused by an accident involving a running train, thereby casting doubt on the prosecution’s version of the cause of death. Moreover, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the appellant with convincing evidence. He 6 would further contend that the alleged recovery of the blood- stained clothes of the deceased at the behest of the appellant lacks corroboration from independent prosecution witnesses or proper seizure documents. The so-called motive of revenge, attributed to the appellant, is based merely on suspicion and conjecture rather than concrete evidence. Furthermore, the prosecution has also failed to prove the last seen theory in accordance with the established legal standards. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of the said charges. 7. Per contra, learned counsel for the respondent/State would support the judgment of conviction and submit that the trial Court has minutely evaluated the oral and documentary evidence on record and has rightly held that the chain of circumstances is well connected, establishing the guilt of the appellant. It is further submitted that there is no infirmity or perversity in the impugned judgment, warranting interference by this Court. 8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record. 9. The first issue that arises for consideration is whether the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused- Krishna Soni. In support of the prosecution’s theory of “last seen together,” PW-13-Satish Faye, was examined. He has stated that on the date and time of the incident, the accused/appellant had arrived 7 with the minor deceased, and both had proceeded to get a bicycle repaired. Thereafter, they reportedly left the area together. However, the testimony of PW-13 does not clearly prove that the accused was last seen with the deceased near the time of the incident, as required by law for the “last seen” rule to apply. Therefore, the prosecution has failed to show a reliable connection between the accused and the deceased just before the incident based on this witness’s evidence. 10.
Legal Reasoning
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and not 'may be' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may be proved' and 'must be or should be proved' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade & Anr. v. State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 SCC 793 where the following observations were made: "Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and 'must be' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions." (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 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 20 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.” 31. Recently, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Padman Bibhar vs. State of Odisha reported in 2025 SCC OnLine SC 1190 has held as under:- “10. It is settled law that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is obliged to prove each circumstance, taken cumulatively to form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities, crime committed by the accused and none else. Further, the facts so proved should unerringly point towards the guilt of the accused. was 11. This Court in Ramanand v. State of Himachal Pradesh has held that 'perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world and absolute certainty is a myth'. 12. This Court in a celebrated judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of 21 Maharashtra has set down the golden rules in the cases basing circumstantial evidence which is to be proved by the prosecution. (1.) That chain of evidence is complete; (ii) Circumstances relied upon by prosecution should be conclusive in nature; (iii) Fact established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of accused; (iv) Circumstances relied upon should only be consistent with the guilt of the accused; (v) Circumstances relied upon should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. 20. This Court in Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan has held that evidence on 'last seen together' is a weak piece of evidence and conviction only on the basis of 'last seen together' without there being any other corroborative evidence against the accused, is not sufficientfollowing passage from the judgment in paras 12 and 15 can be profitably referred: *12. The circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the crime. There must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant, 22 in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. 15. The theory of last seen the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be, or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v. State of Rajasthan, (2010) 15 SCC 588" 21. Similarly, this Court in Rambraksh @ Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh has reiterated above legal position in the following words in paras 12 and 13: "12. It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other 23 than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused. 13. In a similar fact situation this Court in Krishnan v. State of Τ.Ν., (2014) 12 SCC 279 held as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, paras 21-24) "21. The conviction cannot be based only on circumstance of last seen together with the deceased. In Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar, 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372 this Court held as follows: (SCC р. 385, para 31) '31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to Sitaram in the evening of 19-7- 1985 and had stayed in the night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it would at best amount to be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis alone can be founded." 24 22. This Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 held that (SCC p. 63, para 31) '31. The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.' It will be hazardous to come to a conclusion of guilt in cases where there is no other positive evidence to conclude that the accused and the deceased were last seen together. 23. There is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR. As per prosecution story the deceased Manikandan was last seen on 4-4 -2004 at Vadakkumelur Village during Panguni Uthiram Festival at Mariyamman Temple. The body of the deceased was taken from the borewell by the fire service personnel after more than seven days. There is no other positive material on record to show that the deceased was last seen together with the accused and in the intervening period of seven days there was nobody in contact with the deceased. 24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court held that in the 25 absence of any other links in the chain of circumstantial evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted solely on the basis of "last seen together" even if version of the prosecution witness in this regard is believed." 22. In the case at hand also the only evidence against the appellant is of 'last seen together'. The evidence of motive does not satisfy us to be an adverse circumstance against the appellant inasmuch as if the appellant has any doubt about his wife's chastity, he would have caused injury or harm to his wife rather than to wife's cousin with whom he had no animosity. Moreover, the so-called weapon of the offence i.e. the stone has not been recovered at his instance nor there is any memorandum statement of the appellant.” 32. In the present case, though certain articles were seized, but there is no cogent evidence to establish that these articles were either used in the commission of the offence or were last seen in the possession of the deceased or appellant in such a manner that would link the appellants directly to the crime and that no forensic evidence has been produced to establish that the blood on the seized articles belonged to the deceased. The prosecution failed to establish a chain of circumstances to prove the relevance or connection of the seized items to the alleged offence. 26 Therefore, the seizure from the spot and accused/appellant remains an isolated circumstance, incapable of establishing the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. 33. It is a settled principle of criminal law that suspicion, howsoever grave it may be, cannot substitute for proof. The entire case of the prosecution is based on weak circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances necessary to bring home the guilt of the accused has not been established.
Arguments
The prosecution also relied upon PW-20- Smt. Leela Gupta, in furtherance of the “last seen” theory. She has stated that between 5:00 and 6:00 p.m., while fetching water, she saw the accused/appellant in the company of the deceased. However, during cross-examination, PW-20 admitted that although she had made such a statement during her deposition, if the same is not reflected in her previous statement recorded under Section 161 of the CrPC, she could not affirm the correctness of that version. This admission undermines the reliability of her testimony on the point of the deceased being last seen with the accused/appellant. 11. That apart, PW-3 Prakash Sini is the father-in-law of the accused/appellant and the grandfather of the deceased- Ayush. PW-3 was produced as a witness to the inquest report (Ex.P/5) and he admitted his signature thereon. However, apart from identifying his signature on the inquest report (Ex.P-5), PW-3’s evidence does not contribute any substantive information relevant to the prosecution’s case. 12. PW-9 Jyoti Soni, the wife of the accused/appellant, has stated 8 in her chief examination that the accused/appellant had doubt about her relationship with his brother-in-law (jijaji). She has also stated that there had been some quarrels between them prior to the incident. Based on this, she expressed a suspicion that her husband/appellant might have committed the murder of the deceased. However, during cross-examination, PW-9 clearly denied that the statements made during her chief examination were given voluntarily. She clarified that she did not independently state that the accused/appellant had suspicion about her relationship with his brother-in-law. She has further stated that her statement was given within 2–3 days of the incident, and any claim that it was recorded after one month, specifically on 12.12.2010, is incorrect. PW-9 also admitted that her suspicion regarding her husband’s doubt was based solely on what she had heard from others, and she had no direct knowledge or confirmation of such doubts. 13. PW-19, Dr. Lal Mohammed, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, noted three external injuries on the body. Based on his examination, he opined that the cause of death was shock due to excessive bleeding, and that the death was homicidal in nature. However, he also categorically stated that the injuries observed on the body could have been caused by an accident involving a moving train. It is noteworthy that no burn 9 injuries or fractures were found, and there were no visible injuries on the head of the deceased. 14. PW-21 Nagendra Kumar Banchhore, the Investigating Officer, has stated that upon receipt of intimation from the Station Master, he reached the spot and prepared the inquest report (Exhibit P-5). He has categorically stated that at the time of conducting the inquest, neither the father of the deceased nor any other person present at the scene expressed any suspicion against the appellant. He has further stated that when the body of the deceased was recovered, the head was found severed from the body and apart from that, there was no injury over the person of the deceased. 15. From the evidence on record, it appears that there were allegations of suspicion regarding an alleged illicit relationship between the appellant’s wife and her brother-in-law (jijaji), who is also the father of the deceased. However, such suspicion remains uncorroborated and unsupported by any credible or direct evidence. Mere conjecture or unverified belief cannot be elevated to the status of proof in criminal proceedings. In the absence of substantive material to establish the existence of such a relationship or the appellant’s knowledge thereof, this alleged motive remains speculative at best. Furthermore, the prosecution has not been able to satisfactorily establish the “last seen together” theory a crucial link in the chain of circumstantial evidence. The testimonies of the prosecution witnesses, 10 particularly PW-13 Prakash Sini and PW-20 Smt. Leela Gupta, are inconsistent and do not conclusively place the appellant in the company of the deceased immediately prior to the incident. The lack of proximity in time between when the deceased was last seen with the appellant and the time of the crime renders the “last seen” evidence insufficient to support a finding of guilt. While the prosecution has tried to rely on motive to strengthen its case, it has not been able to prove this motive beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on this point is mostly based on hearsay and lacks any direct or supporting proof to show that the appellant had the intention or reason to commit the crime. In criminal law, although motive is not always required, but it becomes important when the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence. In this case, the prosecution’s failure to clearly prove motive further weakens its case against the appellant. 16. Moreover, although, pursuant to the memorandum of statement of the accused/appellant, his clothes were seized and from the spot, blood-stained stones and plain stones were also recovered, but PW-1 Pushpendra Singh, who was the witness to the seizure of Exs. P/1 to P/4, admitted to signing the seizure memos, thereby confirming the authenticity of his signatures on those documents. However, during cross-examination, PW-1 did not support the prosecution’s case. Instead, he turned hostile and retracted his earlier statement, which significantly weakened the prosecution’s evidence regarding the seizure of the relevant 11 material. Similarly, PW-2 Rajendra Nayak, was produced as a witness to Exs. P/1 and P/4. He too admitted to signing the seizure memos, confirming their authenticity. Yet, during the proceedings, PW-2 was declared hostile by the prosecution as he failed to support the prosecution’s case and did not corroborate its version of events. 17. The admissions and conduct of the aforesaid witnesses seriously undermine the prosecution’s case concerning the recovery of the alleged weapons. In the absence of a proper seizure from the appellant, and without any scientific or forensic evidence linking the seized articles to the crime or the deceased, the recoveries lose their evidentiary value. Consequently, the alleged seizure of these items cannot be relied upon as an incriminating circumstance against the appellant. 18. Apart from that, seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination, however, FSL report (Ex.P-9A) is inconclusive and no blood group could not be ascertained on the seized articles marked as Articles ‘A, B, C, D & E’ and that, there is no evidence on record to show that the blood like stained found on the seized articles is similar to that of the blood of deceased. Therefore, the mere recovery of articles, without any corroboration linking them directly to the offence or the deceased, is insufficient to establish guilt. Accordingly, the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report does not support the prosecution's case. There is no conclusive 12 forensic evidence linking the appellant to the crime scene or to the deceased through these recoveries. 19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Raja Naykar vs. State of Chhattisgarh (2024) 3 SCC 481 has held as under:- “It can thus be seen that, the only circumstance that may be of some assistance to the prosecution case is the recovery of dagger at the instance of the present appellant. However, as already stated hereinabove, the said recovery is also from an open place accessible to one and all. In any case, the blood found on the dagger does not match with the blood group of the deceased. In Mustkeem v. State of Rajasthan, this Court held that sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused. Thus, we find that only on the basis of sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon, it cannot be said that the prosecution has discharged its burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt.” 20. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Thakore Umedsing Nathusing vs. State of Gujarat 2024 SCC OnLine SC 320 has dealt with the recovery and blood stains not found to be that of the deceased and the relevant para reads as under:- 13 “35. We have gone through the evidence of the concerned police officials associated with the recoveries and find their testimonies to be highly doubtful. The knife which was recovered at the instance of A3 was found from a nala which is a place open and accessible to all. The knife attributed to A4 was presented by one Shobhnaben wife of Kanji Chhara and thus it cannot be linked to A4. Thus, these recoveries in no manner can be treated to be incriminating in nature. In the case of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State of Rajasthan, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 724, this Court held that the solitary circumstance of recovery of blood- stained weapons cannot constitute such evidence which can be considered sufficient to convict an accused for the charge of murder. We thus find the recoveries to be highly doubtful and tainted. Even if it is assumed for a moment that such recoveries were effected, the same did not lead to any conclusive circumstance in form of Serological report establishing the presence of the same blood group as that of the deceased and hence they do not further the cause of prosecution. In addition thereto, we find that the prosecution failed to lead the link evidence mandatorily required to establish the factum of safe keeping of the muddamal articles and hence, the recoveries became irrelevant.” 21. In the matter of Debapriya Pal vs. State of West Bengal (2017) 11 SCC 31, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held with the 14 issue that even if blood stain was found, the blood group of accused or deceased was not ascertained. The relevant para reads as under:- “For the sake of argument, we are presuming that they were present at the time when the appellant brought bloodstained clothes from his house and gave the same to the police. What is material is the reliance on these bloodstained clothes for the culpability of the appellant herein. As per the prosecution, the blood group on these bloodstained clothes matched with the blood on the bedsheet on which the body of one of the deceased persons was found. The record reveals that though blood of both the deceased persons was drawn and sent for examination, it is not known as to what was the report thereupon and what was the blood group of the deceased persons. No such blood report has been produced. So much so, blood group of the accused persons was also not ascertained. Even if we presume that the blood on the bedsheet was that of the deceased, the possibility cannot be ruled out that the same blood group as of the appellant-accused thereof. Therefore, mere matching of the blood group on the bloodstained clothes, which was even on the bedsheet, would not lead to the conclusion that it is the appellant who had committed the crime.” 15 22. In the matter of Shantabai and others vs. State of Maharashtra (2008) 16 SCC 354, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held as under:- “25. In support of the fifth circumstance, the prosecution has examined Dr. Hanumant, who performed post-mortem on the dead body of the deceased Gunwant on 15-8-1993. The doctor noticed as many as thirteen injuries on the body of the deceased as described in the post- mortem report (Ext. 41). According to the opinion of the doctor, the cause of death was because of shock due to cardio-respiratory failure caused by injury to brain and brain haemorrhage. The chemical analyser's report would reveal that ethyl alcohol was found in the viscera contents of the deceased. 26. We may point out that the investigating officer has not cared to collect the fingerprints appeared on the stones and axe, the alleged weapons of offence, at the time of seizure of the articles nor had he taken the fingerprints of the appellants for comparison with the fingerprints, if any, detected on the alleged weapons of offence. The articles collected by the investigating officer from the spot were found lying in the open place which was accessible to all and sundry. The prosecution has not led any evidence to prove that axe, which was the alleged weapon of offence, found on spot in the open place belonged to A- 1, A-2 and A-3. Thus, the prosecution has not 16 established beyond reasonable doubt that A-1, A-2 and A-3 had used the recovered weapons of offence in the commission of the crime. 28. The chemical analyser's report (Ext. 72) reveals that human blood of Group 'B' was detected on the clothes, which were seized by the police, allegedly belonging to the appellants. The blood group on those clothes did not tally with the blood of Group 'O', which was found on the clothes of the deceased and on the sample of soil, axe, stones, handles, etc, which were taken from the spot by the investigating officer. The investigating officer has categorically stated that when he along with A-1 and panch witnesses had gone in search of the clothes of the appellants, the lock to the door of the house of the appellants was kept with the Police Patil which was opened by them later on. In this view of the matter, the prosecution has not proved that d the clothes, which were allegedly seized by the police at the instance of A-1 and lying in the open place, were stained with Blood Group 'O' of the deceased found on the deceased's clothes and on the articles which were seized by the investigating officer from the place of occurrence. These circumstances are not proved by the prosecution by lending cogent, satisfactory and convincing evidence to hold A- 1, A-2 and A-3 guilty of the offence.” 17 23. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Dhananjay Shanker Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra (2002) 6 SCC 596 has held as under:- “9. Another circumstance which was alleged against the appellant was that bloodstained clothes and weapon were recovered from his house, but the trial court as well as the High Court did not place any reliance upon this circumstance in view of the fact that according to the report of the chemical examiner, the blood group found thereon did not tally with that of the deceased.” 24. Upon perusal of the record and in light of the decisions of the Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that although the prosecution has produced a blood like stained stone, clothes of appellant and deceased, but there is a complete absence of forensic evidence establishing that the blood found on the articles i.e. ‘A, B, C, D & E’ matches the blood group of the deceased. The mere presence of bloodstains, without proof that it is human blood belonging to the deceased, renders the recovery inconsequential. 25. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that such failure materially affects the evidentiary value of the alleged recoveries. In Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa, (1987) 3 SCC 480, the Court held: “Unless the blood stains found on the clothes or weapons are proved to be that of the 18 deceased, the discovery cannot be said to incriminate the accused beyond doubt.” 26. Similarly, in Sattatiya @ Satish Rajanna Kartalla v. State of Maharashtra, (2008) 3 SCC 210, it was observed: “In the absence of a serological report confirming that the blood on the clothes or weapon belonged to the deceased, the recovery is of no substantial help to the prosecution.” 27. Again, in Vijay Shankar v. State of Chhattisgarh, (2022) 10 SCC 353, the Apex Court reiterated: “The prosecution’s failure to establish, through scientific evidence, that the blood found on the weapon or clothes matched that of the deceased creates a serious doubt about the veracity of the recovery and the guilt of the accused.” 28. These authoritative pronouncements make it abundantly clear that mere recovery of blood-stained articles, without scientific corroboration, is insufficient to sustain a conviction, especially when the case is otherwise based on circumstantial evidence. 29. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must establish the chain of circumstances with cogent and reliable evidence, particularly in cases based on circumstantial evidence. 30. It is profitable here to note following five golden principles laid 19 down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 1 which constitute the ‘panchsheel’ of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and same read as under: “153.…. (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
Decision
34. In view of the above precedents, laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court as well as the facts and circumstances of the case, the failure to establish a forensic link between the recovered articles and the deceased fatally weakens the prosecution’s case. The conviction cannot be sustained solely on the basis of uncorroborated recovery. The prosecution has failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial court erred in convicting and sentencing the appellant without credible and trustworthy evidence. The chain of circumstances is broken and incomplete, thus the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellant. 35. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed, and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is hereby set- aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 & 201 IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. 27 36. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed and the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is hereby set- aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC. 37. The appellant is reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Cr.P.C. of sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like amount before the trial Court concerned which shall be effective for a period of six months along with an undertaking that in the event of filing of Special Leave Petition against the instant judgment or for grant of leave, the aforesaid appellant on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court. 38. Registry is directed to transmit the lower Court record along with a copy of this judgment to the trial Court forthwith for information and necessary compliance. Sd/- sd/- (Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge Vishakha 28