1 - Madhav Yadav S/o Ruplal Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village v. 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Chakradharnagar, District
Case Details
1 VISHAKHA BEOHAR Digitally signed by VISHAKHA BEOHAR 2025:CGHC:29282-DB AFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1345 of 2019 1 - Madhav Yadav S/o Ruplal Yadav Aged About 25 Years R/o Village - Kotmar, Police Station - Chakradharnagr, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. 2 - Ajay Yadav @ Konda S/o Vedram Yadav Aged About 24 Years R/o Village - Kunjedabri, Police Station - City Kotwali, Raigarh, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Appellants versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station - Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh Chhattisgarh. ... Respondent For Appellant : Mrs. Indira Tripathi, Advocate For Respondent/State For Complainant : : Mr. Ashish Shukla, Addl. A.G. Mr. Abhishek Saraf, Advocate Division Bench Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. Order on Board 01.07.2025 Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J. 1. This criminal appeal preferred by the appellants herein under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 05.09.2019 2 passed in Sessions Trial No.93/2018 by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G., by which, the appellants stand convicted & sentenced as under:- Conviction for committing Sentence murder of Manohar Rathiya Under Section 302 read with 34 Imprisonment for life and fine of of Indian Penal Code (for short, Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment ‘IPC’) of fine additional simple imprisonment for one year to each appellants Under Section 201 read with 34 Rigorous Imprisonment for seven of IPC years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for one month to each appellants Conviction for committing Sentence murder of Shyamlal Rathiya Under Section 302 read with 34 Imprisonment for life and fine of of Indian Penal Code (for short, Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment ‘IPC’) of fine additional simple imprisonment for one year to each appellants Under Section 201 read with 34 Rigorous Imprisonment for seven of IPC years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for one month to each appellants (Both sentences were directed to run concurrently) 2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that in the intervening night of 3 23.05.2018 at around 6:30 pm to 24.05.2018 at about 8:00 am, at village Karichhapar, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Chakradharnagar, District Raigarh, C.G., appellants herein, in furtherance of their common intention, committed murder of deceased persons namely Manohar Rathiya and Shyamlal Rathiya and in order to conceal the evidence, appellants hid the dead body of deceased- Manohar Rathiya inside a cement pipe of canal which was 10 kms away from the place of incident, whereas also threw the dead body of deceased- Shyamlal Yadav in the river and thereby committed the aforesaid offences. 3. Further case of the prosecution is that on 24.05.2018, PW-3 Bhup Singh, lodged a report at Police Station Chakradharnagar, stating that on the same day at around 8:00 am, a commotion arose in the village regarding the discovery of two dead bodies lying at different locations. One dead body was found inside a cement pipe near the Sapnai canal, while the other was found lying in the Sapnai river and there were blood stains on the roadside going from Kotmar and Karichhapar and an orange-coloured gamchha was also found tied below the road. After that, dead body of the deceased were recovered from the above mentioned places. On the basis of above report, Dehati merg intimations vide Exs.P-13 & 14 and merg intimations vide Exs.P-15 & 16 were recorded.
Facts
Thereafter, Ex.P-12 Dehati First Information report and vide Ex.P- 17, First Information Report were registered against the unknown 4 persons. Inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-2 and dead body of deceased persons were sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-9 Dr. Rajesh Goswami and PW-10 Dr. Devraj Chouhan, who have proved the postmortem reports Exs.P-32 & 34. According to PW-9 Dr. Rajesh Goswami, cause of death of deceased-Manohar Rathiya was shock and heamorrhage as a result of cranio-cerebral injuries and cut throat injury and mode of death of deceased was homicidal in nature, whereas according to PW-10 Dr. Devraj Behra, cause of death of deceased- Shyamlal Yadav was due to injury to vital organ like lung leading to massive haemorrhage and caused by moderately heavy, sharp and hard object and mode of death of deceased was homicidal in nature. During investigation, appellants were arrested vide Exs.P-51 & 52. Memorandum statement of the appellants were recorded vide Ex.P-19 & 20, consequent to which, blood stained T- shirts of appellants Madhav Yadav and Ajay Yadav were vide Exs.P-21 & P-22. Vide Exs.P-23 & P24, blood stained axe and cycle was recovered from the possession of appellant No.1 Madhav Yadav. Vide Ex.P-25, clothes of deceased and his body parts were sealed and packed in box. From the spot, plain and blood stained soil were also seized vide Exs.P-5 & 6 and vide Ex.P-8, slippers, torch and cycle were seized from the spot. Seized articles were sent to FSL for chemical examination and as per FSL report, human blood has been found on the articles i.e. “A, C, G, N2, O, Q and R”. 5 4. After due investigation, appellants were charge-sheeted before the jurisdictional criminal Court and the case was committed to the trial Court for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which appellants/accused persons abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offence. 5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 54 documents Exs.P-1 to P-54. However, the appellants in support of their defence have examined none, but exhibited three documents i.e. Exs.D-1 to D-3 in their defense. 6. The trial Court, after completion of trial and upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, by its impugned judgment, convicted and sentenced the appellants as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment against which they have preferred the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC.
Legal Reasoning
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.” 15. 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:- “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. 11 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.” 16. In the matter of Debapriya Pal vs. State of West Bengal (2017) 11 SCC 31, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has held with the 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 12 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.” 17. 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 13 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 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.” 18. 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:- 14 “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.” 19. Upon perusal of the record in the light of aforesaid decisions of Hon'ble Supreme Court, it is evident that although the prosecution has produced blood-stained clothes and a blood-stained axe allegedly recovered at the instance of the appellants, there is a complete absence of forensic evidence to establish that the blood found on these articles matches the blood group of the deceased persons. No serological or DNA report has been brought on record to establish such a linkage. The mere presence of blood stains, without proof that it is human blood belonging to the deceased, renders the recovery inconsequential. 20. 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 deceased, the discovery cannot be said to incriminate the accused beyond doubt.” 15 21. 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.” 22. 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.” 23. 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. 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. 24. It is profitable here to note following five golden principles laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra 1 which 1 (1984) 4 SCC 116 16 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. 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 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.” 25. In the present case, though certain articles were seized, pursuant to the memorandum statements of appellants, but there is no 17 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 persons or appellants in such a manner that would link the appellants directly to the crime and that no credible forensic evidence has been produced to establish that the blood on the seized articles belonged to the deceased. The prosecution has failed to establish a chain of circumstances to prove the relevance or connection of the seized items to the alleged offence. Therefore, the seizure, remains an isolated circumstance, incapable of establishing the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt. 26. It is also a settled principle of criminal law that suspicion, however 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 also not been established. 27. It is further held by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sujit Biswas vs. State of Assam AIR 2013 SC 3817 that the suspicion, howsoever strong, cannot substitute the proof and conviction is not permissible only on the basis of the suspicion. It is held thus in para 6:- "6. Suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof, and there is a large difference between something that "may be" proved, and something that "will be proved". In a criminal trial, suspicion no matter 18 how strong, cannot and must not be permitted to take place of proof. This is for the reason that the mental distance between "may be" and "must be" is quite large and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. In a criminal case, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof. The large distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, must be covered by way of clear, cogent and unimpeachable evidence produced by the prosecution, before an accused is condemned as a convict, and the basic and golden rule must be applied. In such cases, while keeping in mind the distance between "may be" true and "must be" true, the court must maintain the vital distance between mere conjectures and sure conclusions to be arrived at, on the touchstone of dispassionate judicial scrutiny, based upon a complete and comprehensive appreciation of all features of the case, as well as the quality and credibility of the evidence brought on record. The court must ensure, that miscarriage of justice is avoided, and if the facts and circumstances of a case so demand, then the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused, keeping in mind that a reasonable doubt is not an imaginary, trivial or a merely probable doubt, but a fair doubt that is based upon reason and common sense. (Vide Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., (1952) 2 SCC 71, State v. Mahender 19 Singh Dahiya (2011) 3 SCC 109 and Ramesh Harijan v. State of U.P. (2012) 5 SCC 777." 28.
Arguments
7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that the learned trial Court is absolutely unjustified in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed to prove the offences beyond reasonable doubt. He further submits that there is no cogent and clinching evidence available on record to connect the appellants with the crime in question. He also submits that no evidence has been brought on record by the prosecution to prove motive of the appellants to commit murder of the deceased persons and furthermore, though pursuant to the 6 memorandum statement of appellants, their clothes, axe and other articles were seized and as per FSL report, human blood has been found on seized articles, but blood group could not be ascertained, therefore, FSL report is not reliable. As such, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence deserves to be set aside and the appellants be acquitted of the said charges. 8. Learned counsel for the State supports the impugned judgment and submits that the prosecution has brought home the offence against the appellants and has proved the case beyond reasonable doubt and thus, the appellants have rightly been convicted and sentenced for the aforesaid offences. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question for consideration would be whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which has been answered by the trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem reports (Exs.P-32 & 34) proved by PW-9 Dr. Rajesh Goswami and PW-10 Dr. Devraj Behra which is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, it is neither perverse nor contrary to the record and we hereby affirm the said finding. 11. Now, the question would be whether the appellants are the authors of the crime in question for which the trial Court has relied 7 upon the circumstantial evidence by delving into the incriminating evidence which have been found to be proved by the trial Court resulting into conviction of the appellants. 12. Now, we shall consider the circumstances found proved by the trial Court against appellants with regard to motive of the offence. Though PW-4 Shivnath Rathiya has stated that prior to 15-20 days before the incident, deceased-Manohar Rathiya had a dispute with the appellant-Madhav Yadav, who was involved in the illicit liquor trade and used to take Rs.300-400/- from his father/deceased- Manohar Rathiya, but he/appellant-Madhav Yadav failed to repay him and when his father/deceased-Manohar demanded his money back, he assaulted him with axe, but, on the contrary, in cross- examination, he admitted that he does not know who killed his father/deceased-Manohar and he did not see the appellant-Madhav assaulting the deceased- Manohar. He also admitted that the quarrel had occurred 15-20 days prior to the incident, but the said incident was a minor one and they had not filed any complaint either at Police Station or before the Panchayat regarding that dispute with deceased-Manohar Rathiya. This apart, PW-5 Ramlal Yadav has also stated that some unknown person has killed his brother/deceased-Shyamlal and deceased-Manohar. He also admitted that on the date of incident, he had not seen that at what time and with whom his brother/deceased-Shyamlal had gone. Likewise, PW-6 Nirmal Yadav also admitted that some unknown person has killed the deceased persons and there was no dispute 8 between the appellants and the deceased persons. Moreover, PW-7 Anil Rathiya has also stated that only on the basis of suspicion, they had taken the name of appellant-Madhav. He also admitted that he does not know on the date of incident, as to why deceased persons had gone to Karichhapar or whom they intended to meet. Thus, from the above evidence, it appears that the prosecution has relied upon a previous quarrel between the appellant- Madhav and the deceased- Manohar to establish motive. However, no credible witness has come forward to prove the occurrence or nature of such a quarrel. Mere assertions without supporting evidence do not constitute proof of motive and in absence of reliable evidence demonstrating enmity or any strong motive, this alleged prior quarrel cannot be treated as a substantive circumstance pointing towards guilt. As such, the motive of offence has not rightly been held proved by the trial Court on the part of appellants. 13. The next circumstance that has been found proved by the trial Court against the appellants herein is the recovery of certain articles i.e. T-shirt, axe, slipper and bicycle from the accused persons vide Exs.P-21 to 24 respectively, pursuant to their memorandum statements (Ex.P/19 & 20 respectively). Although as per FSL report, human blood has been found on the seized articles i.e. “A, C, G, N2, O, Q and R”, but there is no evidence on record to show that the said blood group found on the seized articles is similar to that of the deceased persons. Therefore, the mere 9 recovery of articles like clothes, weapons, cycle, slipper, and torch, without any corroboration linking them directly to the offence or the deceased, is insufficient to establish guilt. The witnesses to the memorandum and recovery namely PW-11 Ram Singh Chouhan and PW-13 Minketan Malakar have only proved the fact of recovery, but have not connected the recovered articles with the actual crime in a legally conclusive manner. Additionally, the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) report does not support the prosecution's claim. There is no conclusive forensic evidence linking the appellants to the crime scene or to the deceased persons through these recoveries. 14. 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 Rajasthans, this Court held that sole circumstance of recovery of bloodstained weapon cannot form the basis of conviction 10 unless the same was connected with the murder of the deceased by the accused.
Decision
In view of the above precedents, laws laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court and the facts of the case, the failure to establish a forensic link between the recovered articles and the deceased persons 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 appellants' guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The trial Court erred in convicting the appellants without credible and trustworthy evidence. The chain of circumstances is broken and incomplete, thus the benefit of doubt must be given to the appellants. 29. Accordingly, the appeal filed by the appellants- Madhav Yadav & Ajay Yadav is allowed, and the judgment and order of conviction dated 05.09.2019 passed by the 5th Additional Sessions Judge, Raigarh, C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 93/2018 is hereby set- aside. The appellants are acquitted of the charge under Sections 302 & 201 (twice) of the IPC and shall be released forthwith unless wanted in any other case. 30. In compliance with Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., the appellants are directed to furnish a personal bond of ₹25,000/- each with two sureties of the like amount before the concerned court. The bond shall be effective for six months and include an undertaking that in 20 case of filing a Special Leave Petition or grant of leave against this judgment, the appellants will appear before the Supreme Court upon receipt of notice. 31. 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 21