Nafr High Court
Case Details
1 CRA No.1957 of 2022 RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.08.12 10:33:41 +0530 2025:CGHC:39771-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1957 of 2022 Mohan Ram S/o. Late Jayram Harijan Aged About 63 Years R/o. Village Sagarpur, Ps Khadgavan, District Koriya (C.G.) versus Appellant The State Of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Praveen Soni, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, PL Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon’ble Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge 08/08/2025 1. The present appeal has been filed under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 12/10/2022 passed by learned II Additional Sessions Judge, Manendragarh, District Koriya (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 33/2017 whereby the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 & 2 CRA No.1957 of 2022 177 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 1000/- along with default stipulation & Simple Imprisonment for 6 months, respectively. 2.
Legal Reasoning
Brief facts of the case are that on 26.11.2016 at around 8:00 a.m., Mohan Ram's wife Kadam Kumari (since ‘the Deceased’) and daughter-in-law Sunita (PW-1) went to Devlapara, Naya Ghar to harvest the kodo crop. At that time, Mohan Ram (henceforth ‘the Appellant’) was threshing paddy in his old house. At around 3:30 p.m., the Kotwar of the village, Tapeshwar Das (PW-6), informed the appellant that his wife had been killed and was bleeding. He also stated that Sunita had come and told him about the incident. The Appellant along with his daughters Dhaneshiya (PW-3) and Dilkunwar, went to Naya Ghar and found that his wife was lying dead in the courtyard of the house, with a deep cut on her neck and blood oozing from the wound. An axe was found in her right hand. It appeared that some unknown person had killed her by slitting her throat. During the investigation, it was revealed that the accused had actually committed the murder. It was alleged that he had stabbed his wife 2–3 times in the neck with an axe, resulting in her death on the spot. Thereafter, the Appellant allegedly placed the axe in her right hand and returned to his old house. He then instructed his daughter-in-law Sunita, daughter Indermati (PW-2), Dhaneshiya (PW-3) and Dilkunwar, that if anyone asked, they should say he was threshing paddy in the old house, 3 CRA No.1957 of 2022 while his wife and daughter-in-law had gone to harvest millet in the new house. Based on this information, a case under Sections 302 and 177 of the Indian Penal Code was registered against the accused. On the basis of his memorandum statement, incriminating articles was seized. Upon finding prima facie evidence of guilt, the accused was arrested on 27.11.2016 at 8:30 p.m., produced before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Chirmiri, on 28.11.2016, and his first remand was obtained. After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused on 13.02.2017. Since the offence was triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed and transferred to the Sessions Court on 27.02.2017 for trial. After framing of the charges, the same were read out to the accused, he denied the allegations and claimed to be tried. 3. In order to establish the charges against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 17 witnesses and exhibited 24 documents i.e. Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/24. Statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, pleaded innocence and submitted that he has been falsely implicated in the offence. 4. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted the appellant and 4 CRA No.1957 of 2022 sentenced him as mentioned in opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence this appeal. 5.
Legal Reasoning
Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the conviction is based solely on circumstantial evidence, which fails to establish a complete and unbroken chain pointing conclusively to his guilt. No eyewitness has been produced, and the alleged recovery and statements are doubtful and uncorroborated by independent or forensic evidence. The prosecution has failed to prove motive, and the Appellant’s consistent plea of innocence has been overlooked. The benefit of doubt ought to have been given, and therefore, the conviction deserves to be set aside. 6. On the other hand, learned counsel appearing for the State would submit that the conviction is based on clear and consistent circumstantial evidence. The Appellant’s conduct and recovery of the weapon support his guilt. The Trial Court’s judgment is sound and requires no interference. 7. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection. 8. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased was homicidal in nature ? 9. Admittedly, there is no eyewitness to the incident and the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. 5 CRA No.1957 of 2022 10. Dr. S. Kujur has been examined as PW14. He deposed that on 27 November 2016, the body of the deceased was brought before him for examination and autopsy. On examination, she found as under:- Upon external examination- the body showed signs of rigor mortis in both upper limbs, with half-open eyes, straight arms, curled fingers, pale nails, and straightened legs. The mouth was slightly open. Multiple ante-mortem injuries were noted on the body. Notably, there was a barrel-shaped incised wound measuring approximately 5 cm × 2 cm behind the left ear, with narrow edges and broader width in the middle. Another barrel- shaped incised wound measuring 3 cm × 2 cm was found on the upper part of the sternum, which had pierced the trachea, indicating a deep and fatal injury reaching the tracheal region. The witness further deposed that a barrel-shaped incised wound was present on the right side of the sternum, measuring approximately 4 cm in length and 2 cm in width, with sufficient depth to have cut through the trachea. The tracheal tube was filled with blood, and profuse external bleeding was observed at the site. A major blood-carrying vessel in the area had also been severed. In addition to the above injuries, a diagonal abrasion measuring 10 cm was noted on the neck. A longitudinal contusion measuring 10 cm was seen above the left clavicle. Adjacent to it, another contusion measuring 3 cm in length and 0.5 cm in width was found. A contusion was also present on the left side of the chest, 6 CRA No.1957 of 2022 corresponding to the third and fourth rib levels, measuring 4 cm × 1 cm. An incised wound on the left shoulder measured 5 cm in length, 2 cm in width, and extended deep into the underlying muscle tissue. Below this, another incised wound was observed, measuring 3 cm × 2 cm, which also extended into the muscle layer. On internal examination- the witness stated that the skull, scalp, and vertebrae were congested. The brain and spinal cord appeared normal, although the meninges, ribs, and soft tissues were congested. The lungs were congested and shrunken, and the trachea was found cut, with blood present inside the airway. The pericardium and thoracic cavity were also congested. Both chambers of the heart were empty. The intestinal membrane was congested. Blood was present in small amounts in the oral cavity and esophagus. The stomach contained semi-digested food, while the small intestine had digested food and foul-smelling gas. The large intestine contained fecal matter and foul gas. The liver, spleen, and kidneys were congested, and the urinary bladder was empty. The external genital organs were intact and showed no signs of injury.The deceased was found wearing a printed saree and a yellow blouse. Blood samples from the body were preserved and sealed for FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory) analysis, and handed over to the same constable who brought the body. 7 CRA No.1957 of 2022 This witness has stated that the doctor concluded that the cause of death was shock resulting from profuse bleeding due to the severing of neck vessels and the trachea. The estimated time since death was between 24 to 30 hours, and the nature of death was stated to be homicidal. The postmortem report was marked as Exhibit P-12A, bearing his signature on the final page. 11. The trial Court, after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record particularly relying upon the statement of Dr. S. Kujur (PW14) who has conducted postmortem and found injuries on vital organs of the body of the Deceased and came to the conclusion that the cause of death was due to hemorrhage and death of deceased was homicidal in nature. After hearing learned counsel for the parties and after considering the submissions, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the trial Court that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature, is the finding of fact based on evidence available on record. It is neither perverse nor contrary to record. We hereby affirm that finding. 12. Since the death of the deceased has been medically and legally established to be homicidal in nature, the primary question now before this Court is whether the Appellant is the perpetrator of the said offence. 13. Sunita (PW1), daughter-in-law of the deceased and accused, has deposed that the incident occurred approximately six months ago. On the date of the incident, around 10 AM, she had gone to the new house field in 8 CRA No.1957 of 2022 Devalapara to harvest kodo crop, leaving behind her mother-in-law Kadam Kumari and her infant child at the new house. Her father-in-law, accused Mohanram, was at the old house at that time. About an hour later, she returned to the new house to feed her child and found her mother-in-law Kadamkumari (deceased) lying dead in the courtyard with a severe injury on her neck caused by a gadassa (axe). The said weapon was found in deceased hand, and her mouth was stuffed with a scarf (saya). She initially tried to remove the cloth thinking her the Deceased might still be alive but realized she was already dead. This witness did not observe any blood on the scarf at that moment. She then took her child and went to inform the Kotwar about the murder. Later, her sister- in-law Indramati (PW2) arrived, and both went back to see the body. Her father-in-law (the appellant) also came to the new house and then went to Khadgawan to lodge the report. At para 23 & 24 she stated that after the incident the appellant told her and her sister-in-law that not to disclose about the incident to anyone and advised them to inform the villagers that some body committed murder of the deceased. He also advised them that at the time of incident he was in the old house and not went for cutting of kodo crop. In cross-examination, after being declared hostile in part, she admitted that after discovering the body, she saw her father-in-law leaving the new house. This witness also confirmed that the open courtyard of the house was such that no one could see the incident from 9 CRA No.1957 of 2022 the kodo field. During cross-examination by defense, she reiterated that she did not witness the murder and only informed the Kotwar that her mother-in-law had been killed. She also mentioned that many people in the village had similar gadassa tools. This witness further affirmed that when she went to feed the baby and discovered the body, no one else was present. The accused came to the spot after the Kotwar and others arrived, and then proceeded to lodge the FIR. 14. Smt. Indermati (PW2), daughter of accused and deceased, in her examination in chief has deposed that on the date of the incident, her mother (Deceased) and sister-in-law Sunita (PW1) had gone to harvest Kodo early in the morning, while her father (appellant) remained at the old house threshing paddy. She further mentioned that it was the Kotwar who informed her about the death, after which she went to the new house and saw her mother's body lying in the courtyard, covered with cloth. She categorically denied seeing any weapon, blood, or injuries at that time. During her cross-examination and after being declared hostile, she denied having made any incriminating statements to the police, including those suggesting a quarrel between her parents, the use of gadaasa in the murder, or any confession made by her father. She disowned the critical parts of her previous police statement when confronted, including the portions which suggested that her father had committed the crime or tried to coach her and Sunita on what to say. 10 CRA No.1957 of 2022 15. Ku. Dhaneshiya (PW3), daughter of accused and deceased, in her deposition has stated that on the date of incident, she was in School and while returning from the school, the Kotwar of the Village informed her that her mother had been killed. She saw her mother (the Deceased) was lying dead in the Courtyard of the house and blood was oozing. She stated that one gadasa was in the hand of her mother. In her cross-examination, though after being declared hostile, this witness has admitted that the police personnel had not asked her about the incident. She denied that the appellant had told in front of everyone that he had killed the Deceased. She also admitted that she was unaware of the fact that the deceased was annoyed because her father used to consume Ganja. 16. Santlal (PW4), who is a neighbor of the Deceased, has deposed in his examination in chief that on the date of incident, Sunita (PW1) was shouting that someone had killed her mother-in-law. On being heard such noise, he along with some other, went to the spot and saw that the deceased was lying dead in the courtyard. He admitted that the appellant was not present at that time. When the police asked in presence of the villagers at the spot, the appellant confessed that his habit of consuming ganja frequently led to quarrels with his wife (the deceased), and that he had killed her. 11 CRA No.1957 of 2022 In cross-examination, this witness admitted that when he reached to the spot, only the daughter-in-law of the appellant was present and the appellant was not present at that time. 17. Mandavi Yadav (PW5) in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on the date of incident, daughter-in-law of the Deceased came to his house and told that someone had killed her mother-in-law. After one hour of the incident, the Kotwar and the appellant came to his house and asked to lodge the report. This witness had deposed that the appellant had told him that at the time of incident, he was present at his old house and was not present at the spot. He deposed that on the spot, the police personnel had asked the appellant in presence of the villagers at the place of occurrence, the appellant had admitted that he had committed the murder of the Deceased. In cross-examination, on being asked to this witness whether he had signed Exhibit P-4 on the instructions of the police, the witness stated that he had signed Exhibit P-4 only after the accused Mohan Ram confessed to committing the crime in their presence. He also admitted that at the place where the appellant has government land, he also has have a farm and land. It is correct that the accused has encroached upon government land near his land. 18. Tapeshwar Das (PW6) in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on the date of incident, PW1 told about the incident. This witness has 12 CRA No.1957 of 2022 admitted that while asking the appellant at the place of occurrence in presence of the villagers, initially the appellant had denied, but later on he admitted that he had killed his wife (the Deceased). In cross-examination, this witness had admitted that on the date of incident, when the police personnel asked the appellant about the incident, he had not disclosed anything, but on the next day, when the appellant was asked, he admitted to kill the Deceased. 19. Mansai (PW7), who is an agriculturist, in his examination-in-chief has deposed that on the date of incident, he was informed by the Kotwar about the murder of the Deceased. He admitted that when the police has asked the appellant he admitted to commit the murder of the Deceased in presence of the villagers. Similarly, Budhiano Bai (PW8) has deposed in her examination-in-chief that on the date of incident, she came to know about the murder of the Deceased through Village Kotwar. She also deposed that when the appellant was asked by the police personnel in presence of the villagers, he admitted to commit the murder of the Deceased. 20. Memorandum statement of the appellant is Ex.P/4. In the memorandum statement, the appellant stated that he used to take Ganja, but he was always used to be restricted by the deceased. On the date of incident, there was also have a quarrel on this issue, as such, he committed the 13 CRA No.1957 of 2022 murder of the Deceased by a Gadasa. Subsequently, the clothes stained with blood was recovered at his instance. 21. The FSL examination report in the instant case is Ex.P/22. According to the FSL, Article-A is a blood stained soil seized from the spot; Article-B is also blood stained soil; Article-C is a petticoat of the Deceased.; Article-D is a Gadasaa; Article-E shirt of the appellant; Article-F is a lungi of the appellant; Article-G is a stone; Article-H is a Sari of the Deceased; Article-I is a blouse of the Deceased; and Article- J is blood of the Deceased. According to the FSL report, all the above articles were containing blood and Article C, D & E were containing human blood. 22. On a careful analysis of the prosecution evidence, it is clear that the case primarily rests upon (i) the testimony of close family members of the deceased who turned hostile in material particulars, and (ii) the alleged extra-judicial confession said to have been made by the appellant in the presence of villagers, along with a memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 23. PW1 Sunita, PW2 Indermati, and PW3 Dhaneshiya — all related to the deceased — have not supported the prosecution’s version. PW1 admitted that she did not witness the incident, saw no one else present when she discovered the body, and stated that many villagers possessed similar gadassa tools. PW2 denied having seen any weapon, blood, or injuries, and expressly disowned her prior police statement implicating the 14 CRA No.1957 of 2022 appellant. PW3 also denied any knowledge of the occurrence and specifically refuted that the appellant made any confession in her presence. 24. The remaining material against the appellant comes from PW4 to PW8, who stated that the appellant admitted to killing the deceased when asked in the presence of villagers at or near the place of occurrence. While extra-judicial confessions are not inadmissible per se, they are considered a weak form of evidence and require cautious evaluation and corroboration by independent circumstances. In the present case, the following features weaken the evidentiary value of the alleged confession: • The confession is said to have been made in response to police questioning in the presence of villagers, making it fall within the mischief of Sections 25 and 26 of the Evidence Act unless covered by Section 27. • There is inconsistency in the witnesses’ accounts as to when and how the confession was made — PW6 stated it was on the next day, while others say it was on the same day. • The circumstances in which a person accused of murder would voluntarily confess before multiple villagers and police, without any coercion alleged, are inherently doubtful. 25. As to the memorandum statement (Ex.P/4) and recovery, the prosecution alleges that blood-stained clothes were recovered at the appellant’s instance. However, the FSL report (Ex.P/22) merely states that the shirt of the appellant contained human blood; there is no determination of the 15 CRA No.1957 of 2022 blood group, nor any scientific link between the stains and the deceased. The recovery of a gadassa (Article D) is also doubtful since the initial scene account (PW1, PW3) mentions the weapon being in the deceased’s hand. 26. The alleged motive quarrels over the appellant’s consumption of ganja is too weak and inadequately established to sustain a conviction for murder. No independent evidence proves the occurrence of such quarrels immediately before the incident. 27. In a case dependent on circumstantial evidence, the law is well settled that the chain of circumstances must be complete, conclusive, and exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1984 SC 1622). Here, the chain is broken at multiple points: absence of eyewitnesses, hostile testimony from key relatives, unreliable extra-judicial confession, doubtful recovery, and no conclusive forensic link. 28. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagroop Singh Vs. State of Punjab {(2012) 11 SCC 768} has held thus in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 & 15 which is reproduced hereunder:- “12.In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] a three-Judge Bench has laid down five golden principles which constitute the “panchsheel” in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [1973 2 SCC 793], it was opined that 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” 16 CRA No.1957 of 2022 is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to lay down that 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; that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 13. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706], this Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,the following tests must be satisfied: “10.........(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” A similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P.[(2006) 10 SCC 172]. 14. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp(4) SCC 259], it has been laid down: “4. ........that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally 17 CRA No.1957 of 2022 inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, howsoever strong they may be, to take the place of proof.” 15. In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 11 SCC 436], while dealing with the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasised that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and further the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances.” 29. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh {(2023) 5 SCC 350} has observed thus in para 27:- 27. It is important to note that the cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to accused must be adopted. 30. When the case is entirely based upon the circumstantial evidence, the chain of such circumstantial evidence in all probabilities 'must' indicate towards guilt of accused and circumstances 'must be' and not 'may be' lead towards guilt of accused. 31. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of this case, we are of the view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond the reasonable doubt and the case of the prosecution itself has negated the theory by their own evidence on record. Hence the 18 CRA No.1957 of 2022 conviction under Sections 302 & 177 of IPC deserve to be set aside. 32. For the foregoing reasons, this criminal appeal is allowed and the conviction of the appellant under 302 & 177 of IPC is hereby set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the said charges levelled against him. He is in jail. He be released forthwith, if not required in any other case. 33. Keeping in view the provisions of Section 437-A of the CrPC, the appellant is directed to forthwith furnish a personal bond in terms of Form No. 45 prescribed in the Code of Criminal Procedure of sum of Rs.25,000/- with two reliable sureties in the like amount before the 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. 34. The Trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Rahul/Gowri