Chaitram and Ors. Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

NAFR

¶3

Digitally VISHAKHA signed by BEOHAR VISHAKHA BEOHAR

¶4

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶5

CRA No. 1060 of 2015

¶6

Judgment Reserved on 22.09.2025

¶7

Judgment Delivered on 16.10.2025

¶8

1 – Chaitram, S/o Daroga Baiga, aged about 22 Years, 2 – Dhaniram, S/o Ramprasad, aged about 26 Years, 3 – Kartik, S/o Daroga Baiga, aged about 25 Years,

¶9

All are R/o Bamhantaraa, Police Station Taregaon Jungel, District Kabirdham, Chhattisgarh

¶10

... Appellants

¶11

versus

¶12

1 - State of Chhattisgarh, Through Station House Officer Police Station Taregaon Jungle, District Kabirdham,

¶13

... Respondent

¶14

For Appellants : Mr. Rajkumar Pali, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Ankur Kashyap, Dy. G.A.

¶15

Division Bench Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey, J. & Hon'ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

¶16

CAV Judgment

¶17

Per, Amitendra Kishore Prasad, J.

¶18

2

¶19

1. In this appeal filed under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C., the appellants have challenged the legality, validity and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 19.08.2015 passed by the Sessions Judge Kabirdham (Kawardha) C.G. in Sessions Case No.16/2015, whereby and whereunder, the appellants stand convicted and sentenced as under:-

¶20

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 302 read with	Imprisonment for life
Section 34 of Indian Penal Code
(for short, ‘IPC’)
Under Section 201 of IPC	Rigorous Imprisonment for seven years
Under Section 120-B of IPC	Imprisonment for life

¶21

(All sentences were directed to run concurrently)

¶22

2. The brief facts of the prosecution case are that on 19th February 2015, PW-1 Suraj Singh lodged a report at Police Station Taregaon Jungle stating that his brother, Dukhi Ram (deceased), was found hanging from a jamun tree near Mahavir Minerals Camp at village Bamhantara. On the basis of this report, merg intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1, inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P-3, and the dead body of the deceased was sent for post-mortem examination, which was conducted by PW-13 Dr. Sulabha Ahluwaliya. She has

¶23

3

¶24

proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-4) and opined that the cause of death was sudden cardio-respiratory arrest and that the mode of death was homicidal in nature. During investigation, it emerged that accused/appellant No.1 Chaitram @ Maru had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased, while both the deceased and accused/appellant No.2 Dhaniram were involved with one Siyabati, whom the deceased intended to marry. It further came to light that two days prior to the incident, a dispute had taken place between the deceased and Chaitram. On the intervening night of 18th–19th February 2015, the deceased consumed liquor with accused/appellant No.3 Kartik, who at about 3:00 a.m. informed PW-3 Dhiru of the alleged hanging. The prosecution alleges that all three appellants/accused persons, in furtherance of their common intention and pursuant to a criminal conspiracy, strangulated the deceased to death and thereafter hanged his body on a jamun tree in order to destroy evidence of the crime, thereby committing offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 120B read with Section 34 IPC.

¶25

3. During the investigation, a spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-11. A scarf found tied around the neck of the deceased, a beer bottle, and disposable glasses were seized from the place of occurrence vide Exs.P-9. Additionally, the deceased’s mobile phone and a pair of slippers were seized vide Ex.P-12. Furthermore, two mobile phones were seized from accused Dhaniram vide Ex.P-13, and one mobile phone each was seized from accused Chaitram and accused Kartik

¶26

4

¶27

vide Exs.P-14 and P-15, respectively. Their call details were also obtained.

¶28

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 abjured their guilt and entered into defence by stating that they have not committed the offences.

¶29

5. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence, examined as many as 15 witnesses in support of its case and exhibited 29 documents Exs.P-1 to P-23 as well as Articles A-1 to A-5. However, the appellants in support of their defence have examined none but exhibited only one document i.e. Ex.D-1.

¶30

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 Cr.P.C.

¶31

7. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the learned trial Court has erred in convicting and sentencing the appellants for the aforesaid offences as the prosecution has failed to establish the charges beyond reasonable doubt. He would further submit that the prosecution's case is based entirely on a weak and incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, which falls short of pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellants. He would also submit that the crucial

¶32

5

¶33

circumstance of the appellants being "last seen together" with the deceased has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. He would further contend that no clear or established motive has been attributed to the appellants and the alleged call detail records have not been duly proved in accordance with law. 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. Reliance has been placed upon the decisions of Supreme Court in the matters of Arjun Marik v.

¶34

State of Bihar reported in 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372, State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran reported in (2007) 3 SCC 755, Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan reported in (2014) 4 SCC 715, Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam reported in (2017) 14 SCC 359, and also in the matter of Rambraksh @ Jalim vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2016) 12 SCC 251.

¶35

8. Learned counsel for the State would support the impugned judgment and submit 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.

¶36

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.

¶37

10. The first question for consideration would be whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which has been answered by the

¶38

6

¶39

trial Court in affirmative relying upon the postmortem report (Ex.P-4) proved by PW-13 Dr.Sulabha Ahluwaliya, 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.

¶40

11. Now, the question would be whether the appellants are the author of the crime in question?

¶41

12. The first question that arises for our consideration is whether the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons. According to the prosecution, PW-1 Suraj Singh, the brother of the deceased, has been projected as the ‘last seen’ witness who allegedly saw the deceased in the company of the accused shortly before his death. Although he has stated in his testimony that he knows the appellants, but a careful perusal of his statement reveals that he has not, at any point, specifically asserted that he saw the deceased last in the company of the accused. Furthermore, it is only after the postmortem report that he came to know the deceased had not committed suicide by hanging, but had in fact been strangled to death. In the absence of a categorical assertion regarding the ‘last seen’ circumstance, the prosecution has failed to establish PW-1 as a credible witness in this regard. Consequently, the theory of the deceased being ‘last seen together’ with the accused remains unsubstantiated through his evidence.

¶42

13. In addition, the prosecution has presented PW-2 Tiharobai, the wife of the deceased, as another ‘last seen’ witness. In her examination-in-

¶43

7

¶44

chief, she stated that the deceased had gone along with appellant No.2Dhaniram, towards the fields across the road and did not return for the entire night. However, during her cross-examination, she admitted that her husband had, in fact, returned home with appellant No.2- Dhaniram at around 8–9 p.m., and thereafter, both of them went out again. She further stated that she subsequently went to sleep inside the house with her child and was unaware of where her husband and Dhaniram went thereafter. Her own testimony, therefore, establishes that she did not see the deceased last in the company of appellant No.2, as she lost sight of them thereafter. In light of these material contradictions, her version does not inspire confidence and cannot be relied upon to establish the ‘last seen together’ circumstance. Accordingly, her testimony does not sufficiently support the prosecution's theory and is not considered reliable.

¶45

14. In the matter of Arjun Marik (Supra) , it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that conviction cannot be made solely on the basis of theory of 'last seen together' and observed in paragraph 31 as under :-

¶46

“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 though a number of witnesses have been examined be the evidence of the appellants having been seen last together with the deceased.

¶47

8

¶48

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.”

¶49

15. Likewise, in the matter of Sanjay Thakran (Supra), the Supreme Court has held that the circumstance of last seen together would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of crime in the intervening period. It was observed in paragraph 34 as under :-

¶50

“34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the circumstance of last-seen together would normally be taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of the offence charged with when it is established by the prosecution that the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were found together alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small that possibility of any other person being with the deceased could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and the detection of the crime would be a material consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But, in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen together is to be rejected merely

¶51

9

¶52

because the time gap between the accused persons and the deceased last seen together and the crime coming to light is after a considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of circumstance of last seen together, although there is long duration of time, can be considered as one of the circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in the intervening period, the proof of last seen together would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in exclusive possession of the place where the incident occurred or where they were last seen together with the deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time gap would not affect the prosecution case. ”

¶53

10

¶54

16. Similarly, in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal (Supra) , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that 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 and there must be something more establishing connectivity between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the part of the appellant in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant. It has been held in paragraphs 14 and 15 as under :-

¶55

“14. 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 Rajasthan¹ .

¶56

15. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is not possible to sustain the impugned judgment and sentence. This appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant-accused Kanhaiya Lal are set aside and he is acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of doubt. He is directed to be released from the custody forthwith unless required otherwise.”

¶57

1 (2010) 15 SCC 715

¶58

11

¶59

17. In the matter of Anjan Kumar Sarma , their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that in a case where other links have been satisfactorily made out and circumstances point to guilt of accused, circumstance of last seen together and absence of explanation would provide an additional link which completes the chain. In absence of proof of other circumstances the only circumstance of last seen together and absence of satisfactory explanation, cannot be made basis of conviction.

¶60

18. Also, the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Kanhaiya Lal (Supra) 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 sufficient to convict the accused for an offence under Section 302 IPC. The following passage from the judgment in paras 12 and 15 can be profitably referred:

¶61

“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, in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead to proof of guilt against the appellant.

¶62

15. The theory of last seen-the appellant having gone with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is the singular piece of

¶63

12

¶64

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".

¶65

19. Similarly, the Hon’ble Apex Court in Rambraksh (supra) has reiterated above legal position in the following words in paras 12 and 13, which has been held as under:-

¶66

"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 timegap, 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 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.

¶67

13

¶68

13. In a similar fact situation this Court in Krishnan v. State of T.N. (2014) 12 SCC 279 held as follows: (SCC pp. 284-85, paras 21-24)

¶69

"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 p. 385, para 31)

¶70

' 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.'

¶71

22. This Court in Bodhraj v. State of J&K, (2002) 8 SCC 45 held that: (SCC p. 63, para 31)

¶72

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.'

¶73

14

¶74

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.

¶75

23. There is unexplained delay of six days in lodging the FIR. As per prosecution story the deceased Manikandan was last seen on 4-42004 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.

¶76

24. In Jaswant Gir v. State of Punjab, (2005) 12 SCC 438, this Court held that in the 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."

¶77

20. Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the aforementioned authoritative pronouncement, it is quite evident that the prosecution has failed to establish, by leading cogent, reliable, and convincing evidence, that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons immediately prior to his death. The two principal witnesses projected by the prosecution in support of the ‘last seen’

¶78

15

¶79

theory—PW-1 (Suraj Singh) and PW-2 (Tiharobai)—have both failed to withstand the test of credibility. In view of these material discrepancies and contradictions, the prosecution has not discharged the burden of proving the crucial link of ‘last seen together’. Sole reliance on the weak, inconsistent, and uncorroborated testimony of the alleged ‘last seen’ witnesses is grossly insufficient to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.

¶80

21. As regards the alleged motive behind the commission of the offence, the prosecution has sought to attribute the motive to accused/appellant No.1 Chaitram @ Maru, alleging that he had illicit relations with the wife of the deceased. It is further alleged that due to this, the deceased would often get angry, which led to quarrels between the deceased and the accused. The prosecution claims that, although a compromise was allegedly reached between them at some point, but this strained relationship ultimately led the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased. However, upon careful scrutiny of the evidence available on record, it is evident that the prosecution has failed to substantiate this alleged motive with any cogent, reliable, or corroborative material. No independent witness has come forward to testify regarding the alleged illicit relationship between appellant No.1 and the wife of the deceased. Moreover, the wife of the deceased, who could have been a key witness on this aspect, has not made any categorical statement in her testimony supporting the prosecution’s version of the motive. There is also no evidence of any prior complaint, confrontation, or incident that may lend credibility to the claim of ongoing animosity or strained

¶81

16

¶82

relations between the deceased and the accused based on this alleged relationship. It is well settled in criminal jurisprudence that while motive is not a sine qua non for conviction where the case is based on direct evidence, but in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, motive assumes greater significance and often acts as a crucial link in the chain of circumstances. In the present case, where the prosecution relies entirely on circumstantial evidence and the ‘last seen together’ theory has already been found unreliable, the absence of a proven motive further weakens the prosecution's case. In light of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to establish any credible or convincing motive on the part of the accused persons to commit the murder of the deceased. The alleged motive remains unsubstantiated and cannot be treated as a proven circumstance capable of forming part of a complete chain pointing unerringly to the guilt of the accused.

¶83

22. In addition to the aforementioned lapses, it is pertinent to note that while the prosecution claims to have seized a beer bottle, disposable glasses, the deceased’s mobile phone and a pair of slippers from the place of occurrence, as well as two mobile phones from accusedDhaniram and one mobile phone each from accused Chaitram and accused Kartik, but the evidentiary value of these recoveries is substantially diminished due to serious flaws in the investigation. PW-14 K.S. Nagwanshi, the Investigating Officer, in his cross-examination, made several crucial admissions that severely undermine the credibility and utility of the alleged recoveries. He admitted that he seized three

¶84

17

¶85

beer bottles and disposable glasses not from the actual spot of the incident but from a vacant land located behind the appellants’ house. This raises a serious doubt as to whether the said items were in fact connected with the crime or planted thereafter, as there is no linkage established between these items and the deceased or the incident in question. More significantly, PW-14 further admitted that no inquiry was made from Lava mobile phone company regarding the ownership and usage details of the mobile phone allegedly seized from accusedChaitram. He also admitted that no steps were taken to verify the ownership of the SIM card bearing number 7879192316, which was seized along with the said mobile phone. Similarly, he did not investigate the mobile phone and SIM number 7898699032 seized from accused- Kartik, nor did he verify the ownership of SIM number 7024609596 seized from accused-Dhaniram. In the absence of any such verification, the prosecution failed to establish any nexus between these mobile phones/SIMs and the commission of the offence or communication with the deceased. It is a well-established principle that in cases relying on electronic evidence, particularly mobile call records and location tracking, it is incumbent upon the Investigating Officer to authenticate such data by verifying the ownership of the devices and SIM cards, obtaining call detail records (CDRs) from authorized service providers, and correlating them with the time and location of the alleged crime. In the instant case, the prosecution failed to produce any such verifiable and admissible record. As a result, the so-called call details, marked as Articles A-1 and A-2, are rendered irrelevant and devoid of

¶86

18

¶87

any evidentiary value. In addition to the above investigative lapses, the Investigating Officer (PW-14) further admitted that the First Information Report (FIR) in the present case was lodged only on 24.02.2015, after receiving the post-mortem report dated 19.02.2015. This unexplained and inordinate delay in lodging the FIR, despite the discovery of the body on an earlier date, casts a serious shadow over the authenticity and spontaneity of the prosecution’s case. Such delay, particularly in a case of alleged murder, provides room for manipulation, afterthought, or fabrication of evidence, and further weakens the prosecution's version. In view of the foregoing, it is clear that the investigation in this case suffers from grave deficiencies. The failure to properly investigate the origin and ownership of seized mobile phones and SIM cards, the doubtful location of recovered items, the absence of corroborative electronic evidence and the unjustified delay in filing the FIR collectively create serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution’s case. These lapses go to the root of the matter and substantially impair the prosecution’s ability to establish the guilt of the accused persons beyond reasonable doubt.

¶88

23. 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.

¶89

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 Maharashtra2 which constitute the

¶90

2 (1984) 4 SCC 116

¶91

19

¶92

‘panchsheel’ of proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence and same read as under:-

¶93

“153.…. (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

¶94

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:

¶95

"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."

¶96

(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,

¶97

20

¶98

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

¶99

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

¶100

(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.”

¶101

25. In the light of aforesaid decisions of the Hon’ble Supreme Court, it is quite evident that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that unerringly point to the guilt of the accused persons. The theory of the deceased being ‘last seen together’ with the accused persons remains unsubstantiated; the alleged motive is vague and unproven; and the investigation is marred by significant lapses, including the unexplained delay in lodging the FIR and failure to verify critical electronic evidence such as mobile phone and SIM ownership. In a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence, such omissions are fatal. It is a well-settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that the prosecution must establish its case beyond reasonable doubt. That standard has clearly not been met in the present matter. Consequently, the accused persons are entitled to the benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted of the charges levelled against them.

¶102

21

¶103

26. 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 appellants are acquitted of the aforesaid charges on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶104

27. The appellants are reported to be on bail. Keeping in view the provision of Section 437-A of Cr.P.C., the appellants are directed to forthwith furnish personal bond in terms of Form No.45 prescribed in the Cr.P.C. of sum of Rs.25,000/- each with one surety each 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 appellants on receipt of notice thereof shall appear before the Hon’ble Supreme Court.

¶105

28. 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.

¶106

Sd/- Sd/-

¶107

(Rajani Dubey) (Amitendra Kishore Prasad) Judge Judge

¶108

Vishakha

Chaitram and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Chaitram and Ors. v. State Of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

What did the court decide?

Why is it important?

What the court decided

Issues for consideration

Cases cited

Statutes considered

Procedural history

Parties & counsel

Coram

Case details

Similar cases

Ram Singh Tulavi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Siddharth Shukla Vs Smt. Tishu Shukla

Rita Jalan Vs Amit Kumar Jalan

Rahul Gupta Vs Radhika Gupta

Sitaram Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Smt. Janaki Sidar Vs State of Chhattisgarh