Harish Chandra Sahu Vs State of Chhattisgarh

¶1

1

¶2

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶3

2025:CGHC:46433-DB

¶4

JYOTI SHARMA Digitally signed by JYOTI SHARMA Date: 2025.09.12 10:19:56 +0530

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

¶6

NAFR

¶7

CRA No. 427 of 2022

¶8

Harish Chandra Sahu S/o Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 25 Years R/o Vill. - Torla, P.S. Gobra Nawapara, District Raipur Chhattisgarh Presently District Gariya Bandh Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶9

... Appellant(s)

¶10

versus

¶11

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - S.H.O. Shobha, District Gariya Bandh Chhattisgarh., District : Gariyabandh, Chhattisgarh

¶12

... Respondent(s)

¶13

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

¶14

For Appellant : Mr. Ravindra Sharma, Advocate For Respondent/State : Mr. Sakib Ahmed, Advocate

¶15

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

¶16

Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶17

Judgment on Board

¶18

Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

¶19

11.09.2025

¶20

This criminal appeal, filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 21.12.2021, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Gariyaband, Dist

¶21

2

¶22

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶23

Gariyaband, C.G. in Session Trial No. 26/2019, whereby the appellantaccused has been convicted and sentenced as follows:

¶24

	Conviction	Sentence
Under	Section 302 of the IPC	Life imprisonment (twice) & fine of
(twice)		Rs.1,000/-, in default, additional
		R.I. for 01-01years.

¶25

The aforesaid sentences are directed to run concurrently

¶26

Facts of the case, in brief, is that Gokulram Netam (PW-1), who is the son of Dayaram Netam (since deceased) and Tulsa Bai Netam (since deceased), lodged a report stating therein that they have a farm in village Dumarbudra, in which his parents (deceased) have been living for the last 07-08 years by making a room. On 24/12/2018 at around 09.00 am, when he came to Dumarbudra to see his farm, he called out to his parents from outside but there was no response from inside. When there was no response, he went inside the room and saw that his parents were lying on the ground and blood was spread all around. There were injury marks on the back of his father's head from where blood was oozing and he was not moving at all, from which he came to know that his father had died. His mother Tulsi Bai was also lying dead nearby, blood was seen oozing around her head and face. On the basis of the information received, a merg was registered by the police vide Ex.P-33& 34, and a spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-23. On the basis of the memorandum Ex.P-

¶27

10, half burnt wooden stick, clothes of the deceased, soil with

¶28

3

¶29

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶30

blood stains was seized from the place of occurrence and sent for chemical examination to the FSL. The dead bodies of both the deceased were sent for postmortem, and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P-10A & Ex.P/29 in respect of Dayaram) (Ex.P-11A & Ex.P/30 in respect of Tulsa Bai), Dr. K.D. Jogi (PW22) opined that the cause of death was extensive blood loss resulting from multiple lacerated injuries present over the body. Various multiple simple and grievous injuries on the body also contributed to the death. The nature of death was homicidal in nature.

¶31

In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, wherein he denied the allegations but did not examine any witness in his defence nor produce any document in support of his case.

¶32

The learned Trial Court, after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as stated hereinabove. Aggrieved thereby, the appellant-accused has preferred the present appeal questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.

¶33

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the learned trial Court is bad

¶34

4

¶35

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶36

both on facts and in law. It is argued that the trial Court failed to properly appreciate the evidence and documents available on record, and erred in holding that the prosecution had established the case beyond reasonable doubt. The entire prosecution case rests on motive, which is unreliable, unnatural, and contrary to normal human conduct. The finding of the trial Court that the appellant intimidated the deceased to harm his limb and life, and that he was present at the place of incident, is wholly without evidence. It is further submitted that the appellant had not caused any injury to the deceased and that the so-called incriminating article seized in burnt condition was never proved to be the weapon of offence, as there is no expert opinion linking it with the injuries. The prosecution has also failed to prove that the appellant and the deceased were consuming liquor, since the medical evidence records no liquor content in the body of the deceased. In spite of these deficiencies, the trial Court wrongly convicted and sentenced the appellant without legal proof of the ingredients of the alleged offences. The prosecution case is based on an improbable and unreliable story, and therefore the conviction and sentence imposed on the appellant deserve to be set aside in the interest of justice.

¶37

Per contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence, submitting that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt by

¶38

5

¶39

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶40

adducing clinching evidence. It is argued that the learned Trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, and hence, the present appeal is liable to be dismissed.

¶41

We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection.

¶42

The first and foremost question for consideration is whether the death of both the deceased was homicidal in nature. The learned Trial Court has answered this in the affirmative, relying on the oral and documentary evidence available on record, particularly the postmortem report (Ex.P10A & Ex.P/29 and Ex.P11A & Ex.P/30), which stands duly proved by the testimony of Dr. K.D. Jogi (PW22).

¶43

On careful consideration of the postmortem reports (Ex.P10A & Ex.P/29 and Ex.P11A & Ex.P/30) and the categorical statement of Dr. K.D. Jogi (PW-22) that the death of the deceased was homicidal, we are of the considered opinion that the Trial Court was fully justified in holding so. The said finding is a correct finding of fact, based on evidence, and is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we affirm the said finding.

¶44

The next question for consideration is whether the accusedappellant herein is the author of the crime in question.

¶45

6

¶46

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶47

PW-1 son of the deceased persons deposed that his parents used to reside for about 8–9 years in a lori (hut) situated nearly 2 kilometers away from the village, while he himself resided in the village with his wife and children. He further deposed that on 23.12.2018 at about 8:00 a.m., when he went to the lori as per his daily routine, he found the dead bodies of his parents lying there. Both were lying face down and had visible injuries on the back side of their heads. On witnessing this, he immediately rushed to his elder brother and informed him about the incident. Thereafter, both of them went to their eldest brother and also informed one Parameshwar. He further stated that he went to Police Station Shobha and lodged information regarding the death of his parents and lodged FIR, wherein he did not named any person as an assailant and mentioned that the cause of death was not known. He further deposed that prior to the incident, the accused, along with 25–30 persons, had been grazing goats near the lori of his parents.

¶48

In cross-examination, PW-1 admitted that in his police statement he had stated that on 24.12.2018 at about 9:00 a.m. he had gone to the lori. He also admitted that he had told the police that on the following day the police had brought the accused to the lori, where he allegedly handed over a stick and confessed to killing his parents. He clarified that since considerable time had elapsed after the incident, he recollected this fact only when his

¶49

7

¶50

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶51

police statement was read over to him. He admitted that he had not witnessed the incident himself. He denied the suggestion that his parents used to prepare and sell liquor but admitted that they consumed liquor. He further stated that his parents were murdered at night and that he came to know of it only in the morning. He further admitted that Naxalites used to frequent visits nearby villages. He also admitted that previously Naxalites had killed a village Kotwar and other people. He admitted that his parents kept agricultural implements such as tangiya, axe, and sticks in their lori, and that sticks were normally found lying around the place. He also admitted that prior to the incident, the accused had no acquaintance, enmity, or dispute with his parents, and vice versa. He further admitted that in his police statement he had not named anyone as the assailant but had told the police that since goat grazers were staying near the lori, they might have committed the murder.

¶52

PW-2 Parmeshwar Markam deposed that he knew the accused present in Court as well as the deceased Daya Ram Netam and Tulsa Bai. He stated that while he was at his house, Gokul came at about 9:00 a.m. and informed him that his parents, Daya Ram and Tulsa Bai, had been murdered in their lori. Thereafter, he with other villagers went together to the lori of Daya Ram and found the dead bodies of Daya Ram and Tulsa Bai lying on the ground. He noticed that Daya Ram had an injury on the back of his head

¶53

8

¶54

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶55

from which blood had oozed out, and that Tulsa Bai also had an injury on the back of her head. Blood was lying near their bodies.

¶56

In cross-examination, PW-2 admitted that he did not know the exact date of the incident. He admitted that he had not witnessed the occurrence and did not know who had killed Daya Ram and Tulsa Bai. He further admitted that the lori of Daya Ram was situated in the forest at village Dumrabudra. He stated that except for goat grazers, no one else resided in the nearby forest. He also admitted that the goat grazers were people who had come from the State of Rajasthan, and apart from them, no other villagers or outsiders resided near the lori of Daya Ram.

¶57

PW-4 Prabhlal Markam deposed that about 3–4 months prior to the incident, the son of deceased had informed him that both of his parents had been killed. Thereafter, the villagers along with the family members searched in the surrounding area but, not finding any clue, went to the police station and lodged a report. He further stated that one stick (lathi) tied with cloth was found in the lori of deceased, which the police seized, and the same was said to belong to accused/ appellant. He stated that he had heard that deceased had been assaulted by accused/ appellant.

¶58

In cross-examination, PW-4 admitted that the goat-grazers residing in the area and they were all from Rajasthan and that they reared their own goats without engaging outsiders. He

¶59

9

¶60

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶61

admitted that he himself used to prepare mahua liquor at home but denied selling it or preparing it illegally. He admitted that three persons from Rajasthan had come to consume liquor and that a fourth person was also with them, whose identity and name he did not know. He further admitted that he himself had not gone to the spot and that whatever he had stated in Court was based on what he had heard from others, and that he had no personal knowledge of the occurrence.

¶62

PW-5 Jailal Netam, who is also son of the deceased, deposed that he knew the accused present in Court, and that deceased Daya Ram and Tulsa Bai were his father and mother. He further stated that her brothers informed him about the incident and when he went to the spot along with villagers, he saw the dead bodies of his parents inside the lori. He noticed injuries on the head and abdomen of his mother and an injury near the temple region of his father, with blood stains on the ground. The police also called the goat grazers (Bhediwalas) to the spot and recovered a stick (lathi) from the lori, which was said to belong to the accused. On the next day, the police brought the accused to the spot, and during interrogation the accused allegedly confessed that he had assaulted his parents, burnt fire near the bodies, and fled leaving his shawl at the place.

¶63

In cross-examination, PW-5 admitted that he was not present

¶64

10

¶65

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶66

at the time of the incident and that his evidence was based on what he had heard from others. He admitted that he had not seen the accused assaulting his parents. He further admitted that naxal activities were prevalent in the area and that earlier the village Sarpanch, Kotwar, and one youth had been killed by naxals.

¶67

PW-21 Chaituram Markam stated that on the day prior to the incident, he had seen the accused sitting near the lori of the deceased and conversing with them. He further deposed that he had gone to the lori in search of Jaylal, the son of the deceased, who is a Baiga. There he came to know that Jaylal had gone towards the camp of the shepherds (Bhediwalas). He then proceeded to the said camp where he found Jaylal, who thereafter went to the village by cycle, while PW-21 himself returned on foot. He further stated in examination-in-chief that while returning on foot towards the village before the day of the incident, he saw three to four shepherds near the lori. At that time, the accused and some other persons enquired from him whether they could get chicken there. However, in his cross examination he has admitted the fact he had no knowledge about the incident.

¶68

In the present case, though the FSL report indicates the presence of human blood on Articles A to F, except Articles D and G, there is no serologist report with regard to the blood grouping. Further,

¶69

11

¶70

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶71

the weapon used in the assault was seized from the place of occurrence and not from the exclusive possession or at the instance of the appellant. On a careful analysis of the prosecution evidence, it becomes clear that the case primarily rests upon circumstantial evidence.

¶72

In Babu v. State of Kerala reported in (2010) 9 SCC 189 , the Supreme Court has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, the onus is on the prosecution to prove that chain is complete. In such case, the burden on the prosecution is always greater and the absence of motive weighs in favour of the accused.

¶73

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 last seen witness, no motive to kill, doubtful recovery, and no conclusive forensic link.

¶74

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagroop Singh Vs. State of

¶75

Punjab {(2012) 11 SCC 768} has held thus in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 & 15 which is reproduced hereunder:-

¶76

“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

¶77

12

¶78

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶79

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” 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.

¶80

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......

¶81

(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;

¶82

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;

¶83

(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

¶84

(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.”

¶85

A similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P. [(2006) 10 SCC 172] .

¶86

13

¶87

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶88

14. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp(4) SCC 259] , it has been laid down:

¶89

“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 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.”

¶90

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.”

¶91

19. Further the Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar Vs.

¶92

State of Chhattisgarh {(2023) 5 SCC 350} has observed thus in

¶93

para 27:-

¶94

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

¶95

14

¶96

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶97

accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to accused must be adopted.

¶98

When the case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of such circumstances must, in all probabilities, point towards the guilt of the accused, and the circumstances must lead to such guilt and not merely may lead to it.

¶99

In the present matter, the prosecution has relied upon the testimonies of witnesses and the seizure of blood-stained articles i.e. wooden stick. However, there is no direct evidence to prove that the accused was last seen together with the deceased immediately prior to the incident. The FSL report only establishes the presence of human blood but fails to specify the blood grouping, thereby weakening the evidentiary value of the recoveries. Consequently, the chain of circumstances remains incomplete, and the prosecution evidence does not conclusively exclude every other hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

¶100

The prosecution has further failed to bring on record any credible evidence to establish a motive for the appellant to commit the murder of the deceased. None of the prosecution witnesses have deposed to any circumstance suggesting any animosity, dispute, or other compelling reason that might have prompted the appellant to take such an extreme step. Although motive is not an

¶101

15

¶102

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶103

essential ingredient of the offence of murder, its absence in a case based entirely on circumstantial evidence assumes significance, as it renders the prosecution version less convincing and creates a gap in the chain of circumstances sought to be proved. In the present case, the absence of any evidence relating to motive weakens the prosecution case considerably.

¶104

In view of these infirmities unsupported by any corroborative evidence, would be unsafe and contrary to the settled principles of criminal law. The absence of motive, coupled with lack of independent corroboration, creates serious doubts about the veracity of the prosecution case. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt must necessarily enure to the appellant. Accordingly, the benefit of doubt is extended to the appellant, warranting his acquittal under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (twice).

¶105

Having considered the evidence on record, this Court has already held that the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 302 IPC (twice) beyond reasonable doubt.

¶106

Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, this Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. Consequently, the conviction and sentence imposed upon him under Sections 302 of IPC (twice) cannot be sustained and are

¶107

16

¶108

CRA No.427 of 2022

¶109

liable to be set aside.

¶110

Accordingly, the appeal is allowed . The judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Gariyaband, Dist Gariyaband, C.G. in Session Trial No. 26/2019 are hereby set aside, and the appellant is acquitted of the charges. Since the appellant is in custody, he be released forthwith, if not required in connection with any other case.

¶111

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.

¶112

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.

¶113

Sd/- Sd/-

¶114

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Judge

¶115

Jyoti

Harish Chandra Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh

Case brief

What is this about?

Harish Chandra Sahu 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

Krishna Chaturvedi Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Juvenile Conflicted With Law Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Nohru Mandavi @ Nohar Singh Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Mani Yadav @ Rakesh Vs State Of Chhattisgarh

Wakeel Ahmed Vs State of Chhattisgarh

Dee Vee Projects Limited Vs Chhattisgarh Housing Board