Dismissed

Devdas Khelkar v. State of Chhattisgarh

Chhattisgarh HC6 Jan 2026ACQA/255/2023

Case brief

AI extract

What is this about?

Appeal against acquittal of three accused charged with murder, destruction of evidence and conspiracy. The court found medical evidence did not establish homicidal death, motive rested only on memorandum statements, and the last-seen link was unproven. Applying the panchsheel principles for circumstantial evidence, it dismissed the appeal at the admission stage.

What the court decided

AI extract

Devdas Khelkar Vs State of Chhattisgarh — Murder and Culpable Homicide | Chhattisgarh HC (2026)

¶1

¶2

Digitally
signed by
AKHILESH
AKHILESH BEOHAR
BEOHAR Date:
2026.01.09
16:07:54
+0530

¶3

2026:CGHC:836-DB

¶4

NAFR

¶5

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR ACQA No. 255 of 2023

¶6

Devdas Khelkar, S/o Late Sonau Ram, aged about 47 Years, R/o Village - Devkatta, Police Station - Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. ...Appellant

¶7

versus

¶8

State of Chhattisgarh, Through the Police of Police Chowki Mohara, Police Station Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh.

¶9

Ramesh Chaturvedi, S/o Late Mohan Chaturvedi, aged about 35 Years, R/o. Village - Bafra, Police Chowki Jalbandha, Police Station Khairagarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Accused No. 1)

¶10

Santuram Barman, S/o Gautarram Barman, aged about 37 Years, R/o Raniganj, Police Chowki Mohara, Police Station Dongargarh, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Accused No. 2)

¶11

Leeja Khelkar @ Pappu, W/o Late Amarlal Khelkar, aged about 28 Years, R/o Ravidas Motipur, District - Rajnandgaon, Chhattisgarh. (Accused No.3) ... Respondents

¶12

For Appellant	:	Mr. Govind Prasad Dewangan, Advocate.
For Respondent No.1	:	Ms. Shubha Shrivastava, Panel Lawyer.

¶13

Hon'ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and

¶14

Hon'ble Shri Justice Radhakishan Agrawal

¶15

Judgment on Board

¶16

07.01.2026

¶17

Per Radhakishan Agrawal, J.

¶18

Heard on admission.

¶19

This acquittal appeal filed by the Appellant arises out of the judgment dated 27.07.2023 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Sessions Case No.18/2021,

¶20

¶21

whereby the learned trial Court acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 of the charges under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 120-B of Indian Penal Code (for short, “IPC”) on the basis of benefit of doubt.

¶22

Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.06.2021, complainant/PW-2 Bhola Ram Yadav, while grazing goats in Saja forest near Dhara Anicut drain, noticed a foul smell and found the dead body of an unknown male lying in a decomposed condition. After publication of the news in newspapers, the deceased was identified by his family members as Amarlal Khelkar, resident of village Devkatta, Police Station Dongargarh, District Rajnandgaon. On the basis of the said information, Dehati Merg Intimation (Ex.P-2) was registered at Police Station Dongargarh. Inquest proceedings (Ex.P-34) were conducted and the dead body was sent for post-mortem examination. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-1 and statements of witnesses were recorded.

¶23

During investigation, memorandum statements of accused persons were recorded vide Exs.P-6 to 8 respectively, wherein it was alleged that accused/respondent No.2- Ramesh Chaturvedi was having an illicit relationship with accused/respondent No.4- Leeja Khelkar, wife of the deceased. It was further alleged that when the deceased came to know about the same, he started objecting to it, and therefore, in order to eliminate the deceased, the accused persons called him on the pretext of work near the Dangora reservoir and strangulated him and in order to conceal the evidence, threw his dead body into the drain. On the basis of aforesaid facts, FIR (Ex.P-35) was registered against the accused persons/respondent Nos. 2 to 4 and they were taken into custody vide

¶24

¶25

Exs.P-15 to 17. From respondent No.2- Ramesh, one blue colour mobile phone bearing SIM No.6xxxxxxxx4; from respondent No.3- Santu Ram Burman, one mobile phone bearing SIM No.8xxxxxxxx7 and from respondent No.4- Leeja, one mobile phone bearing SIM Nos.6xxxxxxxx7 and 9xxxxxxxx9 were seized vide Exs.P-9 to P-11 respectively. Vide Ex.P12, one motorcycle was seized from respondent No.2- Ramesh.

¶26

After completion of the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 before the concerned trial Court. The accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 abjured their guilt and prayed for trial.

¶27

The trial Court, after hearing counsel for the parties and appreciating the evidence on record, by the impugned judgment acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 of said charges leveled against them.

¶28

Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned judgment of acquittal passed by the learned trial Court is illegal, erroneous and contrary to the evidence available on record. He further submits that the trial Court has failed to properly appreciate the prosecution evidence and has granted undue benefit of doubt to the accused persons. He also submits that there is sufficient evidence on record to establish that respondent Nos. 2 to 4 are the authors of the crime in question. He also contends that the prosecution has proved the illicit relationship between accused/respondent No.2 and accused/respondent No.4, wife of deceased, which constituted a strong motive for eliminating the deceasedAmarlal Khelkar. Therefore, the impugned judgment of acquittal suffers from perversity and illegality and is liable to be set aside.

¶29

¶30

Learned counsel for the respondent No.1/State supports the contention made by learned counsel for the appellant.

¶31

We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the material available on record.

¶32

The Supreme Court in the matter of Jafarudheen and others vs. State of Kerala¹ has considered the scope of interference in Appeal against acquittal, which reads as under:-

¶33

“25. While dealing with an appeal against acquittal by invoking Section 378 CrPC, the appellate court has to consider whether the trial court's view can be terms as a possible one, particularly when evidence on record has been analysed. The reason is that an order of acquittal adds up to the presumption of innocence in favour of the accused. Thus, the appellate court has to be relatively slow in reversing the order of the trial court rendering acquittal. Therefore, the presumption in favour of the accused does not get weakened but only strengthened. Such a double presumption that enures in favour of the accused has to be disturbed only by thorough scrutiny on the accepted legal parameters.”

¶34

The question that now arises for consideration is whether the respondents No.2 to 4 are the perpetrators of the crime in question.

¶35

Admittedly, the present case rests on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence available on record. The five golden principles, which constitute the panchsheel of proof in a case based on circumstantial evidence, have been laid down by their Lordships of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra² , wherein it was observed in paragraph 153 as under:

¶36

“153. A close analysis of this decision would show that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established :

¶37

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

¶38

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

¶39

2 (1984) 4 SCC 116

¶40

1 (2022) 8 SCC 440

¶41

¶42

between 'may be proved' and “must be or should be proved” as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra³ where the following observations were made : [SCC para 19, p. 807 : SCC (Cri) p. 1047]

¶43

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.

¶44

(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,

¶45

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

¶46

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

¶47

(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.”

¶48

As regards the medical evidence, PW-12 Dr. Shashank Bais, who conducted the post-mortem examination of the deceased, has stated that the dead body of deceased was found in a highly decomposed condition and that no external injuries were visible. He has further stated that no definite signs of strangulation could be detected as the neck muscles were decomposed. He has categorically opined that the cause of death could not be ascertained without chemical analysis. However, as per the viscera report dated 10.10.2022, no toxic substance was detected in the body of the deceased. In view of the aforesaid medical evidence, the prosecution has failed to conclusively establish that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. In the absence of proof of homicidal death, the foundation of the prosecution case becomes weak.

¶49

Furthermore, the prosecution alleged motive in the form of an illicit relationship between accused/respondent No.2 and accused/respondent No.4. However, none of the family members of the deceased, namely PW-3

¶50

3 (1973) 2 SCC 793

¶51

¶52

Santoshi, PW-4 Rambai, PW-6 Devdas and PW-10 Uma, have stated that they had any prior knowledge of such alleged relationship. The alleged motive has been sought to be established solely on the basis of the memorandum statements of the accused persons. It is well settled that a memorandum statement is not substantive evidence and, in the absence of corroboration by independent and reliable material, cannot be relied upon to prove motive. In the present case, no independent evidence has been brought on record to substantiate the existence of the alleged illicit relationship.

¶53

This apart, the prosecution also relied upon mobile phone call detail records to establish motive, conspiracy and the “last seen” circumstance. It was alleged that accused/respondent No.2- Ramesh Chaturvedi was using mobile number 6XXXXXXXX4, accused/respondent No.4 Leeja Khelkar was using mobile number 6XXXXXXXX7 & 9xxxxxxxx9, and the deceasedAmarlal was using mobile number 8XXXXXXXX7. However, the evidence regarding mobile phones suffers from serious infirmities. The SIM allegedly used by accused- Ramesh Chaturvedi was found to be registered in the name of PW-8 Santram Gaikwad, who denied having issued or handed over the said SIM to accused- Ramesh. Thus, the prosecution has failed to establish that the said mobile number was exclusively used by accusedRamesh Chaturvedi. Furthermore, independent seizure witnesses PW-5 Tularam and PW-18 Ganga Ram Khaire admitted in their evidence that the mobile phones were not seized in their presence and that the seizure memos were signed by them in police station at the behest of the police. Such admissions materially affect the credibility of the seizure proceedings. That apart, though the prosecution alleged that the mobile phone of the deceased- Amarlal was thrown by the accused persons into the Anicut

¶54

¶55

drain, but the same was never recovered, nor was any weapon of offence seized during investigation. Further, the material witnesses PW-3 Santoshi and PW-10 Uma did not state that they had seen the deceased accompanying the accused- Ramesh Chaturvedi on the date of the incident. The Investigating Officer (PW-16 Dinesh Kumar Yadav) also failed to examine any independent witness from village Devkatta to prove that the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused persons. In the absence of such evidence, the crucial link of circumstantial evidence, namely the “last seen together” theory, remains unestablished, thereby creating serious doubt in the prosecution case. If the case of the prosecution is taken as it is, then it appears that the entire case of the prosecution was made on the basis of mere suspicion, but, suspicion, however grave it may be, cannot take the place of proof.

¶56

The learned trial Court has elaborately discussed the evidence led by the prosecution and after analyzing the entire evidence led by the prosecution, came to the conclusion that there is no cogent and clinching evidence on record to show that accused persons are the perpetrators of the crime in question and as such, acquitted the accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 of the said charges, extending the benefit of doubt, as the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

¶57

After considering the material available on record as well as the elaborate judgment impugned passed by the trial Court, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish the five golden principles constituting the ‘ panchsheel’ for proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence, as enunciated by the Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra). Consequently, the impugned judgment acquitting the

¶58

¶59

accused persons/respondents No.2 to 4 of the said charges is just and proper and does not call for any interference.

¶60