Back
CHHATTISGARH HIGH COURT
Ramesh Sinha, CJ. and Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Dilip Sariwan and Ors. – Appellants
versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No.191 of 2023, CRA No.64 of 2023,
CRA No.262 of 2023, CRA No.304 of 2023,
CRA No.596 of 2023 and CRA No.753 of 2023
Decided on 20.8.2024
(A) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – It is necessary for prosecution that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established – Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take place of proof beyond reasonable doubt – Accused cannot be convicted on the ground of suspicion, no matter how strong it is – Accused is presumed to be innocent unless proved guilty beyond reasonable doubt – In a case of circumstantial evidence, it is for prosecution to establish that all links in chain of circumstances are complete leading inescapably to only hypothesis of guilt of accused leaving out any possibility of innocence.(Paras 23, 24 and 36)
(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 201/34 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Sections 103(1)/3(5)] and 238/3(5)] – Murder and disappearance of evidence – Common intention – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – Main circumstance on which Trial Judge found appellants guilty of crime is recovery of various articles at their instances – CDR and call detail records showing that on the date of incident there were conversations between accused and deceased – Prosecution has successfully proven its case by linking circumstances and establishing that facts proved are consistent only with guilt of accused persons and there is no reasonable basis for conclusion that accused persons are innocent – Trial Court has not committed any illegality or infirmity in impugned judgment – Impugned Judgment affirmed.(Paras 26, 29, 30, 43, 44 and 45)
(C) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 65B [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 63] – Admissibility of electronic evidence – Documentary evidence of an electronic record under Evidence Act, can be proved only in accordance with provisions of Section 65-B – An electronic record shall not be admitted in evidence unless requirement under Section 65-B is satisfied.(Para 34)
Result: Criminal Appeals dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Ramesh Sinha, CJ.—Since the aforesaid six criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Sessions Trial No.10/2020, they were clubbed & heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellants-Dilip Sariwan (A1), Mahendra @ Girdhari Panika (A2), Jai Prakash Yadav (A3), Tirath Lal Kashipuri (A4), Pawan Singh Marco (A5), Smt. Kamta Panika (A6) and Ritesh Verma @ Kaleji (A7) have preferred these six criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 14.12.2022 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Pendra Road in Sessions Trial No.10/2020, by which the learned trial Court has convicted appellants-Tirath Lal, Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny, Pawan Marco, Jai Prakash Yadav @ Monu and Ritesh Verma @ Kaleji for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months and RI for five years and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for three months. The trial Court has also convicted appellants Tirath Lal, Dilip Sariwan @ Sunny, Pawan Marco, Jai Prakash Yadav @ Monu, Ritesh Verma @ Kaleji, Mahendra @ Girdhari and Kamta Panika for offence under Section 120B of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for ten years and fine of Rs.1000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo RI for six months.
3. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that complainant Supet (PW-1) lodged merg intimation at Gaurela Police Station at 7.40 A.M. on 16.08.2020 to the effect that yesterday at 17.00 P.M. on 15.08.2020 his nephew deceased Durgesh Panika, resident of Kadamsara, Chhirhatola, Police Station Jaithari, village Medhuka came to his house and said that uncle give your motorcycle, his motorcycle is consuming too much oil, I will go to my in-laws village Korja, Jhagrakhand. Saying this, his nephew Durgesh took his motorcycle and left his motorcycle to his house. He does not know whether his nephew went to his in-laws village or not. On 16.08.2020 at about 7 A.M., his nephew Ajesh Kumar informed over the phone that his motorcycle bearing number was lying in the main road near Gulab Raj’s motor pump near Harratola and dead body was also lying there. When he went there, he saw that it was his motorcycle and the dead body lying was that of his nephew Durgesh Panika, on which deep wound mark was visible on the back of his head. It appeared to be a case of murder by an unknown person using a deadly weapon. Based on this information, Marg Intimation (Ex.P-1) was registered, followed by a First Information Report (Ex.P-2). The investigating officer went to the scene, conducted an inspection and prepared a spot map (Ex.P-4) and a panchnama (Ex.P-3). The body of the deceased Durgesh Panika was sent to M.C.H. Sanatorium Hospital, Gourala for postmortem, where Dr.B.S.Paikra (PW-9) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P-5) and found following injuries:-
i. Incised wound. Brain material proted out with fracture occipital bone.
ii. Incised wound vertex 5x1cm depth fracture vertex bone.
iii. Incised wound 3x 5cm with fracture frontal bone with bleeding.
iv. Abrasion over left shoulder 3x2 cm. caused by hard and rough object.
The doctor has opined that cause of death was due to head injury and the death was homicidal.
4. A spot map of the incident site, Harra Tola, was prepared by the investigating officer vide Ex.P-6. Suspicion arose due to strained relationship between the deceased and his wife, Kamata Panika, and her affair with a person named Tirath. Kamata Panika, her brother Mahendra @ Giridhari Panika, and other accused were taken into custody and questioned. The accused Tirathlal, Dilip Sariwan, Pawan Singh, Jaiprakash, and Kamata Panika stated in their memorandum that Kamata and Tirath had a love affair and they had physical relationship se
(1) Circumstantial evidence – It is necessary for prosecution that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. Suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot....
The court affirmed that circumstantial evidence, when established beyond reasonable doubt, can support convictions for murder and conspiracy, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of evidence....
The conviction of the appellants for murder and conspiracy was upheld based on circumstantial evidence, establishing a common intention to kill for financial gain through witchcraft.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, every link in the evidence chain must be fully established, with a complete narrative supporting the conclusion of guilt; mere suspicion is insuffi....
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that excludes any reasonable doubt of the accused's innocence.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond reasonable doubt.
In criminal cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must provide a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that conclusively points to the guilt of the accused, failing which the accu....
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
