Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
Prabhu Nath Singh S/o Late Shyam Raj Singh - Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Sirgitti – Respondent
CRA No. 2330 of 2023, CRA No. 388 of 2024, 415, 495 of 2024
Decided On : 09-05-2024
JUDGMENT :
Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
1. All the above appeals are arising out of common Crime number, and common Session Trial, therefore, they are being heard and decided collectively.
2. These appeals are being filed by the respective appellants under Section 374(2) CrPC challenging their conviction and sentence dated 06.12.2023, passed by the 4th Additional Session Judge, Bilaspur, in Session Trial No. 35 of 2020, whereby the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as below:
| Name of the appellant | Conviction | Sentence |
| Prabhunath Singh (CRA-2330 of 2023) | Under Section 302/120B of the IPC (wrongly mention 102B in the impugned judgment) | Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation |
| Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo and Vimal @ Vimlesh Singh (CRA-388 of 2024) | Under Section 302 in alternate, 302/120-B of the IPC | Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation |
| Only for Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo | Under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC | RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation |
| Only for Mithilesh Singh @ Babloo | Under Section 25(1-B)(a) of the Arms Act | RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation |
| Babu Pandey, @ Ghanshyam Upadhyay (CRA- 415 of 2024) | Under Section 302 of the IPC, alternatively, 302/120B of the IPC | Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation |
| Under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC | RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation | |
| Anup Kumar Tiwari @ Golu (CRA-495 of 2024) | Under Section 302/120B of the IPC | Life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- with default stipulation |
| Under Section 201 read with Section 120-B of the IPC | RI for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation | |
| Under Section 25(1B)(a) of the Arms Act | RI for one year and to pay fine of Rs.500/- with default stipulation |
3. Brief facts of the case are that on 10.04.2018, PW-2, Devendra Nirmalkar, saw a dead-body of unknown male near Fadhakhar-Mahmand road, and gave Merg intimation Ex.P-2 to the Police Station Sirgitti, Bilaspur. The Police personnel went to that place, after calling the witnesses, Inquest Ex.P-6 was prepared in their presence. The deadbody was sent for its post-mortem to the District Hospital, Bilaspur, where PW-20, Dr Mayank Shrivastava has conducted the post-mortem of the dead-body, and gave his report Ex.P-65. While conducting post-mortem, the doctor has found various injuries on the body of the deceased, including fracture of Skull-bone, and opined that cause of death was Coma due to head injury by hard and blunt object, and the death was homicidal in nature. The time gap between the death and the post mortem is 2-4 days prior to the autopsy of the dead-body. Short postmortem report, Ex.P-67 has also been obtained by the Police from the doctor. Query was raised by the Police from the doctor who conducted the post-mortem, that whether the injuries found on the body of the deceased can be caused by gun-shot injury by country made pistol or not. While replying the query, the doctor has opined that the above injuries may be caused by Desi Pistol and the query report is Ex.P-66. Fist Information Report (FIR), Ex.P-35 has been recorded on 10.04.2018 for commission of offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC against unknown persons. Spot Map, Ex.P-36 was prepared by the Police, and Ex.P-18 was prepared by the Patwari. During the investigation, appellant Harish Paswan (since dead) has been taken into custody and he was interrogated by the Police. His memorandum statement, Ex.P-1 was recorded on 26.08.2018 at about 15:00 hours, in which he disclosed the entire episode of the incident. In his memorandum statement, he disclosed the names of other accused persons, with whom he conspired and then, the Police have taken
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.
The prosecution must establish a complete and cogent chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt; mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.
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....
(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....
In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
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.
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
