Back
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.
Vijay Gandharv S/o Rohit Gandharv – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
CRA No. 352 of 2021, CRA No. 429 of 2021
Decided on : 20-09-2024
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 364, 120B, 201, and 170 – Criminal appeals against conviction for murder and related offences – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence and identification parades – The trial court found that the death of Chetan Yadav was homicidal, supported by postmortem findings and circumstantial evidence linking the accused to the crime – The court affirmed the trial court's findings, dismissing appeals of five appellants while allowing the appeal of one appellant due to lack of evidence. (Paras 1-40)
Facts of the case: The appellants were convicted for the murder of Chetan Yadav, who was abducted and later found dead. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence and identification by the complainant. (Paras 5-10)
Findings of Court: The court upheld the trial court's conviction, affirming that the evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants, except for one who was acquitted due to insufficient evidence. (Paras 35-36)
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the death (homicidal), the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence, and the validity of identification parades conducted during the investigation. (Paras 17-19)
Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated the principles governing circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of the accused. The identification process was deemed valid despite challenges. (Paras 19-20)
Result: Appeals dismissed for five appellants; one appellant acquitted. (Paras 37-40)
JUDGMENT :
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Since the aforesaid five criminal appeals have been filed against the impugned judgment dated 5.2.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Sessions Case No.19/2019, they were clubbed & heard together and being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. Appellants-Vijay Gandharv (A1), Jaypal @ Palu Kaushik (A2), Harish Sahu (A3), Vikas Sahu (A4), Siyaram Saiyyam (A5) and Pawan Nirmalkar (A6) have preferred these five criminal appeals under Section 374(2) of the CrPC questioning the impugned judgment dated 5.2.2021 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, Bemetara in Sessions Case No.19/2019, by which they have been convicted for offences under Sections 364/34, 120B, 201 and 302/34 and sentenced undergo RI for three years and fine of Rs.500/-, RI for five years and fine of 500/-, RI for two years and fine of Rs.500/-, imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months for each defaults. The trial Court has also convicted appellant-Vikas Sahu for offence under Section 170 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo RI for one year and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo SI for two months.
3. Heard Mr.Rahil Kochar, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr.Sanghrash Pandey, learned Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State on I.A.No.02/2024, which is an application for permission to change the counsel for appellant No.1 No.1-Harish Sahu.
4. On due consideration, I.A.No.02/2024 is allowed. Mr.Rahil Kochar is permitted to argue on behalf of appellant No.1-Harish Sahu in CRA No.464/2021.
5. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that complainant Hiralal Yadav went to Police Station Thankhamhariya and made a report on 04.02.2019 stating that on 03.02.2019 at 21:30 P.M., he and his family members were resting inside after dinner, meanwhile, someone knocked on the door of his house, calling out his father's name, Feru. Upon hearing the voice, the complainant opened the door and at that time, his brother Chetan Yadav also came and stood near the door, asking who had come. Three persons wearing khaki clothes were standing outside the house, who told the complainant that they were from Police Station Thankhamhariya, they have caught a thief in a gold theft case, who during questioning, named Chetan Yadav, the complainant's brother. Therefore, they need to take Chetan Yadav to Police Station Thankhamhariya for questioning. They will question him for an hour and then bring him back home and drop him off. They gave the complainant a handwritten agreement letter regarding taking his brother Chetan Yadav. After that, three men took Chetan Yadav to Hanuman temple in the village on foot. One of them walked ahead near the temple and then other two men took Chetan Yadav, seating him between them, on a motorcycle parked near the temple. After waiting for two hours for Chetan Yadav to return, complainant Hiralal along with his elder brother Mukesh Yadav and village resident, Ghanshyam Dau went to Police Station Thankhamhariya to inquire if three men in khaki clothes had brought Chetan Yadav to the police station for questioning. However, it was found that Chetan Yadav had not arrived at the police station. They then inquired in Gram Barga but could not find Chetan Yadav. Since Chetan Yadav did not return home till morning, they made a report at Police Station Thankhamhariya.
6. On 05.02.2019, Sarju Sahu, a forest guard at Police Station Singhanpuri, District Kabirdham reported that he was working as a guard in the forest and was returning home after his regular beat patrol on 04.02.2019, at around 4:45 A.M. he reached near Dhobni Patharra and saw an unknown person lying on the side of the road, badly burned and soaked in blood. On approaching, he saw a serious head injury mark and the person was dead, aged around 23 years. An unknown person had inflicted serious head injuries and burnt the deceas
The court affirmed the conviction of the appellants for murder based on circumstantial evidence and valid identification, while acquitting one appellant due to insufficient evidence.
Circumstantial evidence – Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible ....
The judgment establishes that circumstantial evidence must form a complete, unbroken chain directly linking the accused to the crime, which warranted a life sentence in this case.
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 based on circumstantial evidence, particularly the last seen theory, is valid when corroborated by subsequent events and evidence, establishing the accused's guilt beyond reasonable do....
(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....
Point of Law : Prosecution was successful in establishing the entire chain of circumstances, which lead the court to believe that there was motive behind the crime and all the accused have hatched cr....
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
