IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.
Dashrath Das, S/o Sahdev Das – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Cr. A. Nos. 1187, 1506, 1560 & 1691 of 2018
Decided on : 24-09-2024
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 364A, 201 & 120B – Conviction of four accused for kidnapping and murder of minor Sourabh Kerketta – Prosecution failed to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt due to lack of direct evidence and inconsistencies in witness testimonies – Convictions set aside. (Paras 32, 33)
Facts of the case: The appellants were accused of abducting and murdering a minor for ransom, with the prosecution relying on circumstantial evidence including a threatening letter and recovery of the body. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court: The court found that the prosecution did not prove the chain of circumstances necessary for conviction, including the authenticity of the threatening letter and the recovery of the body. (Paras 32, 33)
Issues: The main issues included the admissibility of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof on the prosecution. (Paras 14, 32)
Ratio Decidendi: The court emphasized that circumstantial evidence must be conclusive and that the prosecution failed to meet the burden of proof required for conviction. (Paras 14, 32)
Result: Appeals allowed; all accused acquitted. (Paras 34)
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. Assailing the legality, validity and correctness of the Judgment dated 30.6.2018 passed by learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.240 of 2012, the present batch of four criminal appeals filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short, CrPC) has been filed by A-1 Deepak Kumar who has preferred Cr.A. No.1691/2018, A-2 Dashrath Das who has filed Cr.A. No.1187/2018, A-3 Rajendra Das who has moved Cr.A. No.1560/2018 and A-4 Sanjay Das who has filed Cr.A. No.1506/2018, whereby the aforesaid four accused/appellants have been convicted for offences under Sections 302, 364A, 201 & 120B read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short, IPC) and sentenced thereunder as mentioned at the cart given below:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. Under Section 302/34 of IPC. | 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.100/-. 3. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month. |
| 2. Under Section 364A/ 34 of IPC. | 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.100/-. 3. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month. |
| 3. Under Section 201/34 of IPC. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 05 years. 2. Fine of Rs.100/-. 3. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month. |
| 4. Under Section 120B/ 34 of IPC. | 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.100/-. 3. In default of payment of fine, to undergo additional Rigorous Imprisonment for 01 month. |
| With a direction to run all Sentences concurrently. | |
Factual matrix of the prosecution case, in brief:-
2. On 10.4.2012, all the four appellants herein, in furtherance of their common intention, are said to have abducted the minor victim Sourabh Kerketta for ransom after his school time and took him to the hill side and after making him to consume cold drink with pesticide and sleeping pills and after he became unconscious, crushed his head with stone and cut his throat by blade and thereafter in order to screen themselves from legal punishment threw his dead-body into the deep of Ara Hills to disappear the evidence of his murder, thereby committed the aforesaid offences.
3. PW-1 Lalsai Kerketta, father of deceased Sourabh Kerketta, lodged FIR (Ex.P-1) at Police Station Ambikapur stating inter-alia that his son, Sourabh Kerketta, did not return home after his school time got over at 1:30 p.m. and a ransom call was made on the landline phone no.9301705431 of his house by some unknown person from Mobile SIM No.8516048405 asking his wife, PW-2 Nirmala Kerketta, to collect a letter from the compound of their house and on the information of his wife he reached home and thereafter the report was lodged suspecting the kidnap of his son for ransom on the basis of said letter threatening them of dire consequences and also demanding for Rs.70 Lakh in lieu of releasing his son Sourabh Kerketta. Pursuant to Ex.P-3, the said threatening letter written with red ink along with an envelope was recovered from the possession of PW-1 Lalsai Kerketta. The said threatening letter has been brought on record as Ex.P-4. Six specimen writings of the said ransom letter (Ex.P-4) were got written by A-1 Deepak Kumar at the premises of the Police Station and seized vide Ex.P-17 and the same have been marked as documents S-1 to S-6. The opinion and the report of the Hand Writing Expert, Shri R.K. Alma, Additional State Examiner of Questioned Document, Government of Chhattisgarh, Raipur in respect of the handwriting identification of the documents S-1 to S-6 and Ex.P-4 has been brought on record, though it has not been exhibited.
4. Memorandum statement of A-1 Deepak Kumar has been recorded vide Ex.P-7, pursuant to which a bottle of thumps up cold drink having smell of pesticide, a small plastic bottle of frooti con
Ajay Kumar Parmar v. State of Rajasthan
Balwan Singh v. State of Chhattisgarh
Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa
Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of Police
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
The prosecution must establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt, particularly in cases relying on circumstantial evidence, which must be conclusive and consistent.
The judgment establishes the importance of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to explain incriminating circumstances, and the admissibility of electronic evidence under Section 65B(4)....
(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 prosecution must establish an unbroken chain of evidence beyond reasonable doubt for conviction, failing which the accused is entitled to acquittal.
The prosecution failed to establish the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, lacking sufficient evidence to prove motive or a complete chain of circumstantial evidence.
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 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.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.