IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, C.J., BIBHU DATTA GURU, J.
Bhojraj Nand S/o Makhansai Nand – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1461 of 2021, CRA No. 1368 of 2021
Decided on : 27-09-2024
(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34 and 120B – Conviction for murder and conspiracy – Appellants convicted and sentenced to life imprisonment for the murder of Prakash Sharma, based on circumstantial evidence and confessions of co-accused – The court emphasized the necessity of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. (Paras 2, 26, 57)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence – Principles – The court reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be cogently established and consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt, leaving no reasonable doubt regarding the innocence of the accused. (Paras 18, 20, 24)
(C) Burden of Proof – Section 106 of the Evidence Act – The court held that the burden of proving facts especially within the knowledge of the accused lies upon them, particularly when the deceased was found in their rented premises. (Paras 31, 34)
Facts of the case: The appellants were convicted for the murder of Prakash Sharma, who was found dead in the rented room of Amrit Sharma. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including confessions and the recovery of incriminating articles. (Paras 2, 26)
Findings of Court: The court found that the prosecution had established a strong case against the appellants, proving their involvement in the murder and conspiracy to kidnap for ransom. (Paras 59)
Issues: The main issues included the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence and the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act regarding the burden of proof on the accused. (Paras 18, 31)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellants beyond reasonable doubt, and the trial court's findings were upheld. (Paras 57, 59)
Result: Appeals dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld. (Paras 60)
JUDGMENT :
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Since the above-captioned appeals have arisen out of one and same judgment and since common question of fact and law is involved in these appeals, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by this common judgment.
2. These criminal appeals preferred under Section 374(2) of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 (for short, ‘CrPC’) are directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.10.2021 passed by the learned Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 159/2018, by which the appellants have been convicted for offences punishable under Sections 302/34 and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘the IPC’) sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment and fine of Rs.5,000/-, in default of payment of fine, one year additional R.I. (each appellants) and rigorous imprisonment for 07 years and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, three months additional R.I. (each appellants) with a direction to run both the sentences concurrently.
3. The prosecution's case, in brief, is that on 16.04.2018, complainant Manoj Pandey lodged a Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-3) before DD Nagar Police Station, Raipur that he lives with his family in Om Society Sundar Nagar House No. 28. His house is two storeyed and he lives with his family in the ground floor. There are two blocks on the first floor. Rakesh Pandey lives on rent in one block. The second block is vacant. There are two single rooms on the second floor. Amrit Sharma lives in one room and Rahul lives on rent in the other room for the last one and a half years. On 16.04.2018, at around 05:00 a.m., Harishchandra Nirmalkar of the locality informed his wife Sangeeta Pandey over phone that there is a crowd near his house and may be someone has been beaten up. His wife told him about it. When he went out of the house, he met with tenant Amrit Sharma. He told that at night, 4-5 unknown boys came to the upper room and tied him and his brother Prakash Sharma's hands and feet with a cloth and took them to the room of Rahul, beat him up and locked the door from outside and fled. He opened the door and came back. He told them that Prakash has to be taken to the hospital, then when he called 108 ambulance, call was connected to Madhya Pradesh, it took 5-10 minutes to transfer the call to Chhattisgarh. When the ambulance did not arrive, he came to Sundar Nagar Chowk with the residents of the locality for the doctors of the locality. When 108 ambulance was found at the Chowk, he came back with them. On checking by the ambulance doctor, Prakash Sharma was declared dead. It seems to have been murdered by some unknown person. On the report of the above, a Dehati Merg Intimation at Crime No. 0/18 was registered and on the basis same, First Information Report No.129/2018 was registered vide Ex.P-33 by Police Station DD Nagar on 16.04.2018 against the unknown accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and investigation was done.
4. Investigating officer left for scene of occurrence and after summoning the witnesses vide Ex.P-5, inquest over the dead body of the deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-6 and the dead body of the deceased was sent to Mekahara Hospital, Raipur for conducting postmortem vide Ex.P-32, wherein postmortem was conducted by Dr. Shivnarayan Manjhi (PW-14) and Dr. O.P. Tandon vide Ex.P-21 and found following injuries over the dead body of the deceased :
(ii) A contusion wound of size 1 x 1 cm on the tip of the nose, on cutting which blood was collected in the nasal septum;
(iii) Three contusion wounds of 1 cm width present on both wrists and around the forearm;
(iv) Injuries on the dorsum of both ears and a contusion of size 2 x 2 cm was present on the right scapular region.
(v) Redness due to injury on the left parietal and temporal part of the head.
All injuries were caused by hard and blun
Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab
Ashok Kumar Chatterjee v. State of M.P.
C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P.
Digamber Vaishnav Vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka
Eradu and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad
Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan
Mehboob Ali & Anr. v. State of Rajasthan
Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar
Nizam and another vs. State of Rajasthan
Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors.
Praveen alias Sonu Vs. State of Haryana
Sandeep Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh
Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra
State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava
In cases relying on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances that are consistent with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with their innocence.
Convictions based on circumstantial evidence must establish a reliable chain linking the accused to the crime beyond 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.
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....
(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 in cases of circumstantial evidence, the accused's failure to explain facts within their knowledge can lead to a presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The judgment establishes the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to shift the burden of proof to the accused in cases where they have special knowledge of the facts. It also affirms the ad....
The prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstantial evidence beyond reasonable doubt for a conviction; mere suspicion is insufficient.
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.