Back
2024 Supreme(Chh) 560
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, NARESH KUMAR CHANDRAVANSHI, JJ.
Shivcharan Kanwar, S/o Late Atbal Kanwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh - Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 867 of 2018
Decided on : 13-08-2024
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Sofia Khan, Advocate.
For the Respondent:Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate General, along with Mr. Sharad Mishra, Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate.
IMPORTANT POINT
The court emphasized that mere recovery of bloodstained articles and last seen evidence without corroboration is insufficient for conviction in criminal cases.
Headnote:
(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Section 374(2) – Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302/34, 201, 364 – Conviction and sentence of accused challenged – Conviction of A-1 and A-2 set aside due to lack of evidence connecting them to the crime – Conviction of A-4 set aside due to insufficient corroboration and identification of evidence. (Paras 21, 22, 37)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence – The court emphasized that mere recovery of bloodstained articles without corroborative evidence does not suffice for conviction. (Paras 16, 20)
(C) Last Seen Theory – The court reiterated that last seen evidence requires corroboration and cannot solely establish guilt. (Paras 23, 24)
Facts of the case: The accused were convicted for the murder of a minor, Suraj Dhanwar, who was abducted and killed. The prosecution's case relied on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of bloodstained articles and the last seen theory. (Paras 3, 4)
Findings of Court: The court found that the evidence presented did not sufficiently connect the accused to the crime, leading to the acquittal of all accused. (Paras 37)
Issues: The main issues were the sufficiency of evidence against the accused and the validity of the last seen theory. (Paras 12, 13)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the prosecution failed to establish a direct link between the accused and the crime, emphasizing the need for corroborative evidence in circumstantial cases. (Paras 19, 20)
Result: Appeals allowed, convictions set aside. (Paras 38)
JUDGMENT :
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. At the outset, it is apposite to take note of the fact that there were total four accused persons in the instant case, out of which only A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar, A-2 Bharat Kanwar and A-4 Bifan Kanwar have challenged their conviction and sentence by preferring the instant appeal, whereas A-3 Rammin has not preferred any appeal against her conviction and sentence awarded by the impugned Judgment dated 20.4.2018.
2. Assail in the present criminal appeal, under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (‘CrPC’, in brief) by A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar, A-2 Bharat Kanwar and A-4 Bifan Kanwar is to the impugned Judgment dated 20.4.2018 passed by learned Third Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, District Surguja (Trial Court) in Sessions Case No.105 of 2016, by which A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar and A-2 Bharat Kanwar each of them has been convicted for offence under Sections 302/34 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (‘IPC’, in brief) and A-4 Bifan Kanwar has been convicted for offence under Sections 364, 302/34 and 201 of IPC and they have been sentenced thereunder as mentioned in the chart given below:-
| A-1 Shivcharan Kanwar & A-2 Bharat Kanwar | |
| Conviction | Sentence |
| 1.Under Section 302/34 IPC. | 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months, in default of payment of fine. |
| 2.Under Section 201 IPC | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years. 2. Fine of Rs.100/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month, in default of payment of fine. |
| With a direction to run both the sentences concurrently. | |
And
| A-4 Bifan Kanwar | |
| Conviction | Sentence |
| 1. Under Section 364 IPC. | 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months, in default of payment of fine. |
| 2.Under Section 302/34 IPC. | 1. Imprisonment for Life. 2. Fine of Rs.200/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 2 months, in default of payment of fine. |
| 3.Under Section 201 IPC. | 1. Rigorous Imprisonment for 3 years. 2. Fine of Rs.100/-. 3. Rigorous Imprisonment for 1 month, in default of payment of fine. |
| With a direction to run all the sentences concurrently. | |
Factual backdrop of the prosecution case, in brief:-
3. On 13.5.2016 at about 5:30 a.m. from Vasen Bhudsari Raed river in Village Tunga under the jurisdiction of Police Station Lakhanpur, District Surguja, the four accused persons in the instant case are said to have abducted Suraj Dhanwar (deceased), who was aged about 13 years, from his lawful guardianship in order to commit human sacrifice and thereafter, in furtherance of their common intention, they committed murder of Suraj Dhanwar by cutting his throat by sharp edged weapon i.e., gandasa, and further in order to screen themselves from legal punishment they cause the evidence of his murder to disappear by concealing his dead body.
4. According to the prosecution, PW-4 Chamru Singh Dhanwar, father of deceased Suraj Dhanwar, had reported the matter at Police Station informing that his son, deceased Suraj Dhanwar was residing with her sister PW-5 Budhwaro Bai and her husband PW-6 Baisakhu at Village Nawapara (Lamchora) under Police Station Morga. On 11.5.2016 at about 6:00 pm, he was informed by PW-3 Chaitram that his son, deceased Suraj Dhanwar, was kidnapped by some unknown person. On the next day, he inquired about his son from his sister PW-5 Budhwarao Bai and PW-6 Baishaku who informed him that he was taken by some boy and thereafter on the report of PW-4 Chamru Singh Dhanwar, FIR under Section 363 of IPC was registered vide Crime No.49/2016 at Police Station Bango vide Exhibit P-43. On 13.5.2016, at around 5:30 a.m. in the morning, dead-body of deceased Suraj Dhanwar was noticed by PW-1 Bodhoram near Raed river, Tunga under Police Station Lakhanpur and on his information Merg was registered vide Exhibit P-1 on the same day at 8:40 a.m. and thereafter FIR w
