SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2025 Supreme(Chh) 81

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR 
SHRI RAMESH SINHA, CHIEF JUSTICE, SHRI RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, JUDGE
Narendra Prasad Shreevas S/o Late Dataram Shreevas Hakradhari - Appellant 
Versus 
State of Chhattisgarh, Through - Station House Officer, Police Station, Khallari - Respondent
CRA No. 833 of 2021, CRA No. 838 of 2021 
Decided on : 04-03-2025


Advocates:
Advocate Appeared:
For the Appellant :Ms. Smita Jha, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate

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.

Headnote:

(A) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 120

(B), 302/34, 201/34 - Conviction for murder and conspiracy - Appellants convicted for conspiring to murder Jagdish Minj for financial gain through witchcraft - Evidence largely circumstantial, including recovery of incriminating articles and circumstantial evidence linking accused to the crime. (Paras 3, 4, 19, 44)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Principles for conviction based on circumstantial evidence established - Court must ensure that all circumstances are consistent with guilt and exclude any reasonable doubt of innocence. (Paras 20, 28)

(C) Acquittal - Acquitted co-accused due to lack of evidence linking them to the conspiracy - Confessions of some accused not sufficient to implicate others without corroborative evidence. (Paras 18, 19)

Facts of the case:
The appellants were found guilty of murdering Jagdish Minj, having lured him to believe he could turn Rs.3 lakhs into Rs.1 Crore through sorcery, leading to his death. The deceased was killed by slitting his throat after being made unconscious.

Findings of Court:
The trial court found the death to be homicidal and that the appellants acted with a common intention to kill.

Issues: The court addressed whether the trial court was justified in its findings of guilt based on circumstantial evidence and the nature of the deceased's death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court affirmed the trial court's findings, emphasizing that the circumstantial evidence presented was sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeals dismissed.

Judgment :

(Ramesh Sinha, CJ.)

1. Regard being had to the similitude of the questions of facts and law involved, as both these appeals are clubbed together being arising out of a common crime vide impugned judgment dated 14.06.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh in Sessions Trial No.19/2018, these appeals have been clubbed together, heard together and are being decided by this common judgment.

2. It has been reflected from the impugned judgment that appellants-Madanlal Dhruv (A-4), Virendra Kosle (A-5) and Manharah Goswami (A-6) have been acquitted by the trial Court.

3. Appellant-Ramavtar Chakradhari (A-1) has preferred Criminal Appeal No.833/2021 and appellants-Narendra Prasad Shreevas (A-2) and Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan (A-3) have preferred Criminal Appeal No.838/2021, under Section 374 (2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘ Cr.P.C .’) questioning the impugned judgment dated 14.06.2021 passed by the First Additional Sessions Judge, Mahasamund in Sessions Trial No.19/2018, by which the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellants-Ramavtar Chakradhari (A-1), Narendra Prasad Shreewas (A-2) and Mohd. Murtaja @ Bablu Khan (A-3) as under :-

ConvictionSentence
Under Section 120(B) of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:Rigorous imprisonment for 5 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.
Under Section 302/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:Imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 3 months.
Under Section 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860:Rigorous imprisonment for 3 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 1 month.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently

4. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that, the appellants on or before 12.01.2018, near Senha tree on the old stairs of the Khallari temple hill situated at village Khallari within the jurisdiction of Police Station Khallari, District Mahasamund, had planned to murder deceased Jagdish Minj and sacrifice him for making money fall through witchcraft, and to incite deceased Jagdish Minj to bring the money by deceiving him that his money would be converted into Rs.1 Crore by the said act of falling, and instigated him to come to the incident site i.e. Khallari temple hill as also took the money brought by the deceased with dishonest intent and destroyed the evidence of the said crime. In furtherance of the said common intention, they asked for Rs.3 lakhs from deceased Jagdish Minj and lured him that his money would turn into Rs.1 Crore by the process of sorcery, upon which, Rs.3,01,500/- brought by him and in order to steal the money brought by deceased Jagdish Minj or to take away the money obtained by theft, they voluntarily caused dacoity by causing the death of Jagdish Minj and on the said date, time and place of the said incident, together formed a common intention to kill deceased Jagdish Minj as also offered him as a human sacrifice in order to extract money through witchcraft and in furtherance of the said common intention, by feeding poisonous insecticide to deceased Jagdish Minj, making him unconscious, they slit his throat with an iron axe and causing his death and killing him.

5. It is an admitted fact in the case that on 24.01.2018, accused Ramavtar Chakradhari were arrested on the charge of murder of Jagdish Minj at 13.10, Narendra Prasad Shreevas at 13.15, Mohd. Murtaza alias Bablu Khan at 13.20, Manharan Goswami at 13.30, Madanlal Dhruv at 13.40, Virendra Kumar Kosle at 13.50, duly informing the reasons for arrest in the arrest memo as per Ex.P./17 to Ex.P./22 respectively. Ravishankar Chakradhari and Arjun Sahu know the accused Ramavtar Chakradhari who lived in Mandir Hasaud in their locality. Deceased Jagdish Minj and accused Virendra Kosle were colleagues in the Government School of village Tulsi

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top