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) 384

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.
Om Narayan Verma, S/o. Ramanand Verma – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through : The Station House Officer, Patharia - Respondent
CRA No. 822 of 2019
Decided On : 15-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellants :Mrs. Indira Tripathi and Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocates
For the Respondent: Mr. Vivek Mishra, P.L.

A conviction for murder based solely on circumstantial evidence, such as 'last seen together', requires a complete chain of evidence and cannot depend solely on suspicion or uncorroborated statements.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 201, 364, 302/34 and 120-B - Conviction and sentencing for murder - Accused called victim under pretext of repaying money, later killed and body disposed of - Prosecution heavily relied on circumstantial evidence - Gaps in evidence led to doubts about the guilt of the accused. (Paras 2, 14, 35)

(B) Circumstantial evidence - Requirement for establishing a complete chain of circumstances - Mere evidence of 'last seen together' is insufficient for conviction without corroborating evidence - Judgments of the Supreme Court cited on the standard required for conviction in murder cases based on circumstantial evidence. (Paras 26-34)

Facts of the case:
This appeal arises from a conviction for the murder of Bisahu Ram Verma, who went missing after being called by the accused on pretext of returning a loan. Evidence included witness statements identifying the victim’s clothing, but no direct witnesses to the crime were presented, casting doubt on the prosecution's claims.

Findings of Court:
The prosecution failed to prove that the death was homicidal and that the accused were involved beyond reasonable doubt due to insufficient evidence linking them to the crime.

Issues: Whether the accused were guilty of murder based on circumstantial evidence, namely 'last seen together' and lack of corroboration on motive.

Ratio Decidendi: The court reiterated that a conviction cannot be founded solely on the 'last seen' evidence without a complete and corroborative chain of evidence that establishes the guilt of the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.

Result: Appeals allowed; accused acquitted.

Table of Content
1. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 9 , 20 , 22 , 26 , 28 , 30 , 32 , 34 , 35 , 38)

Judgment :

Rajani Dubey, J.

1. This appeal arises out of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 06.05.2019 passed by Sessions Judge, Mungeli, District Mungeli (C.G.), in Sessions Trial No.72/2017 convicting the accused/appellants under Sections 201, 364, 302/34 and 120-B of IPC & sentencing them to undergo R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.1,000/-, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.5,000/-, imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.10,000/- and R.I. for 03 years with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively, plus default stipulations.

2. Prosecution story, in brief, is that on 14.06.2017 at around 5.00 PM, accused Om Narayan (A-1) called Bisahu Ram Verma on mobile phone to Beltukri (Sambalpur) turn saying that he will return the amount borrowed by him. Bisahu Ram Verma went there on his call, whom accused Om Narayan seated him on his motorcycle Passion Pro bearing registration No. CG-07-AJ-9076 and accused Om Narayan's friend accused Sachchidanand (A-2) seated Uttara Kumar on his motorcycle Hero Honda CD Dawn and all four of them went to Bhatapara. They watched a movie at Bhatapara City Mall at 6-9 pm. After the movie was over, all four of them brought liquor and came near the village Lamti crematorium and accused Uttara Kumar (died during the pendency of appeal) & accused Sachchidanand (A-2) consumed liquor. Accused Om Narayan (A-1) and deceased Bisahu Ram were sitting there, after which they left for home at around 10-11 pm. Deceased Bisahu Ram was walking in front and the accused persons. While accused/appellants were on the way, accused/appellant Om Narayan (A-1) put his gamchha around the neck of deceased Bisahu Verma and pulled him down, and all the three accused/appellants together strangulated the neck of deceased Bisahu with the gamchha and killed him by pressing his neck tightly. Thereafter, accused/appellant Om Narayan (A-1) took out petrol from his motorcycle and poured it on Bisahu and asked for a matchstick from accused Uttara Kumar and set the Bisahu’s body on fire. On the information that a human skeleton was found, merg intimation was recorded and inquest on the human skeleton was prepared. During Panchnama proceedings, the police seized the material mentioned in the seizure sheet near the site of the incident and took it into custody. The post-mortem of the human skeleton was conducted. During investigation, the wife and heirs of the unknown human skeleton came to the police station on 02.09.2017 and identified the clothes seized from the site of the incident. According to the identification panchanama, the clothes belonged to Bisahu Ram Verma. Memorandum statement of Kunti Bai, wife of deceased Bisahu Ram, Saukhram Verma, father of deceased and witness Premlal Bhikhu Ram were recorded. In the statements, it was told that on 14.06.2017, accused/appellant Om Narayan Verma of village Jaitpuri called deceased Bisahu Ram on the pretext of returning the loan amount and with intention to kill him, made him drink alcohol near Lamti Brahmadih, strangled him with a towel and set his body on fire after pouring petrol on him. On the basis of circumstantial evidence and memorandum, a crime was registered against the accused/appellants and investigation was taken up. The accused/appellants were arrested. During investigation, the statements of the witnesses were recorded and after being found the involvement of the accused/appellants, Crime No.429/2017 was registered against them under Sections 302, 201, 120- B, 364 of IPC. Spot map was prepared. The postmortem of the deceased's body was conducted and medical opinion was obtained. After filing of charge sheet, the trial Court framed charge under Sections 120-B, 364, 302 and 201 of IPC.

3. So as to hold the accused/appellants guilty, the prosecution examined as many as 24 witnesses. Statements of the accused/appellants were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which the

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