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) 463

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJ.
Nandkeshwar S/o Shivnarayn Khairwar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1390 of 2015
Decided On : 01-09-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant : Vineet Kumar Pandey
For the Respondent: Vivek Mishra

Circumstantial evidence must create a complete and cogent chain linking the accused to the crime; mere suspicion, without proof beyond reasonable doubt, is insufficient for conviction.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code - Section 302 - Tonhi Pratadna Adhiniyam - Sections 4 and 5 - Criminal appeal questioning conviction for murder and related offenses - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence found inadequate as entire evidence did not establish a continuous and cogent chain of incriminating circumstances - Prosecution failed to prove evidence beyond reasonable doubt, with weakness in witness credibility and lack of motive - Court noted mere suspicion cannot substitute proof. (Paras 1, 29)

(B) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Appeal against judgment of conviction - Based on circumstantial evidence, conviction was set aside due to insufficient evidence to conclusively link the accused to the crime. (Paras 1, 29)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of Smt. Parbatiya Bai, alleged to be subjected to harassment and branded as a witch, leading to her fatal assault. The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, including witness statements and the postmortem report indicating homicide.

Findings of Court:
The absence of direct evidence with inherent weaknesses in the prosecution’s case resulted in the setting aside of the conviction, ruling that the prosecution did not meet its burden of proof.

Issues: Whether the prosecution established a complete and cogent chain of evidential circumstances linking the appellant to the murder, and whether the conviction was supported by adequate legal standards.

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that circumstantial evidence must not only exist but must create an unbroken chain leading solely to the conclusion of guilt, emphasizing that mere suspicion is insufficient for conviction.

Result: Appeal allowed, judgment of conviction set aside, and the appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of the criminal appeal and conviction details. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments of the appellant and state regarding conviction. (Para 7 , 8)
3. assessment of circumstantial evidence and its significance. (Para 9 , 10 , 11)
4. testimonies concerning the alleged assault and claims of witchcraft. (Para 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
5. supreme court rulings on evidentiary principles regarding recovery and blood evidence. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23)
6. evaluation of circumstantial evidence and judicial standards for conviction. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28)
7. conclusion: acquittal of the appellant and procedural directives. (Para 29 , 30 , 31)

JUDGMENT :

AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, J.

1. The present criminal appeal under Section 374 (2) of Cr.P.C. has been filed by the appellant herein calling in question legality, validity and correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22.9.2015, passed by the learned Additional Judge of Upper Sessions Judge, Ramanujganj, District-Surguja, in Sessions Trial No. 174/2013, by which, the appellant herein has been convicted as under:-

ConvictionSentence
U/s 302 of Indian Penal CodeImprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for three months.
U/s 4 of Tonhi Pratadna AdhiniyamRigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for one month.
U/s 5 of Tonhi Pratadna AdhiniyamRigorous imprisonment for 3 years with fine of Rs. 200/- and, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for one month.

All the sentences shall run concurrently.

2. Case of the prosecution, in nutshell, is that on or about 27th–28th March, 2013, in village Dumrakhola, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Rajpur, the accused is alleged to have subjected Smt. Parbatiya Bai to harassment by branding her as “Tonhhi” (witch). It is further alleged that in the intervening night of 27th and 28th March, 2013, he committed her murder by causing her death through fatal assault.

3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 28.03.2013, one Manohar, son of Ramratan Khairwar and resident of village Dumrakhola, Police Station Rajpur, lodged an information at Police Post Dabra, Police Station Rajpur. He reported that his mother, Smt. Parbatiya Bai, resided separately in the same village along with his sister-in-law Phoolbasiya and niece Sushila. On 27.03.2013, at around 12:00 noon, his mother had visited his house on the occasion of the Holi festival and remained there until about 03:00 p.m., after which she returned to her own house. On the following day, a villager by the name of Shankar informed the complainant that his mother was lying dead in her house. Alarmed by the news, the complainant, accompanied by fellow villagers Chandradev and Ravichand, immediately proceeded to the spot. Upon reaching, they found that his mother, Smt. Parbatiya Bai, was lying lifeless with a deep wound on the right temple of her head. It appeared that some unknown person had inflicted a grievous blow, causing her death on the spot. When the complainant inquired from his sister-in-law Phoolbasiya and niece Sushila regarding the incident, they disclosed that after dinner on the night of 27.03.2013, they had gone to the house of their relative Devrup to sleep. They further stated that the accused had long been suspicious of Smt. Parbatiya Bai and harbored the belief that she was a witch, which had led to her harassment and, ultimately, to her brutal killing. Manohar (PW-1) reported the matter to the police, pursuant to which, merg intimation (Ex. P-01) and FIR (Ex. P-02) were registered. Inquest proceedings (Ex. P-04) were conducted and the dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. As per postmortem report (Ex.P/13A), proved by Dr. Saurabh Mandilwar (PW-15), cause of death of the deceased was due to coma, and the nature of death homicidal. Thereafter, appellant-a

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