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
| 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:-
| Conviction | Sentence |
| U/s 302 of Indian Penal Code | Imprisonment 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 Adhiniyam | Rigorous 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 Adhiniyam | Rigorous 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
Raja Naykar vs. State of Chhattisgarh
Debapriya Pal vs. State of West Bengal
Shantabai and others vs. State of Maharashtra
Dhananjay Shanker Shetty vs. State of Maharashtra
Kansa Behera v. State of Orissa
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.
The conviction of accused cannot be sustained when circumstantial evidence lacks cogent linkage to the crime, and eyewitness testimony is deemed unreliable.
Circumstantial evidence requires complete unbroken chain conclusively proving guilt and excluding innocence hypothesis; failure of key links like last seen, extra-judicial confession, motive, recover....
In circumstantial evidence cases, prosecution must establish complete chain of fully proven, conclusive circumstances consistent only with guilt, excluding all other hypotheses; unreliable confession....
The judgment emphasizes the requirement for complete and unimpeachable evidence to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in a case of circumstantial evidence.
Circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain pointing to guilt, with the prosecution required to establish every link beyond reasonable doubt.
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.