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) 558

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SANJAY K. AGRAWAL, DEEPAK KUMAR TIWARI, JJ. 
Kishan Kumar Sidar, S/o. Late Nanki Ram Sidar – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, Through Police Station Malkharoda – Respondent
CRA No. 676 of 2018
Decided On : 01-07-2025

Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant :Mr. Vivek Ranjan Tiwari, Senior Advocate with Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate
For the Respondent:Mr. Ranbir Singh Marhas, Additional Advocate General and Mr. Arvind Dubey, Govt. Advocate.

Circumstantial evidence must establish an unbroken chain of guilt while ensuring all evidentiary rules are followed; failure in this renders conviction unsustainable.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code - Section 374(2) - Indian Penal Code - Sections 302 and 201 - Conviction for double murder and concealment of bodies - The appellant was convicted for murdering his father and step-mother and subsequently burying their bodies to hide the crime, with the sentences ordered to run concurrently. (Paras 1, 35)

(B) Burden of Proof - Circumstantial Evidence - The conviction was based on circumstantial evidence needing strict adherence to established principles; failure to do so leads to acquittal. The prosecution must prove not only the guilt but also that the evidence is inconsistent with innocence. (Paras 11, 12)

(C) DNA Evidence - Reliability and Admissibility - The court emphasized the necessity of presenting cogent DNA evidence linking the accused to the crime. Non-examination of key witnesses led to the DNA findings being deemed unreliable, impacting the prosecution's case. (Paras 25-29)

Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his father and step-mother and then burying their remains under a compost pit. His apprehension arose following a memorized statement during a separate investigation, yet the prosecution faced significant admissibility issues regarding omitted and mishandled evidentiary documentation. (Paras 2, 4, 11)

Findings of Court:
The prosecution's submission of evidence was found critically deficient, particularly concerning the integrity of evidentiary procedures related to the DNA profiling and recovery of bodies. Hence, the convictions were set aside. (Paras 34-35)

Issues: Whether the incriminating evidence was sufficient to affirm the appellant's conviction based on circumstantial evidence while fulfilling requisite legal standards. (Para 24)

Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that circumstantial evidence alone cannot conclusively prove guilt; the evidence must form an unbroken chain incriminating the accused, which was not established in this case. (Paras 11, 12)

Result: The appeal was allowed, and the conviction was overturned, leading to the appellant's acquittal. (Paras 35, 36)

Judgment :

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment & order dated 25-1- 2018 passed by the 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Sakti in Sessions Trial No.32/2016, by which the appellant herein has been convicted for offence under Sections 302 (two times) & 201 (two times) of the IPC and sentenced as under with a direction that the sentences shall run concurrently: -

ConvictionSentence
Section 302 of the IPC (two times for causing murder of Nankiram & Nankibai)Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 500/- on two counts, in default, additional simple imprisonment for one month, on two counts.
Section 201 of the IPC (two times)Rigorous imprisonment for five years Rs. with fine of 500/- on two counts, in default, additional simple imprisonment for one month, on two counts

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that the appellant herein in between 1-7-2015 and 31-7-2015 at Village Chandeladih, Police Station Malkharoda, District Janjgir-Champa, caused the death of his father Nankiram Sidar (D-1) and his step-mother Nankibai Lohar (D-2) by making assault by axe and thereby committed their murder and in order to screen himself from the offence, buried the dead bodies under the compost pit in his house and thereby committed the offence. It is not in dispute that deceased Nankiram Sidar (D-1) was the father of the appellant and deceased Nankibai Lohar (D-2) was the step- mother of the appellant and since Nankiram Sidar (D-1) has entered into second marriage with Nankibai Lohar (D-2), who is of other caste, the appellant has left his father’s house and D-1 & D-2, both were living together and the appellant was residing with his cousin Jhadu Sidar (PW-3). Thereafter, on being called by his father Nankiram Sidar (D-1), the appellant started living with his father and all of a sudden, immediately prior to the date of offence, the appellant came to Jhaduram (PW-3) and left the premises giving him the keys of his house citing that his father & mother had gone out of the village for earning their livelihood and he is also going.

3. In the year 2016, the appellant came back to the village and he was taken into custody by Police Station Malkharoda under Crime No.127/2016 for offence punishable under Sections 457 & 380 of the IPC and in that case, Investigating Officer Shivnath Tandon (PW-15) recorded the memorandum statement of the appellant vide Ex.P-38 on 18-6-2016 in which the appellant has disclosed that he has committed the murder of his father (D-1) & mother (D-2) while they were sleeping and buried the dead bodies under the compost pit of his house. Thereafter, vide Ex.P-40, Investigating Officer of the present case K.P. Gupta (PW-17) made a request for police remand of the accused/ appellant to the remand court alleging that the accused in the present case has killed his father & mother and buried the dead bodies in the compost pit and remand was granted by the jurisdictional criminal court. Accordingly, vide Ex.P-41, Investigating Officer K.P. Gupta (PW-17) wrote a letter to the Sub-Divisional Magistrate, Sakti for appointment of Executive Magistrate for exhumation of the dead bodies and thereafter, vide Ex.P-36, the SDM, Sakti has appointed Mr. A.R. Khan, Tahsildar, Malkharoda for exhumation of the dead bodies and vide Ex.P-27, on 19-6-2016, mouka panchnama i.e. panchanama of the place of incident was prepared and vide Ex.P-28, dead bodies were exhumed. Identification panchnama of the dead bodies of D-1 & D-2 was prepared vide Ex.P-12 by Investigating Officer K.P. Gupta (PW-17). Inquest over the dead bodies of both the deceased persons was conducted vide Exs.P-16 & P-17 and dehati merg was prepared vide Exs.P-44 & P-45. Male dead body/skeleton was identified as Nankiram Sidar (D-1) through hair, baniyan, underwear & gamcha and female dead body/skeleton was identified as Nankibai Lohar (D-2) through hair, green colour sari, bangles & mala. Thereafter, vide Ex.P- 29, m

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
Judicial Analysis

AI

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