2025:CGHC:58824-DB ASHOK SAHU NAFR Digitally signed by ASHOK SAHU HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR Date:

2025.12.04

17:06:10 +0530 CRA No. 474 of 2018 {Arising out of judgment dated 16.02.2018 passed in Sessions Trial No.22/2016 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband}

Jeevrakhan Sinha, S/o. Chovaram Sinha, Aged About 35 Years, R/o. Village Sorid Khurd, P.S. Fingeshwar, Tahsil & District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh, Through P.S. Fingeshwar, District Gariyaband, Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent For Appellant : Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, Advocate For Respondent : Mr. H.A.P.S.Bhatia, Panel Lawyer (Division Bench)

Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal Judgment on Board (04.12.2025)

Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.

1. The appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374 of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment dated 16.02.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Gariyaband in Sessions Trial No.22/2016, by which the appellant has been convicted under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as under :

2. Case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 03.01.2016 at

9:00 P.M. at village Sorid Khurd, Police Station- Fingeshwar,

District Gariyaband, the appellant herein thrown Jageshwar

Chakradhari (now deceased) into the Well owned by

Ramadhar Sinha and thereby, the aforesaid offence has been committed. The Merg Intimation was registered vide Ex.P-1 by Madan Lal (PW-1), Dehati Nalsi was registered vide Ex.P-24, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-27, Spot Map was prepared vide Ex.P-16, Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-5 and dead body of deceased Jageshwar was subjected to post-mortem, which was conducted by Dr. P. Kudeshiya (PW-22), who proved the post-mortem report vide Ex.P-22, according to which, cause of death was cardio respiratory embarrassment, mode of death was asphyxia and nature of death depends on circumstantial evidence. After due investigation, the appellant was charge- sheeted for the aforesaid offences to the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was ultimately committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal in accordance with law, in which, the appellant abjured his guilt and entered into defence stating that he has not committed any offence and he has been falsely implicated.

3. In order to bring home the offence, prosecution examined as

many as 22 witnesses and exhibited 30 documents and the

appellant-accused in support of his defence has not examined

any witness, but has exhibited the documents Ex.D-1 &

Ex.D-2.

4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record, convicted the appellant herein for the offence under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. and sentenced as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this judgment, against which the present appeal has been preferred.

5. Mr. Rakesh Kumar Thakur, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the theory of last seen together has not been established by Tirath Kumar Yadav (PW-7) and Shatrughan Yadav (PW-10). The extra judicial confession was made in presence of the police and there is no recovery pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant, therefore, the appellant is entitled for acquittal on the ground of benefit of doubt and the appeal deserves to be allowed.

6. Mr. H.A.P.S.Bhatia, learned State counsel, would support the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offences and, as such, the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered

their rival submissions made herein-above and went through

the records with utmost circumspection.

8. First, the theory of last seen together has been found established by the trial Court, which is the main basis for conviction of the appellant.

9. Now, the qu