In cases based on circumstantial evidence, a conviction is sustainable if the proven facts form a complete, unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused, excluding all reasonable hypotheses of innocence. Hostile witness testimony remains admissible to the extent it is corroborated by other reliable evidence.

Headnote:(A) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374(2); Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201; Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 27, 65-B - Murder and causing disappearance of evidence - Reliance on circumstantial evidence - Essential requirements for establishing a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances - (Para 65).

(B) Evidence - Hostile witnesses - Testimony cannot be rejected in its entirety - Court is entitled to rely upon the portion of testimony that is corroborated by other material evidence on record - (Paras 26, 75).

(C) Appeal - Scope and ambit - Appellate court is not to substitute its view for that of the trial Court unless the impugned decision is afflicted by perversity, illegality, or misappreciation of evidence - (Paras 28, 78).

Facts of the case:
The appeal was filed against a conviction under the provisions of the Penal Code for murder and destruction of evidence. The prosecution's case rested on circumstantial evidence, including forensic reports, electronic message logs, recovery of weapons via disclosure statements, unexplained injuries on the accused, and the deceased being last seen in the company of the accused.

Findings of Court:
The court determined that the death was homicidal based on medical and forensic findings. The chain of circumstantial evidence, including electronic communication, physical evidence, and the conduct of the accused, was found to be sufficient to prove the guilt, justifying the affirmation of the trial court's judgment.

Issues: The main issues addressed were whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence was legally sustainable, the evidentiary value of recovery made despite hostile witnesses, and the admissibility of electronic records under the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: A conviction resting on circumstantial evidence is valid when all proven circumstances form a complete, unbroken chain that points exclusively to the accused's guilt, excluding reasonable hypotheses of innocence. Testimony of hostile witnesses is not automatically discarded if it finds support from other reliable evidence.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence affirmed.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice

13.03.2026

1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

2. Today, though the criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.

3. Accordingly, I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant, stands disposed of.

4. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.03.2024 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2019, whereby the appellant/accused have been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for three years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for four months, respectively, and it is directed that both the sentences were run concurrently.

5. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that Crime No. 18/2019 was registered at Police Station Barmkela, District Raigarh, in connection with the homicidal death of deceased Saurabh Panda. During the course of investigation, on 06.01.2019 at about 10:05 a.m., certain incriminating articles were recovered and seized from the house of accused Kusumlal Sao situated at village Devgaon. Upon production by the accused from the roof of his house, an iron die and a screwdriver were seized by the police. Further, from the room of the house which was treated as the place of occurrence, blood-stained soil weighing about 300 grams and plain soil weighing about 300 grams were seized. A terrycot shirt belonging to accused Kusumlal Sao having blood stains and splashes was also seized. During investigation, the spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared.

6. According to the prosecution, Sunil Kumar Sahu (PW-5) had informed Shakrajit Patel (PW-6) about the incident through a WhatsApp message sent from his mobile number 6260962047. In order to obtain the electronic record of the said communication, the Investigating Officer sent a request to the Range Cyber Cell, Bilaspur for retrieval of the backup of the message along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.

7. With regard to the shirt seized from accused Kusumlal Sao, a letter was sent to the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre seeking opinion regarding the stains present on the shirt. The Medical Officer opined that the nature of the blood stains could be conclusively determined only after examination by the Forensic Science Laboratory (FSL). Similarly, the seized screwdriver and iron die were also sent to the Medical Officer, Primary Health Centre, Barmkela for opinion, who opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could be caused by such weapons and recommended that the said articles be examined by the FSL to ascertain the presence of blood.

8. After the post-mortem examination of the deceased Saurabh Panda, his clothes were seized from Constable No. 113 Ghanshyam Dhruv (PW-20). During investigation, upon information provided by villagers and the village Kotwar, the spot map and inquest proceedings were prepared by the Patwari and the corresponding report was obtained. The Investigating Officer also sent a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh seeking call detail records (CDR) of the mobile number of the deceased.

9. During further investigation, t

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 22448

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRAMESH SINHA, CJ, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, JKusumlal Sao – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 1482 of 2024

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAMESH SINHA, CJ, RAVINDRA KUMAR AGRAWAL, J
Kusumlal Sao – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1482 of 2024