2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 9202

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Bablu Kalmoom – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 614 of 2023

In cases resting on circumstantial evidence, a conviction is sustainable if the chain of circumstances, consisting of established identity, scientific DNA evidence, and voluntary extra-judicial confession, is complete and leaves no reasonable ground for any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 376(AB) - Protection of Children from Sexual Offences Act, 2012 - Section 6 - Circumstantial evidence - Guidelines for determining age - Rule 12 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Rules, 2007, and Section 94 of the Juvenile Justice (Care and Protection of Children) Act, 2015 - Documentary evidence showing date of birth has primacy over medical opinion for age determination. (Paras 26, 27, 28, 33)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Principles governing conviction - Five golden principles (panchsheel) - If circumstances are fully established and leave no reasonable ground for innocence, conviction is sustainable. (Paras 36, 37)

(C) Evidence - Extra-judicial confession - Voluntary confession, if credible and untainted by coercion, can form the basis of conviction. (Paras 53, 54)

(D) Scientific Evidence - DNA profiling - Highly reliable scientific evidence can be a clinching link in the chain of circumstances to connect an individual to the offense of sexual assault. (Paras 59, 60)

Facts of the case:
A minor girl was taken by the accused on the pretext of accompanying her to the market, but she subsequently went missing, and her body was later recovered. The prosecution case rested on circumstantial evidence, including the victim's age, medical reports of sexual assault and homicidal death, an extra-judicial confession, and DNA profiling linking the accused to the evidence seized at the scene.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the age of the victim was definitively established by documentary evidence from an official register. Despite some prosecution witnesses turning hostile regarding the 'last seen' theory, other circumstances—specifically the homicidal nature of death, identification of the body, voluntary extra-judicial confession, and match found in DNA reports—collectively created an unshakable and complete chain leading solely to the conclusion of guilt.

Issues: The primary issues addressed were the determination of the victim's age as a 'child' under the relevant act and whether the prosecution successfully established the chain of circumstances required to prove the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt in the absence of direct eyewitnesses.

Ratio Decidendi: Though the 'last seen' evidence was incomplete, the prosecution established a complete chain of circumstantial evidence through consistent medical proof of homicidal death, credible extra-judicial confession, and conclusive DNA profiling. The court reasoned that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, if the cumulative evidence leaves no reasonable ground for alternative hypothesis, conviction is warranted.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction affirmed.