Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Kishan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 229 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Chitendra Singh
For the Respondents: Saumya Rai

In a circumstantial case, an unbroken chain of evidence including 'last seen' proof, medical findings, and recovery of incriminating objects at the accused's instance, coupled with the accused's failure to provide an explanation for facts within their special knowledge, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 376(1), 376(2)(l)(m), 376A - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - Section 374(2) - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 27 and 106 - Electronic Evidence - Section 65-B Certificate - Circumstantial Evidence - Conviction based on chain of incriminating circumstances - Principle of last seen together - Burden of proof under Section 106 when facts are within special knowledge of accused - Rape of vulnerable woman - Determination of consent and absence of spermatozoa - (Paras 15, 35, 51, 62, 75, 78, 84)

(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Principles of 'Panchsheel' for proof - Circumstances must be cogent, firmly established, and form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis of innocence - Conviction can rest on circumstantial evidence when the chain is unbroken and unerringly points to the guilt of the accused. (Paras 82, 84, 85, 87)

Facts of the case:
The deceased, a mentally unstable woman, was found in a grievously injured condition and later died. Investigation revealed she was last seen with the accused on CCTV footage. Medical evidence confirmed sexual assault involving the insertion of an object, leading to rupture of the uterus, followed by blunt force trauma causing fatal head injuries. Incriminating articles, including blood-stained clothes and a weapon used for penetration, were recovered based on the disclosure statement of the accused.

Findings of Court:
The court found the chain of circumstantial evidence complete, linking the accused to the crime through electronic evidence, forensic reports, and the recovery of incriminating items. The accused failed to provide a plausible explanation during examination under Section 313 CrPC, thereby triggering the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The nature of the assault on a vulnerable individual established a heinous offence warranting strict judicial response.

Issues: Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain to establish guilt; whether the electronic evidence was admissible and authentic; whether the prosecution proved rape given the nature of injuries and absence of spermatozoa; whether the accused discharged his burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Ratio Decidendi: In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the 'last seen' theory combined with the failure of the accused to explain incriminating facts within their special knowledge constitutes a vital link in the chain of evidence. Further, penetration by a foreign object satisfies the legal definition of rape regardless of the absence of spermatozoa, particularly when the victim is unable to consent due to mental instability.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence confirmed.

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

21.04.2026

1 Heard Mr. Chitendra Singh, learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. Saumya Rai, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the State/respondent.

2 Today, the matter is listed for hearing on IA No. 2 of 2024, which is an application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant. However, with the consent of learned counsel appearing for the parties, we proceed to hear the matter on merits.

3 The appellant has preferred this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, the Cr.P.C.) questioning the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 01.11.2023 passed in Sessions Case No. 31/2022 by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, FTSC, Shakti, District- Janjgir Champa (C.G.), by which the appellant has been convicted as under:

Conviction	Sentence
Under Section 376(1) of the IPC.	R.I. for 10 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 06 months.
Under Section 376(2)(l)(m) of the IPC.	Imprisonment for life till natural death and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional R.I. for 01 year.
Under Section 376(A) of the IPC.	Imprisonment for life till natural death and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 01 year.
Under Section 302 of the IPC	Imprisonment for life till natural death and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional R.I. for 06 months.

All the sentences were directed to run concurrently

4 The prosecution case, in brief, is that the deceased was a mentally unstable woman aged about 55 years, who used to reside in a vacant shed situated near Vimal Kirana Store and survived by wandering around Dabhra Chowk. She was occasionally provided food and water by one Radhabai Sidar. Her parents had predeceased her, and she had no known guardian.

5 On 05.04.2022, at about 11:30 a.m., the informant Dhaneshwar Chauhan, a volunteer at Community Health Centre (CHC), Dabhra, submitted a written report along with a hospital intimation issued by Dr. K.K. Sidar, Medical Officer, CHC, Dabhra, regarding the unnatural death of an unidentified woman. On the basis of the said information, merg intimation No. 22/2022 was registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, and inquiry was set into motion.

6 During the course of inquiry, CCTV footage obtained from Vimal Kirana Store revealed that in the intervening night of 04/05.04.2022, at about 1:00 a.m., the appellant/accused Kishan Yadav was seen apprehending the deceased and dragging her towards a secluded place near the house of Radhabai Sidar. The footage further disclosed that at about 2:00 a.m., the accused was dragging the deceased by her hair and thereafter assaulted her by forcefully striking her head against a stone and delivering blows on her face, particularly near the eye region. As a consequence of such assault, the deceased sustained grievous injuries, leading to brain hemorrhage and excessive intracranial bleeding, ultimately resulting in her death at about 10:30 a.m. on 05.04.2022.

7 The deceased was transported in an injured condition to CHC, Dabhra, by a 108 ambulance, where she was declared dead upon examination. Upon spot inspection, analysis of CCTV footage, and recording of statements of nearby residents during the inquest proceedings, a formal FIR was registered against the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

8 During investigation, the Investigating Officer prepared the spot map and conducted inquest proceedings. The post-mortem examination of the deceased was carried out at CHC, Dabhra. The accused, in his memorandum statement (Ex.P-3), disclosed that he had forcibly committed sexual intercourse with the deceased, and when she resisted, he assaulted her by punching her on the face and eyes and thereafter intentionally struck her head against a stone

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 10826

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JKishan Yadav – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 229 of 2024

Cases Referred (10)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Kishan Yadav – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 229 of 2024