Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Mohit Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 686 of 2024

Advocates:
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Sandeep Yadav
For the Respondents: Shailendra Sharma

In a circumstantial evidence case, conviction cannot be based solely on a 'last seen' theory if the time gap is significant, nor on a confession made to police, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, especially when the chain of evidence remains incomplete.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Evidence Act, 1872 - Sections 25 and 27 - Murder trial - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen together theory - Admissibility of memorandum statement - A confessional statement made to police is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act - Recovery of weapon without scientific linkage of bloodstains to the deceased is insufficient to sustain conviction - Circumstances must form a complete chain to exclude any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused - In case of doubt, the view favorable to the accused must be adopted.

Facts of the case:
The deceased was found dead with multiple injuries in an under-constructed market. The prosecution relied upon the theory of being 'last seen' in the company of the appellant and a memorandum statement (confession) leading to a recovery of a knife. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder based on these circumstances.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the evidence of being 'last seen' did not provide a proximate enough timeline to exclude other possibilities. The evidentiary value of the memorandum statement was found to be poor and inadmissible under Section 25, and there was no forensic evidence connecting the seized weapon to the deceased.

Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully established a complete chain of circumstances, and whether the conviction based on 'last seen together' and a confession to the police is sustainable.

Ratio Decidendi: When a case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances must be of a conclusive nature and fully established. A confession made to a police officer is hit by Section 25 of the Evidence Act and cannot be used for conviction. The theory of 'last seen' requires a small time gap to rule out other possibilities, which was absent here.

Result: Appeal allowed; conviction set aside; appellant acquitted.

Table of Content
1. overview of trial court conviction and case background. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6)
2. arguments regarding circumstantial evidence and last-seen theory. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15)
3. establishing the standard of proof required in circumstantial evidence cases. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25)
4. critique of prosecution witnesses and the weakness of last-seen evidence. (Para 26 , 27 , 28 , 29 , 30 , 31 , 32 , 33 , 34 , 35 , 36)
5. inadmissibility of police confessions and lack of forensic linkage. (Para 37 , 38 , 39 , 40 , 41 , 42)
6. acquittal due to failure to establish a complete chain of circumstances. (Para 43 , 44 , 45)

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.2.2024 passed by the 8th Upper Sessions Judge, Durg District Durg (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.202/2021, convicting accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short ‘IPC’) and sentencing him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default to undergo additional R.I. for 06 months.

2. The prosecution case, in brief, is that complainant Salik Ram Sahu appeared at Police Station Pulgaon, District Durg on 13.06.2021 and lodged a report stating that on 13.06.2021 at about 08:00 a.m. when he was in his house, PW-3 Mahendra Nishad and PW-4 Tikesh Sahu informed him over mobile phone that dead body of a male is lying behind under-constructed Rishabh Market, New Life Farm Road. He had informed the said fact to Sarpanch Jawala Prasad Deshmukh and thereafter they reached the spot and found that dead body is of Ajay Kumar Kothari, who was working as Security Guard in the Farm House of Suresh Kothari; there were several bleeding injuries on his body caused by sharp edged weapon. Based on aforementioned information, FIR came to be registered under Crime No.206/2021 for the offence punishable Section 302 of IPC. In the course of investigation, dead body was sent for postmortem examination which was conducted by PW-19 Dr. Kajal Jain and as per postmortem report, Ex.P-18, cause of death was hypovalemic shock due to stab injury to vital organ and death was homicidal in nature. Accused/appellant was arrested and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P-10. Statements of witnesses were recorded under Section 313 CrPC.

3. In the course of investigation, an offence under Section 302 IPC was found to be made out against the accused. After completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg on 09.08.2021, from where the case was committed to the committal Court vide order dated 26.08.2021 and thereafter it was received by the competent Court on 04.09.2021 for trial. On 22.12.2021 charge under Section 302 of IPC was framed against accused Mohit Thakur. He denied the charge and sought trial. His plea was recorded in his own words.

4. In order to prove its case, the prosecution had examined as many as 20 witnesses before the trial Court, namely Jwala Prasad Deshmukh (PW-1), Salik Ram Sahu (PW-2), Mahendra Nishad (PW-3), Tikeshwar Sahu (PW-4), Anil Yadav (PW-5), Gannu Ram Sahu (PW-6), Akeshwar Sahu (PW-7), Smt. Manju Yadav (PW-8), Raju Yadav (PW-9), Nandkumar Thakur (PW-10), Ajit Yadav (PW-11) Patwari Purushottam Sahu (PW-12), Constable Eman Chandrakar, Constable Lokesh Kumar Diwakar (PW-14), Constable Mehfooz Khan (PW-15), Pawan Verma (PW-16), Dushyant Chandrakar (PW-17) Assistant Sub Inspector Narendra Singh (PW-18), Dr. Kajal Jain (PW-19) and retired Assistant Sub Inspector Domaar Ram Sahu (PW-20).

5. Statement of accused/appellant was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 in which he again pleaded innocence and false implication. Accused/appellant also expressed his willingness to adduce evid

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 14576

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRamesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, JMohit Thakur – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 686 of 2024

In a circumstantial evidence case, conviction cannot be based solely on a 'last seen' theory if the time gap is significant, nor on a confession made to police, which is inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act, especially when the chain of evidence remains incomplete.

Cases Referred (6)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Mohit Thakur – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 686 of 2024