Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 24341
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Sanjay K. Agrawal, Radhakishan Agrawal, JJ
G. Vikrant Koshley – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 191 of 2019
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishi Rahul Soni
For the Respondents: HAPS Bhatia
Conviction cannot be based on Section 106 of the Evidence Act unless the prosecution first establishes a complete chain of circumstantial evidence ruling out other hypotheses; furthermore, the recovery of a blood-stained article alone is insufficient for conviction without corroborating evidence.
Headnote:(A) Burden of Proof - Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act - Application in circumstantial evidence cases - The burden of proving a fact especially within knowledge does not shift to the accused unless the prosecution first establishes a chain of circumstances that rules out any other reasonable hypothesis. (Para 12, 13)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Recovery of weapon - The sole circumstance of recovery of a blood-stained article, without corroboration by other incriminating circumstances, is insufficient to sustain a conviction. (Para 14)
Issues: Whether the conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was sustainable based on the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the recovery of a blood-stained stick, given the presence of other family members at the scene.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. summary of prosecution case and trial court conviction for murder. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5) |
| 2. arguments regarding the insufficiency of circumstantial evidence and misapplication of section 106 ie act. (Para 6 , 7 , 8) |
| 3. confirmation of the homicidal nature of the death based on medical evidence. (Para 9 , 10) |
| 4. inapplicability of section 106 ie act when other hypotheses of guilt are not ruled out. (Para 11 , 12 , 13) |
| 5. recovery of blood-stained articles without corroboration is insufficient for conviction. (Para 14) |
| 6. acquittal of the accused due to failure of prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 15 , 16 , 17 , 18) |
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
(1) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, the sole appellant herein has preferred this criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality, validity and correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 11.01.2019, passed in Sessions Trial No.77/2018 (State of Chhattisgarh v. G. Vikrant Koshley) by the 8th Addl. Sessions Judge, Bilaspur (CG), whereby he has been convicted for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/- and, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 02 months.
(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that on 01.05.2018 between 11 PM to 12 AM, at Village Sarvan Devari, which comes within the ambit of Police Station Ratanpur, District Bilaspur (CG), the accused-appellant herein assaulted his father, namely, Gokul Prasad (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”) by means of stick, due to which, he suffered grievous injuries and died and, thereby, said to have committed the aforesaid offence.
(3) It is further case of the prosecution that when the matter was reported to the police, merg intimation (Ex.P/06) and FIR (Ex.P/03) were registered and wheels of investigation started running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent vide Ex.P/08 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/09. Spot map was also prepared vide Ex.P/05. The dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination, which was conducted by Dr. Anand Shrivastava (PW-08) and, as per PM report (Ex.P/13), cause of death of the deceased is shock and hemorrhage and nature of death is homicidal. The appellant-accused was arrested vide Ex.P/18 and his memorandum statement was recorded vide Ex.P/16. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, wooden stick was seized vide Ex.P/17. Thereafter, the seized articles were sent for chemical examination, in which, as per FSL report (Ex.P/27) it has been opined that stains to blood were found on the wooden stick seized from the appellant. After statements of witnesses were recorded and due investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated.
(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 14 witnesses and exhibited 21 documents, whereas the appellant- accused in support of his defence neither examined any witness nor exhibited any document.
(5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above, against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant-accused questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
(6) Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel appearing for the appellant submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in convicting the appellant for the aforesaid offences, as the prosecut
