Chattisgarh High Court
Ajay Pawle @ Bankhandi @ Dhola vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13950-DB
NAFR
Digitally
signed by
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU
BABLU RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
2026.03.25
10:15:08
+0530
CRA No. 6 of 2023
Ajay Pawle @ Bankhandi @ Dhola S/o Bajru Pawle Aged About 30
Years R/o Kadamtoli Ghughri, P.S. Bagicha, District Jashpur
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Patthalgaon, District
Jashpur, Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Mr.Prasoon Agrawal, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chierf Justice and Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, CJ 24/03/2026
1. At the outset, learned counsel for the appellant submits that, apart from the present case, two other criminal cases have been registered against the appellant for offences under Sections 302 2 and Section 376(2)(n) of the IPC, as well as Section 6 of the POCSO Act. It is further submitted that a coordinate Bench of this Court, vide judgments dated 13.08.2024 and 17.12.2024 in CRA Nos. 547/2020 and 579/2020, has dismissed the appeals filed by the appellant in those matters. However, considering that the FIR in the present case pertains to facts distinct from those in the aforementioned cases, this Court proceeds to hear the present appeal on its own merits.
2. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is directed against the judgment of conviction recorded for offences under Sections 302, 397, 341 and 201 of the IPC and sentence awarded i.e. imprisonment for life and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 5 years, rigorous imprisonment for 10 years and fine of ₹5,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 5 years, simple imprisonment for 1 month and fine of ₹500/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 1 week and rigorous imprisonment for 7 years and fine of ₹2,000/-, in default of payment of fine to further undergo additional imprisonment for 2 years.
3. The case of the prosecution is that on 24.10.2018 at about 7:45 AM, informant, Sukanand Chauhan, appeared at Police Station Pathalgaon and lodged a merg intimation (unnatural death report). He stated that he had received a phone call from Chhotelal Nagvanshi informing him that a man was lying dead on the Pakka 3 road near Chhatkan on Pangsuwa-Jhakkadpur Road. Upon receiving this information, the informant, along with village Sarpanch Amarjeet Nag, went to the spot and found a man lying dead with a head injury, from which blood had oozed out. The deceased was wearing a white-striped black pant and a white full- sleeve shirt. A Hero Honda Deluxe motorcycle (No. CG-13-P- 5430) was found parked nearby with two empty milk containers tied to it. An Idea company SIM card was also found at the scene. The cause of death was unknown at that time. On inquiry, the deceased was identified as Ramvilas Yadav.
4. Based on this report, Police Station Pathalgaon registered Merg Intimation No. 94/2018 and initiated investigation. The investigating officer inspected the scene, prepared a site map, and conducted inquest proceedings in the presence of witnesses. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination to CHC Pathalgaon, where Dr.Santosh Patel (PW-23) conducted over the body of the deceased vide Ex.P-43 and found following symtoms:-
"The body of the deceased was normal. The occipital bone of the head was fractured. The right lung and left lung, trachea were congested. The right and left sides of the heard were filled with blood. The contents of the stomach were partially digested food in the small intestine. There were residues in the large intestine. The spleen, kidney and spleen were congesed and the occipital bone of the head was fractured."4
The doctor has opined cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage in frontal region of head. From the spot, plain soil, blood-stained soil, a towel (gamcha), the SIM card, and the motorcycle were seized. Consequently, an FIR was registered against unknown persons under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, it was found that the deceased's mobile phone (VELLCOM set) had been stolen. By tracing the IMEI number, the police discovered that the phone was being used with SIM number 8964058222, which was issued in the name of Dilip Pawle. Dilip stated that he had given the SIM to his brother Deepak Pawle. On 06.01.2019, the police seized the mobile phone from Deepak Pawle, who disclosed that he had purchased it from the accused Ajay Pawle alias Dhola alias Bankhandi for ₹1000/-. Further investigation revealed that in another case registered at Police Station Tapkara, the accused Ajay made a memorandum statement on 15.04.2019, confessing his involvement in multiple crimes. In relation to the present case, he stated that on 23.10.2018, he and co-accused Raju alias Kalu alias Kariya stopped the deceased, who was riding a motorcycle carrying milk, by obstructing his way. They demanded money and assaulted him with a wooden stick on the head, causing his death. They then took his mobile phone and wallet, removed and discarded the SIM card, and later sold the mobile phone to Deepak Pawle. The weapon (wooden stick) and other items were disposed of.
5
5. Based on this disclosure, the police recovered the wooden stick and seized the motorcycle from the accused. The accused was arrested on 25.04.2019 in the presence of witnesses. Statements of witnesses were recorded, forensic examination of seized articles was conducted, and reports were obtained.
6. After completion of investigation, a charge sheet was filed on 22.07.2019 before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Pathalgaon against accused Ajay Pawle under Sections 302, 392, 341, 201, and 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The case was subsequently committed to the Sessions Court for trial. Investigation against the co-accused Raju continued under Section 173(8) CrPC. Charges were framed on 02.09.2019 under Sections 341/34, 397/34, 302/34, and 201/34 IPC.
7. In order to prove the prosecution case, the prosecution examined as many as 23 witnesses and exhibited 44 documents Exs.P-1 to P-44. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 of the CrPC was recorded, in which he denied guilt. However, the accused has not examined any defence witness nor exhibited any documents.
8. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 29.10.2022, held the appellant guilty for offences under Sections 302, 397, 341 and 201 of the IPC and accordingly, proceeded to convict the 6 appellant for the aforesaid offence and sentenced him as aforementioned.
9. Mr.Prasoon Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, would submit that the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by learned Trial Court are wholly erroneous, both in law and on facts, and are therefore liable to be set aside. The appellant deserves to be acquitted. He further submits that learned trial Court has failed to appreciate that the prosecution has not adduced any credible evidence to establish the presence of the appellant at the alleged place of occurrence on the date of the incident. Learned Trial Court has further erred in not considering the defence version put forth by the appellant, thereby causing serious prejudice to the case of the appellant. He also submits that the conviction of the appellant is unsustainable in law, as the essential ingredients of the offence under the relevant section have not been fulfilled in the present case. The explanation furnished by the appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has not been duly considered by the learned Trial Court, which vitiates the impugned judgment. He contended that there is no eye-witness to the alleged occurrence, and the prosecution case rests on weak and insufficient evidence, which is inadequate to sustain a conviction. The sentence imposed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to law. A careful perusal of the evidence on record clearly demonstrates that the prosecution has miserably failed to prove the charges beyond 7 reasonable doubt. Hence, the appellant is entitled to the benefit of doubt and consequent acquittal.
10. On the other hand, Mr.Saumya Rai, learned counsel for the respondent / State, would oppose the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and submit that the prosecution has proved its case beyond all reasonable doubt and the trial Court after considering the evidence available on record has rightly convicted and sentenced the appellant as aforementioned, which warrants no interference by this Court.
11. We have heard the learned appearing for the parties, considered their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through the records with utmost circumspection.
12. The first question for consideration would be, whether death of deceased Ramvilas Yadav was homicidal in nature, which the trial Court has returned the finding in affirmative.
13. Dr.Santosh Patel (PW-23) has examined the dead body of the deceased and submitted his report Ex.P-43, in which he has clearly opined that cause of death was shock due to hemorrhage in frontal occipital region of head.
14. After hearing learned counsel appearing for the parties and after going through the records, we are of the considered opinion that the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that death of Ramvilas Yadav was homicidal in nature is the finding of fact 8 based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record.
15. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence.
16. The trail Court in para 55 of its judgment has held that until the date of seizure of the mobile phone from Deepak Pawle, i.e., 06.01.2019, accused Ajay alias Dhola had not come into custody in Crime No. 22/19 of Police Station Tapkara. Rather, when the accused Ajay alias Dhola was taken into custody and interrogated on 15.04.2019 in the said case, he disclosed the incident of murder and rape at Tapkara and, for the first time, also admitted to committing the murder of the deceased in the present case. Thus, about four months prior to the date (15.04.2019) on which Ajay alias Dhola disclosed his involvement in the present case while in custody, the deceased's mobile phone had already been seized from Deepak Pawle on 06.01.2019. During cyber investigation, Deepak Pawle was found using the said mobile phone, which led to its seizure. At that time, he stated that the mobile phone had been given to him by Ajay alias Dhola. Therefore, on the date when there was no indication of Ajay alias Dhola's involvement in the incident, it is not natural that Deepak Pawle would have named Dhola at the instance of the police. Rather, it appears that Deepak Pawle made a false statement.
17. In para 56 the trial Court has observed that the mobile phone 9 used by the deceased at the time of the incident, which was not found at the scene, was later found to be in use by Deepak Pawle. Deepak Pawle stated that the said mobile phone had been given to him by accused Ajay Pawle. In para 57 of its judgment the trial Court further observed that the second link in the chain of circumstances is that after Deepak Pawle stated on 06.01.2019 that the mobile had been given to him by Ajay Pawle, accused Ajay alias Dhola was taken into custody on 25.04.2019 in Crime No. 22/19 of Police Station Tapkara under Sections 302 and 294 of the Indian Penal Code. During interrogation, he stated that along with his associate Ramesh Badi alias Motu, he had found a boy near Bartoli Dokarakachhar, assaulted him on the head with a wooden stick, and robbed him of his mobile phone and motorcycle. He further stated that while proceeding towards Kerasai on the stolen motorcycle, they saw a boy and a girl riding a bicycle near a turn. They chased them on the motorcycle, struck the boy on the back of his head and neck with a stick, blindfolded the girl, took her into the forest, and committed rape. He also disclosed that in October 2018, along with co-accused Raju alias Kalu alias Kariya, he had stopped a milkman travelling by motorcycle between Pangsuwa and Jhagarpur, demanded money and his wallet, and upon the milkman attempting to flee, struck him on the head with a stick, took his mobile phone from his pocket, removed and threw away the SIM card, and took the wallet. They later threw away the stick near Gharjiabadhan, took 10 ₹600 from the wallet, discarded it, and sold the mobile phone to Deepak Pawle for ₹1,000. He further stated that the stick used in the assault had been thrown near a dam and could be recovered. The memorandum and recovery proceedings were corroborated by prosecution witnesses Ramprasad Gayar (PW-9) and Sharan Yadav (PW-11), whose testimonies remained materially unshaken during cross-examination. The said stick was seized following the accused's memorandum in Crime No. 22/19 of Police Station Tapkara and has also been included in the seizure in the present case. This is further supported by the testimony of Sub-Inspector S.R. Bhagat (PW-19). In para 58 the trial Court also observed that though there is no direct eyewitness in this case, the chain of circumstances presented by the prosecution against the accused has not been rebutted by Ajay Pawle alias Bankhandi. The mobile phone used by the deceased at the time of the incident was robbed by accused Ajay Pawle and later given to Deepak Pawle, who was using it with a SIM issued in the name of his brother Dilip Pawle. After the seizure, Deepak Pawle confirmed that the mobile phone had been given to him by Ajay Pawle. Furthermore, accused Ajay Pawle, in his memorandum, disclosed the stick used in the crime, which was subsequently recovered. This completes the chain of circumstances against him, supported by reliable witness testimonies regarding the memorandum and seizure. Therefore, based on the statements of the witnesses and the circumstantial evidence against the accused, the Court finds that it 11 was Ajay alias Dhola alias Bankhandi, along with his associate Raju alias Kalu alias Kariya, who, on 23.10.2018 at around 4-5 a.m., wrongfully restrained deceased Ramvilas Yadav while he was travelling on a motorcycle, inflicted grievous injuries to his head with the intention of causing death, and thereby committed his murder. They also robbed him of his mobile phone and ₹600, and, with the intention of concealing evidence, disposed of the stick at another location.
18. Upon cumulative analysis of the material available on record and evidence of the prosecution witnesses, at this stage, conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, which deals with punishment for murder, cannot be sustained solely on the basis of a chain of circumstances if that chain is not conclusively established. The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that all the links in the chain of circumstances consistently point to the guilt of the accused. If there is any break or weakness in the chain, or if the circumstances are open to multiple interpretations, it creates doubt. Since a charge as serious as murder demands the highest standard of proof, Courts are cautious and do not convict based on an incomplete or unproven chain of events. Therefore, without a firmly established chain of circumstances, a conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be justifiably recorded.
19. In a case dependent on circumstantial evidence, the law is well settled that the chain of circumstances must be complete, 12 conclusive, and exclude every hypothesis consistent with innocence (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra {AIR 1984 SC 1622}. Here, the chain is broken at multiple points:
hostile testimony from key relatives, unreliable extra-judicial confession, doubtful recovery, and no conclusive forensic link.
20. The Supreme Court in the matter of Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab {(2012) 11 SCC 768} has held thus in paragraphs 12, 13, 14 & 15 which is reproduced hereunder:-
"12. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] a three-Judge Bench has laid down five golden principles which constitute the "panchsheel" in respect of a case based on circumstantial evidence. Referring to the decision in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [1973 2 SCC 793], it was opined that it is a primary principle that the accused "must be"
and not merely "may be" guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between "may be"
and "must be" is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions. Thereafter, the Bench proceeded to lay down that the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; that the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; that they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and that there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent 13 with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
13. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and others [1989 Supp (2) SCC 706], this Court held that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence,the following tests must be satisfied:
"10.........(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
A similar view has been reiterated in Ramreddy Rajesh Khanna Reddy and another v. State of A.P.[(2006) 10 SCC 172].14
14. In Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [1995 Supp(4) SCC 259], it has been laid down:
"4. ........that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and those circumstances must be conclusive in nature to connect the accused with the crime. All the links in the chain of events must be established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the Court has to be on its guard to avoid the danger of allowing suspicion to take the place of legal proof and has to be watchful to avoid the danger of being swayed by emotional considerations, howsoever strong they may be, to take the place of proof."
15. In Harishchandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra [(2007) 11 SCC 436], while dealing with the validity of inferences to be drawn from circumstantial evidence, it has been emphasised that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person and further the circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal fact 15 sought to be inferred from those circumstances."
21. Further, the Supreme Court in the matter of Pradeep Kumar v. State of Chhattisgarh {(2023) 5 SCC 350} has observed thus in para 27:-
"27. It is important to note that the cardinal principles in the administration of criminal justice in cases where heavy reliance is placed on circumstantial evidence, is that where two views are possible, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other towards his innocence, the one which is favourable to accused must be adopted."
22. When the case is entirely based upon the circumstantial evidence, the chain of such circumstantial evidence in all probabilities 'must' indicate towards guilt of accused and circumstances 'must be' and not 'may be' lead towards guilt of accused.
23. Upon a careful and cumulative evaluation of the entire material available on record, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence against the appellant.
24. It is not in dispute that the present case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged incident. In such cases, the law is well settled that each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be firmly established, and all such circumstances must form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the 16 accused/appellant, excluding every hypothesis consistent with innocence.
25. In the present case, the principal circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are:
(i) recovery and use of the deceased's mobile phone by Deepak Pawle;
(ii) the statement of Deepak Pawle attributing the source of the mobile phone to the appellant; and
(iii) the memorandum statement of the appellant leading to recovery of the alleged weapon. However, on close scrutiny, this Court finds that these circumstances do not inspire full confidence and suffer from material inconsistencies and gaps.
26. The seizure of the mobile phone from Deepak Pawle on 06.01.2019 precedes the arrest and disclosure statement of the appellant dated 15.04.2019 by about four months. At that point of time, there was no material on record connecting the appellant with the present offence. Therefore, the statement of Deepak Pawle attributing the mobile phone to the appellant appears unnatural and creates a serious doubt regarding its credibility. The prosecution has failed to establish a clear and cogent link connecting the appellant with the alleged recovery of the mobile phone in a manner that excludes all other possibilities. The memorandum statement and the alleged recovery of the weapon, 17 though proved formally, do not conclusively connect the appellant with the commission of the crime, particularly in the absence of any corroborative forensic evidence. There is no scientific or forensic material on record which conclusively links the appellant either with the deceased or with the alleged weapon of offence. The chain of circumstances, as presented by the prosecution, is not complete and leaves room for multiple hypotheses, including the possibility of innocence of the appellant.
27. This Court is mindful of the principles laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra), Jagroop Singh (supra) and Pradeep Kumar (supra), wherein it has been consistently held that suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof, and where two views are possible, the one favouring the accused must be adopted.
28. Applying the aforesaid settled principles of law to the facts of the present case, it is evident that the prosecution has not been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstantial evidence is broken at multiple stages and does not lead to an irresistible conclusion of guilt. Hence the conviction under Sections 302 of the IPC along with other offences deserve to be set aside.
29. For the foregoing reasons, the prosecution has not been able to prove that the appellant had murdered the deceased. From the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, the same creates doubt, 18 therefore, giving the benefit of doubt, the accused/appellant entitled to be acquitted of the alleged charges levelled against him for the aforesaid offences.
30. The accused is acquitted of the charge for which he was tried. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him. The appellant is in jail. He be released forthwith if not required in any other case, on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as required under the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. The appellant shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is allowed.
31. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Bablu