Chattisgarh High Court
Sanjay Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 29 April, 2025
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
1
Digitally signed
by BHOLA
NATH KHATAI
Date:
2025.05.03
16:49:43 +0530
2025:CGHC:19325-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 237 of 2017
Sanjay Sharma S/o Late Popsingh Sharma, Aged About 46 Years
R/o Jayprakash Nagar, Jhanda Chowk, Ground Floor, Jablapur,
Madhyapradesh, Present R/o Sector 27, Block No.12, Quarter
No.201, Police Station Rakhi Raipur, District Raipur,
Chhattisgarh.
... Appellant
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Telibhanda,
District Raipur, Chhattisgarh.
... Respondent
For Appellant : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. H. A. P. S. Bhatia, P. L.
(Division Bench)
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal
Hon'ble Shri Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment On Board
(29.04.2025)
2
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J.
1. This criminal appeal has been preferred under Section 374(2)
of Cr.P.C. calling in question the legality, validity and
correctness of the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 05.01.2017, passed by learned 1st Additional
Sessions Judge, Raipur (C.G.) in Sessions Trial
No.218/2015, whereby the appellant herein has been
convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction Sentence
u/s 302 of IPC Life imprisonment and fine of
Rs.100/-, in default of payment of
fine, additional R.I. for 1 month
u/s 201 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 7 years
and fine of Rs.100/-, in default of
payment of fine, additional R.I. for
1 month.
2. The case of prosecution, in short, is that on 28.06.2015 at
about 10:30 p.m., the appellant herein committed murder of
Vinod Saxena with a knife and threw the dead body near the
pond of Krishak Nagar in order to screen himself from the
offence, thereby committed the aforesaid offence. On
information given by Yogesh Verma (PW-1) that a dead body
is lying near the pond at Krishak Nagar, the In-charge of
Police Station, Telibandha, N. D. Sahu (PW-9) along with his
staff reached the spot and found the body of the deceased
wrapped in a sack and tied with wire. Dehati Nalsi (Ex.P-1)
was recorded on the spot and the FIR was registered vide
Ex.P-23. Inquest was conducted vide Ex.P-4 and dead body
of deceased Vinod Saxena was subjected to post-mortem,
which was conducted by Dr. S. K. Bagh (PW-5), who proved
the post-mortem report Ex. P-18, according to which, cause
of death was stab wound on chest, mode of death was
hemorrhage and shock and nature of death was homicidal.
Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant (Ex. P-7),
the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife was seized vide Ex.P-
9 which was sent for chemical examination to FSL along
with other seized articles. As per FSL report Ex. P-28,
human blood was found on Articles - C & E i.e. trousers of
the appellant and mosquito net, but no blood was found on
the said knife. After completion of investigation, appellant
was charge-sheeted for the aforesaid offence before the
jurisdictional criminal court, which was ultimately
committed to the Court of Sessions for hearing and disposal
in accordance with law.
3. During the course of trial, in order to bring home the offence,
prosecution examined as many as 9 witnesses and exhibited
28 documents. The appellant-accused in support of his
defence has neither examined any witness nor exhibited any
document. The statement of appellant / accused was
recorded under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied
the circumstances appearing against him in the evidence
brought on record by the prosecution, pleaded innocence
and false implication.
4. The trial Court, after appreciation of oral and documentary
evidence on record, convicted and sentenced the appellant
herein as mentioned in the opening paragraph of this
judgment, against which the present appeal has been
preferred by the appellant questioning the legality, validity
and correctness of the impugned judgment.
5. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for appellant
would submit that there is no direct evidence against the
appellant and he has been convicted only on the basis of
circumstantial evidence, but as per the judgment of the
Hon'ble Supreme Court in the case of Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda v. State of Maharashtra1, the chain of circumstances
is not so complete in which the appellant can be convicted
for the said offence. He would further submit that the
prosecution has not been able to prove the offence beyond
reasonable doubt, therefore, the appellant is entitled for
acquittal on the basis of benefit of doubt.
6. Mr. H.A.P.S. Bhatia, learned State counsel, would support
the impugned judgment and submit that the prosecution
has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable
doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant
for offence under Sections 302 & 201 of I.P.C. As such, the
appeal deserves to be dismissed.
7. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and gone through
the records with utmost circumspection.
8. The trial Court convicted the appellant finding 8
circumstances proved against the appellant, which are
recorded in para-30 of the impugned judgment as under:
1. घटना सेक्टर-27, ब्लॉक नंबर 12, मकान नंबर 201 में अभियुक्त के घर में घटित
हुई, उस स्थान पर अभियुक्त के द्वारा पुलिस को ले जाया जाना ।
2. उस घर की चाबी अभियुक्त के पास थी जो यह दर्शित करता है कि उक्त मकान उसके
एकाकी आधिपत्य में था ।
3. अभियुक्त की निशानदेही पर घटना में प्रयुक्त चाकू की बरामदगी ।
4. उक्त चाकू की चौड़ाई, मृतक को आई चोट के लम्बाई के बराबर होना ।
5. घटना के समय पहने हुए अभियुक्त के पायजामे में मानव रक्त के दाग होना ।
6. अभियुक्त के घर में मछली की सब्जी रखा होना ।
1 (1984) 4 SCC 116
7. अभियुक्त के घर में मृतक की चप्पल पाया जाना जिसकी पहचान मृतक की पत्नि राखी
सक्सेना के द्वारा की गयी ।
8. मोटर सायकिल अभियुक्त के निशानदेही पर बरामद किया जाना ।
9. The case of prosecution is not based on any direct evidence.
It is based on only circumstantial evidence. The five golden
principles which constitute the Panchsheel of the proof of a
case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down
by their Lordships of the Supreme Court in the matter of
Sharad Birdhichand (supra) which must be fulfilled for
convicting an accused on the basis of circumstantial
evidence. The relevant paragraph 153 of the said judgment
reads as under: -
"153. A close analysis of this decision would show
that the following conditions must be fulfilled
before a case against an accused can be said to be
fully established:
(1) the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be
fully established.
It may be noted here that this Court indicated that
the circumstances concerned 'must or should' and
not 'may be' established. There is not only a
grammatical but a legal distinction between 'may
be proved' and "must be or should be proved" as
was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao
Bobade v. State of Maharashtra2 where the
following observations were made:
Certainly, 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.
2 (1973) 2 SCC 793
(2) 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,
(3) the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so
complete as not to leave any reasonable
ground for the conclusion consistent with the
innocence of the accused and must show that
in all human probability the act must have
been done by the accused."
10. Now, we will consider the correctness of the aforesaid
circumstances recorded by the trial Court in the light of the
principles of law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in
the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (supra).
11. The finding of the Trial Court that the appellant had taken
the Police to the house in question which was in his
possession and that he had the keys of that house, is a
correct finding of fact, however, it cannot be said to be
incriminating circumstances.
12. Pursuant to memorandum statement of appellant (Ex. P-7),
the alleged weapon of offence i.e. knife was seized vide Ex.9.
However, the said knife was sent for chemical examination
to FSL and as per FSL report Ex. P-28, no blood was found
on the knife.
13. It is well settled principles of law that discovery of object at
the disclosure of accused alone would not automatically lead
to the conclusion that the offence was also committed by the
accused and the burden lies on the prosecution to establish
a close link between discovery of object and its use in the
commission of offence. In this regard, the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the matter of Mustkeem alias Sirajudeen v. State
of Rajasthan3, in paragraph - 25 observed as under:
"25. With regard to Section 27 of the Act, what is
important is discovery of the material object at
the disclosure of the accused but such disclosure
alone would not automatically lead to the
conclusion that the offence was also committed
by the accused. In fact, thereafter, burden lies on
the prosecution to establish a close link between
discovery of the material objects and its use in
the commission of the offence. What is admissible
under Section 27 of the Act is the information
leading to discovery and not any opinion formed
on it by the prosecution.
14. Reverting to the facts of the present case, in light of the
aforesaid principles of law laid down by their Lordships of
the Supreme Court, it is clear that the recovery of knife
pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant
has been proved. But, there is no evidence on record to hold
that the said knife was used by the appellant in commission
of the offence. Mere recovery of knife pursuant to the
memorandum statement of the appellant cannot lead to the
conclusion that the appellant has committed the said offence
unless its use is established by the prosecution.
Circumstance No.5
15. Human blood was found on the appellant's trousers. But it is
not useful to the prosecution unless other circumstances are
3 (2011) 11 SCC 724
established. Even otherwise, according to the dictum of the
Supreme Court in Raja Naykar v. State of Chhattisgarh4,
the finding of human blood stain on the seized article is one
of the circumstances, only on the basis of which, the
accused cannot be convicted for the offence under Section
302 of IPC.
Circumstance No.7
16. The slippers of the deceased were found in the house of the
appellant. The said slippers were identified by the deceased's
wife Rakhi Saxena (PW-7) vide Ex. P-11 in presence of
Investigating Officer N. D. Sahu (PW-9). However, such an
identification would be covered under Section 162 of the
CrPC and therefore it would be inadmissible in evidence.
17. These two circumstances are not useful to the prosecution.
18. In view of the aforesaid discussion, we find that as per the
principle of 'Panchsheel' laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme
Court in the case of Sharad Birhichand Sarda (supra), the
chain of circumstances is not so complete in which the
appellant can be held guilty for the offence. The prosecution
has failed to produce evidence to prove the guilt of the
appellant beyond the shadow of doubt on the basis of the
circumstantial evidence. Consequently, we are unable to
uphold the conviction of the appellant for offence punishable
under Sections 302 & 201of IPC and the appellant is entitled
for acquittal on the basis of the principle of benefit of doubt.
19. Accordingly, the impugned judgment dated 05.01.2017
passed by the Trial Court convicting and sentencing the
4 (2024) SCC Online SC 67
appellant for offence under Sections 302 & 201 of IPC is
hereby set aside/quashed on the basis of benefit of doubt
and the appellant is acquitted of the said charges.
20. The appellant is on bail. He need not surrender in this case.
However, his bail bonds shall remain in force for a period of
six months in view of the provisions contained in Section
437-A of the CrPC.
21. This criminal appeal, accordingly, stands allowed.
22. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original
record be transmitted forthwith to the concerned trial Court
for necessary information & action, if any.
Sd/- Sd/- Sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Khatai Judge Judge
