[Cites 10, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Rajkumar Nishad vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 1 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
MANPREET
KAUR
2026:CGHC:15001-DB
NAFR
Digitally signed
by MANPREET
KAUR
Date: 2026.04.02
11:18:20 +0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1301 of 2022
Rajkumar Nishad S/o Kartik Ram Nishad Aged About 27 Years R/o
Damkadih, Police Station Magarlod, District Dhamtari Chhattisgarh
... Appellant(s)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station
Shobha, District Gariyaband Chhattisgarh
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant(s) : Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Government Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
01.04.2026
1. Heard Ms. Nirupama Bajpai, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. Priyank Rathi, learned Government Advocate for
respondent / State.
2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section
374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
'Cr.P.C.') is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 01.07.2022 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge Gariyaband, District- Gariyaband
(C.G.) in Session Case No. 18/2018 by which the appellant has
been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 (two
times) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of
payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 year and
under Section 201 of the IPC and sentenced to undergo R.I. for 03
years with fine amount of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine
additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 months.
3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the informant
Dhannuram Nishad lodged information before the Station House
Officer, Police Station- Shobha, stating that his daughter Santoshi
had come to village Shobha along with her husband Rajkumar to
work as a labourer and was residing there with her minor
daughters, namely Gopi aged about three and a half years and
Paridhi aged about one and a half years. It was further informed
that Santoshi used to work as a brick maker with Ghanshyam
Markam, and on 03.04.2017 at about 05:30 PM, Santoshi along
with her minor daughter Paridhi went missing from the village. On
the basis of the said information, missing reports were registered
at Police Station Shobha with respect to Santoshi and minor
Paridhi as Missing Persons Case Ex.P-36 and Ex.P-37
respectively.
4. During the course of investigation, the memorandum statement of
the accused (Ex.P-01) was recorded on 16.12.2017. Thereafter,
requisitions (Ex.P-38 and Ex.P-39) were sent to the Block Medical
Officer and Sub-Divisional Officer, Mainpur for conducting
exhumation proceedings. Upon completion of the exhumation
process, notices (Ex.P-11) were issued to the witnesses and the
exhumation panchnama (Ex.P-12) was prepared. On the basis of
information received, separate inquest proceedings in respect of
the deceased Santoshi and minor Paridhi were conducted, and
thereafter a First Information Report (Ex.P-34) was registered
against the accused under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code,
as reflected in Ex.P-40 and Ex.P-41. The investigating agency
also prepared the site map of the place of occurrence (Ex.P-35)
and obtained postmortem reports (Ex.P-30 and Ex.P-31).
5. Further during investigation, notices were issued to the witnesses
for the purpose of inquest reports (Ex.P-04 and Ex.P-05), and spot
panchnama maps of the deceased Santoshi and Paridhi were
prepared as Ex.P-06 and Ex.P-07 respectively. During
exhumation, clothes of the deceased Santoshi and a leather
amulet found on the skeletal remains of Paridhi were seized in
presence of witnesses, for which seizure memo (Ex.P-02) was
prepared. The skeletal remains were thereafter referred to Jaipur
for medical examination, and examination reports (Ex.P-42 and
Ex.P-46) in respect of Santoshi and (Ex.P-43 and Ex.P-47) in
respect of Paridhi were obtained. A site map (Ex.P-10) of the
exhumation spot was also prepared in presence of witnesses.
During further investigation, another memorandum statement of
the accused (Ex.P-24) was recorded, and pursuant thereto, on
production by the accused Rajkumar, a shovel alleged to have
been used in the commission of offence was seized in presence of
witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P-16. Upon finding incriminating
material, the accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-13 and
information regarding his arrest was duly communicated to his
family members vide Ex.P-14.
6. It is further the case of the prosecution that during investigation,
the Patwari submitted an application (Ex.P-44) to the Tehsildar,
Mainpur for preparation of a detailed site map, pursuant to which
panchnama (Ex.P-18) and site map (Ex.P-19) were prepared. The
application for providing the said site map is Ex.P-20. Additionally,
upon presentation by Constable Pushpendra Sahu, clothes and
other articles of the deceased Santoshi were seized vide seizure
memo Ex.P-28, and hair and other materials of minor Paridhi were
seized vide Ex.P-29. The investigating agency also seized a copy
of the videography of the exhumation from Gaukaran Yadav vide
seizure memo Ex.P-21, along with its certificate Ex.P-22. For
examination of the seized shovel, a requisition (Ex.P-45) was sent
to CHC Mainpur. Statements of the informant and other witnesses
were recorded during the course of investigation.
7. Upon completion of the investigation, finding sufficient evidence
against the accused, a charge-sheet was filed under Sections 302
and 201 of the Indian Penal Code before the CJM, Gariaband
(C.G.). The case was thereafter committed to the Court of
Sessions.
8. The charge was framed against the accused, which was read over
and explained to him, however, he denied the same and claimed
trial. In support of its case, the prosecution examined as many as
30 witnesses. The accused was examined under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied all
incriminating circumstances appearing against him, pleaded false
implication, and did not adduce any evidence in his defence
9. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and
documentary evidence on record opining that it is the appellant
who has committed the murder of his wife and child, convicted and
sentenced him under Section 302 and 201 of the IPC. Hence this
appeal.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the impugned
judgment is bad both in facts and in law and is liable to be set
aside, as the same has been passed by the learned trial Court on
mere conjectures and surmises without proper appreciation of
evidence on record. It is contended that the entire case of the
prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence, there being no
eyewitness to the alleged incident, and the chain of circumstances
is neither complete nor cogently established so as to unerringly
point towards the guilt of the appellant. It is further submitted that
the learned Trial Court has failed to properly consider that the
prosecution witnesses are not reliable, as most of them are
hearsay witnesses who have not witnessed the occurrence, and
their testimonies suffer from material contradictions and
omissions. It is also urged that the prosecution has failed to prove
the case beyond reasonable doubt and has not been able to
establish any motive or intention on the part of the appellant for
commission of the alleged offence. According to the learned
counsel, the evidence adduced by the prosecution is not
trustworthy and does not inspire confidence, yet the learned trial
Court has erroneously relied upon the same to record conviction,
which has resulted in grave miscarriage of justice.
11. Learned counsel for the State, per contra, supports the impugned
judgment and submits that the prosecution has successfully
established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial
evidence pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It is contended
that the most crucial link is the discovery of facts pursuant to the
memorandum statement of the accused (Ex.P-1) under Section 27
of the Indian Evidence Act, wherein the exact place of burial of the
deceased Santoshi and minor Paridhi, which was exclusively
within the knowledge of the accused, was disclosed, and acting
upon such information, the police, in the presence of the Tehsildar
and independent witnesses, recovered the skeletal remains from
the riverbank vide Ex.P-12. It is further submitted that pursuant to
another memorandum (Ex.P-24), the accused led to the recovery
of the weapon of offence, namely a spade (fawda), from his
possession vide seizure memo Ex.P-16, thereby further
strengthening the prosecution case. Learned counsel submits that
the prosecution has also established a clear motive, inasmuch as
the accused harboured suspicion regarding the character of his
wife and objected to her interaction with other labourers, which
ultimately led to the fatal incident. It is additionally contended that
the conduct of the accused is highly incriminating, as after
committing the murder of his wife and minor child, he attempted to
destroy evidence by burying their bodies and further misled the
informant and family members by falsely stating that they were
alive in Banda (U.P.), thereby demonstrating a guilty mind and
conscious attempt to screen the offence. It is further argued that
the incident having occurred within the exclusive domain and
knowledge of the accused, the burden under Section 106 of the
Evidence Act squarely shifted upon him to explain the
circumstances leading to the disappearance and death of the
deceased, which he failed to discharge, and his false answers
under Section 313 Cr.P.C. further strengthen the prosecution case.
Lastly, it is submitted that the medical evidence also lends
corroboration, as despite the bodies being in a highly decomposed
and skeletal condition, the doctor (PW-28) found ante-mortem
fractures on vital parts such as the skull, jaw and spinal cord of the
deceased Santoshi, which is consistent with the prosecution
theory of a violent assault by a hard and blunt object like a spade,
thus conclusively establishing the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt.
12. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through
the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost
circumspection.
13. The foremost question which arises for determination is regarding
the nature of death of deceased Santoshi Nishad and minor
Paridhi Nishad. In this regard, the Investigating Officer, Sub-
Inspector Prashant Mishra (PW-24), has deposed that pursuant to
the memorandum statement of the accused (Ex.P-24),
exhumation proceedings were carried out in presence of
witnesses, and as per exhumation panchnama (Ex.P-12), skeletal
remains of two bodies were recovered from a pit on the bank of
Shobha Nala. This fact finds due corroboration from the testimony
of Dhannu Nishad (PW-1), father of the deceased, who identified
the skeletons as those of his daughter Santoshi Nishad and
granddaughter Paridhi. The very fact that two human skeletons
were found buried in a concealed pit on the riverbank, coupled
with the surrounding circumstances, clearly establishes that the
deaths were not natural but homicidal in nature.
14. Dhannu Nishad (PW-1) has further stated that the deceased
Santoshi was his daughter and the accused was his son-in-law,
and both had come to village Shobha for labour work at the brick
kiln of Ghanshyam Markam. Upon learning that Santoshi was
missing, he made efforts to trace her, and when unsuccessful,
lodged a missing report at Police Station Shobha.
15. The Investigating Officer (PW-24) has supported this version and
stated that, on the basis of the information given by the informant,
missing person reports (Ex.P-36 and Ex.P-37) were registered in
respect of Santoshi and Paridhi.
16. It has further come in the evidence of PW-24 that on 16.12.2017,
the accused appeared and, upon interrogation, made a
memorandum statement (Ex.P-01), disclosing that he had killed
his wife Santoshi and daughter Paridhi and buried their bodies on
the bank of Shobha Nala.
17. Thereafter, requisitions (Ex.P-38 and Ex.P-39) were sent to the
competent authorities for exhumation, notices (Ex.P-11) were
issued to witnesses, and the exhumation proceedings were
carried out on 16.12.2017, resulting in recovery of skeletal
remains. The exhumation panchnama (Ex.P-12) was prepared in
presence of witnesses, and the remains were identified by Dhannu
Nishad and Chandrotin Bai as those of the deceased.
18. The evidence of PW-24 is duly corroborated by (PW-1) Dhannu
Nishad and (PW-2) Chandrotin Nishad, as also by independent
witnesses Pardeshi (PW-7), Pritam (PW-15) and Tulsi Markam
(PW-30), all of whom have supported the exhumation proceedings
and recovery of skeletons at the instance of the accused. Their
testimonies have remained unshaken in cross-examination.
19. Other witnesses including Dukalu Nishad (PW-7) have also
deposed that, on the basis of the information given by the
accused, excavation was carried out at the indicated spot and two
skeletons, one of a woman and one of a child, were recovered,
and panchnamas (Ex.P-06 and Ex.P-07) were prepared in their
presence. Thus, the memorandum statement and consequential
recovery stand duly proved.
20. The Investigating Officer has further deposed that pursuant to
memorandum statement (Ex.P-24), the accused led to recovery of
a shovel (fawda), seized vide Ex.P-16 from his hut. The seizure
has been duly supported by witnesses Dhannu Nishad (PW-1),
Dukalu Nishad (PW-7), Laxman Sahu (PW-8) and Chhotu Ram
(PW-17), whose statements have not been effectively challenged.
21. Identification of the skeletal remains has also been established by
the testimony of PW-1 and PW-2 on the basis of clothes,
ornaments and articles such as bangles and amulet recovered
from the spot, which remained uncontroverted.
22. The medical evidence, though limited due to decomposition of
bodies, indicates that postmortem examination could not
conclusively determine the cause of death. However, Dr. Ulhas
Gonnade (PW-28) has noted fractures in vital bones, including the
jaw and spinal region, which could be caused by a hard and blunt
object. Importantly, there is no indication of natural death.
23. The exhumation proceedings and preparation of site maps and
panchnamas by Tehsildar Surendra Singh Dhruv (PW-31) further
corroborate the prosecution case and remain unchallenged.
24. The defence contention that the memorandum statement was
obtained under pressure and that there is absence of
eyewitnesses is not acceptable. The memorandum has been duly
proved by independent witnesses, and recovery pursuant thereto
lends strong corroboration. In a case based on circumstantial
evidence, absence of eyewitness is not fatal when the chain of
circumstances is complete.
25. The prosecution has also established motive, as reflected from
the memorandum statement and evidence, that the accused
suspected the character of his wife and frequently quarreled with
her, which culminated in the incident. Motive, though not essential,
assumes significance in a case based on circumstantial evidence.
26. The conduct of the accused in misleading the family members by
falsely stating that the deceased were alive and residing in Banda
(U.P.), despite having already caused their death and buried the
bodies, is an additional incriminating circumstance indicating a
guilty mind.
27. The defence has failed to suggest any alternative hypothesis or
establish any enmity with any third person, nor any other motive
for commission of the crime by someone else.
28. The accused has failed to offer any explanation for the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him in his
statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and has not adduced any
defence evidence.
29. Upon meticulous consideration of the entire evidence on record,
including the documentary exhibits and testimonies of prosecution
witnesses, this Court is of the considered opinion that the learned
Trial Court has rightly appreciated the material available before it
and has arrived at a just and proper conclusion. The
memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P-01), duly proved
by the Investigating Officer Prashant Mishra (PW-24) and
supported by memorandum witnesses, led to the discovery of the
place of burial, and pursuant thereto, exhumation was carried out
and skeletal remains of deceased Santoshi and minor Paridhi
were recovered vide exhumation panchnama (Ex.P-12), which
stands corroborated by the testimonies of Dhannu Nishad (PW-1),
Chandrotin Nishad (PW-2), Pardeshi (PW-7), Pritam (PW-15) and
Tulsi Markam (PW-30). The identification of the skeletal remains
on the basis of clothes and articles has also been consistently
proved by PW-1 and PW-2 and remains unshaken.
30. Further, the subsequent memorandum statement (Ex.P-24) led to
recovery of the weapon of offence, namely a shovel (fawda),
seized vide Ex.P-16, which has been duly supported by seizure
witnesses Dhannu Nishad (PW-1), Dukalu Nishad (PW-7),
Laxman Sahu (PW-8) and Chhotu Ram (PW-17). The missing
reports (Ex.P-36 and Ex.P-37) and subsequent FIR (Ex.P-34,
Ex.P-40 and Ex.P-41) also form part of the chain of
circumstances. The medical evidence adduced through Dr. B.
Bara (PW-26), Dr. Ulhas Gonnade (PW-28) and Dr. Kaleshwar
Kumar (PW-29), though limited on account of decomposition of
the bodies, indicates fractures on vital parts of the skeleton,
consistent with assault by a hard and blunt object, and does not
suggest any natural death.
31. The evidence further establishes motive on the part of the
appellant, as reflected from the prosecution case and supported
by the circumstances brought on record, that the appellant
harboured suspicion regarding the conduct of his wife Santoshi.
The conduct of the appellant in misleading the informant and
other family members by falsely stating that the deceased were
alive elsewhere, coupled with the concealment of the dead
bodies, constitutes an additional incriminating circumstance. The
testimonies of prosecution witnesses, particularly PW-1, PW-2,
PW-7, PW-15, PW-17, PW-24 and PW-30, have remained
consistent on material particulars and have not been effectively
discredited in cross-examination.
32. In such circumstances, this Court finds that the chain of
circumstantial evidence is complete and points only towards the
guilt of the appellant. The appellant has failed to offer any
plausible explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
with regard to the incriminating circumstances appearing against
him, thereby inviting an adverse inference. The findings recorded
by the learned Trial Court are based on proper appreciation of oral
and documentary evidence and do not suffer from any illegality,
perversity or infirmity warranting interference.
33. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved its
case beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the appeal being
devoid of merits is hereby dismissed. The conviction and
sentence imposed upon the appellant by the learned Trial Court
are affirmed.
34. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 17.12.2017,
he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial
Court.
35. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is
undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant
informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment
passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble
Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services
Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Manpreet
