[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Kusumlal Sao vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 13 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
signed by
2026:CGHC:12087-DB
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date: AFR
2026.03.16
17:47:51
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1482 of 2024
Kusumlal Sao S/o. Chakradhar Sao, Aged About 38 Years R/o. Village -
Devgaon, P.S.- Sariya, District - Raigarh (C.G.)
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through SHO PS Baramkela, District -
Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, Government
Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
13.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel for the appellant.
Also heard Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government
Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.
2. Today, though the criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on
I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence and grant of
bail to the appellant, however, with the consent of learned counsel
for the parties, the appeal is heard finally.
3. Accordingly, I.A. No.01, application for suspension of sentence
and grant of bail to the appellant, stands disposed of.
4. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellants/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 30.03.2024 passed by the learned
Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-
Bilaigarh (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2019, whereby the
appellant/accused have been convicted for the offence punishable
under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for
short, 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and
fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine amount, additional
rigorous imprisonment for one year and rigorous imprisonment for
three years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine
amount, additional rigorous imprisonment for four months,
respectively, and it is directed that both the sentences were run
concurrently.
5. In a nutshell, the case of the prosecution is that Crime No.
18/2019 was registered at Police Station Barmkela, District
Raigarh, in connection with the homicidal death of deceased
Saurabh Panda. During the course of investigation, on 06.01.2019
at about 10:05 a.m., certain incriminating articles were recovered
and seized from the house of accused Kusumlal Sao situated at
village Devgaon. Upon production by the accused from the roof of
his house, an iron die and a screwdriver were seized by the
police. Further, from the room of the house which was treated as
the place of occurrence, blood-stained soil weighing about 300
grams and plain soil weighing about 300 grams were seized. A
terrycot shirt belonging to accused Kusumlal Sao having blood
stains and splashes was also seized. During investigation, the
spot map of the place of occurrence was prepared.
6. According to the prosecution, Sunil Kumar Sahu (PW-5) had
informed Shakrajit Patel (PW-6) about the incident through a
WhatsApp message sent from his mobile number 6260962047. In
order to obtain the electronic record of the said communication,
the Investigating Officer sent a request to the Range Cyber Cell,
Bilaspur for retrieval of the backup of the message along with a
certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
7. With regard to the shirt seized from accused Kusumlal Sao, a
letter was sent to the Medical Officer of the Primary Health Centre
seeking opinion regarding the stains present on the shirt. The
Medical Officer opined that the nature of the blood stains could be
conclusively determined only after examination by the Forensic
Science Laboratory (FSL). Similarly, the seized screwdriver and
iron die were also sent to the Medical Officer, Primary Health
Centre, Barmkela for opinion, who opined that the injuries
sustained by the deceased could be caused by such weapons
and recommended that the said articles be examined by the FSL
to ascertain the presence of blood.
8. After the post-mortem examination of the deceased Saurabh
Panda, his clothes were seized from Constable No. 113
Ghanshyam Dhruv (PW-20). During investigation, upon
information provided by villagers and the village Kotwar, the spot
map and inquest proceedings were prepared by the Patwari and
the corresponding report was obtained. The Investigating Officer
also sent a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Raigarh
seeking call detail records (CDR) of the mobile number of the
deceased.
9. During further investigation, the mobile phone (Redmi) seized
from Shakrajit Patel (PW-6) bearing mobile number 8982562696
was examined and the entire data was extracted and stored in a
pen drive. Relevant screenshots of the messages pertaining to
the incident were retrieved from the mobile phone and printed.
These electronic records were produced along with the certificate
under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act.
10. The seized articles including the soil samples from the place of
occurrence, the iron screwdriver, iron rod, the shirt of the accused
and the clothes of the deceased (full shirt, sweater/jacket, inner
and baniyan) were sent to the State Forensic Science Laboratory
for examination and the report was obtained. The call detail
records relating to the mobile numbers involved were also
collected during the course of investigation.
11. The statements of several witnesses including Heeralal Patel
(PW-1), Manbodh Sahu (PW-2), Smt. Sachala Panda (PW-3),
Fakir Charan Panda (PW-4), Sunil Kumar Sahu (PW-5), Shakrajit
Patel (PW-6), Dilip Sahu (PW-7), Ganesh Panda (PW-8), Sapna
Sao (PW-9), Kailash Panda (PW-10), Pritam Sao (PW-11),
Durgesh Panigrahi (PW-12) and Krishna Kumar Panigrahi (PW-
13) were recorded during investigation. The motorcycle of the
deceased bearing registration No. CG-13-UC-0268 was handed
over to the father of the deceased on interim supurdnama. During
the investigation, the accused persons were arrested and
information regarding their arrest was given to their relatives.
12. Upon completion of investigation, the final report (charge-sheet)
was filed before the competent Court. After committal of the case
to the Court of Session, charges were framed against accused
Kusumlal Sao for offences punishable under Sections 302 and
201 of the IPC, whereas accused Chakradhar Sahu was charged
under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC. It is noteworthy that although
accused Chakradhar Sahu was initially arrested and charge-
sheeted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, the learned Presiding
Officer, by order dated 16.07.2019, discharged him from the said
offences and framed charge only under Section 506 Part-II of the
IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the accused
persons, who denied the same and claimed to be tried.
13. In order to substantiate the charges, the prosecution examined 26
witnesses and exhibited 50 documents. Various documents
including prepaid customer application forms, Aadhaar card, call
detail records and vehicle documents were marked as Articles 1
to 17, whereas the 32 GB pen drive received from the Cyber Cell,
Bilaspur containing electronic data was exhibited as Article-18.
14. Among the prosecution witnesses, Heeralal Patel (PW-1) proved
the merg intimation (Ex.P-1) and the spot map (Ex.P-7). Sunil
Kumar Sahu (PW-5) and Shakrajit Patel (PW-6) were examined
with respect to the seizure proceedings (Ex.P-16). Ganesh Panda
(PW-8) proved the inquest proceedings and inquest panchnama
(Ex.P-3) and the inquest notice (Ex.P-2). Kailash Panda (PW-10)
proved the seizure memos (Ex.P-10 and Ex.P-11). Durgesh
Panigrahi (PW-12) and Krishna Kumar Panigrahi (PW-13) proved
the identification panchnama of the deceased (Ex.P-9), the
memorandum statement of accused Kusumlal Sao (Ex.P-17) and
the spot map of the house of the accused (Ex.P-14) along with
other seizure memos.
15. The Patwari witnesses Triveni Paikara (PW-15) and Lalita Bariha
(PW-16) proved the Patwari spot maps (Ex.P-36 and Ex.P-37)
and the report submitted to the Tehsildar (Ex.P-38). Head
Constable Rajesh Patel (PW-21) proved the requisition for
obtaining call detail records (Ex.P-39) and the certificate under
Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act (Ex.P-43). The
Investigating Officer Inspector R.C. Lahri (PW-22) proved several
documents including the FIR (Ex.P-13 and Ex.P-15), seizure
memos, arrest memos, spot maps and the FSL report (Ex.P-45)
along with the cyber cell extraction reports (Ex.P-49 and Ex.P-50)
and the screenshots of the messages (Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48). The
prosecution also examined Dr. Sanjay Patel (PW-25) who proved
the post-mortem report (Ex.P-5) and the brief post-mortem report
(Ex.P-5A).
16. After completion of the prosecution evidence, the statements of
the accused persons were recorded under Section 313 of the
Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein they denied the
incriminating circumstances appearing against them and pleaded
innocence. No evidence was adduced by the accused in defence.
17. During final arguments before the Trial Court, the defence
contended that the prosecution had failed to prove its case
beyond reasonable doubt and that Sunil Kumar Sahu (PW-5) and
Shakrajit Patel (PW-6) did not support the prosecution version
regarding the alleged message. It was further argued that
important witnesses Sapna Sao (PW-9) and Pritam Sao (PW-11)
did not support the prosecution case and the investigation itself
was doubtful. On the other hand, the prosecution submitted that
the evidence of witnesses and the material collected during
investigation clearly established the guilt of accused Kusumlal
Sao for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and of
accused Chakradhar Sahu for the offence under Section 506
Part-II IPC.
18. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral
and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned
judgment dated 30.03.2024, acquitted Chakradhar Sao for the
offence punishable under Section 506 Part-II of the IPC and
convicted and sentenced the appellant- Kusumlal Sao in the
manner mentioned in the fourth paragraph of this judgment,
against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has
been preferred by them calling in question the impugned
judgment.
19. Mr. Mateen Siddiqui, learned counsel appearing on behalf of the
appellant, vehemently submitted that the impugned judgment of
conviction passed by the learned Trial Court is perverse, contrary
to law and unsustainable, as the prosecution has utterly failed to
establish the ingredients of the offences punishable under
Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. It is contended that the learned
Trial Court has erred in convicting the appellant on the basis of
conjectures and surmises, without there being any reliable
evidence on record to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt.
20. It is further submitted by Mr. Siddiqui that the prosecution story
itself stands demolished from the evidence of its own witnesses.
He pointed out that PW-9 and PW-11, who were projected by the
prosecution as eye-witnesses, have not supported the
prosecution case and have categorically stated that the deceased
Saurabh Panda had not visited the house of the appellant on the
date of the alleged incident. They have also stated that the
appellant and the deceased were on cordial terms and were
friends, and there was no dispute between them. Similarly, the
mother of the deceased, Sanchala Panda (PW-3), has stated that
she received a phone call informing her that her son had met with
an accident at Kosabadi, thereby creating serious doubt about the
prosecution theory of homicidal death.
21. Mr. Siddiqui further argued that the initial version of the incident
itself suggested an accidental occurrence. In this regard, Heeralal
Patel (PW-1), who first informed the police about the dead body,
has stated that when he visited his farm at about 7:00-8:00 a.m.,
he found the dead body along with a fallen motorcycle and
presumed it to be an accident, which version has also been
corroborated by Manbodh Sahu (PW-2). Thus, according to the
learned counsel, the prosecution has subsequently fabricated a
story of homicide and falsely implicated the appellant.
22. It is also contended by Mr. Siddiqui that the alleged recovery of an
iron rod and screwdriver from the possession of the appellant,
said to have been effected under seizure memo Ex. P-18, is
wholly doubtful and cannot be relied upon. He submits that the
prosecution has failed to establish the recovery in accordance
with law, inasmuch as the seizure witnesses Durgesh Panigrahi
(PW-12) and Krishna Kumar Panigrahi (PW-13) have not
supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile.
Both the witnesses have categorically stated in their deposition
before the Court that the alleged seizure of the iron rod and
screwdriver was not made in their presence, and that they had
merely put their signatures on the seizure memo at the instance
and direction of the Investigating Officer, without having witnessed
any actual recovery. According to the learned counsel, once the
independent witnesses to the seizure have themselves disowned
the alleged recovery, the very foundation of the prosecution case
with regard to the recovery of the alleged weapon of offence
becomes highly doubtful and loses its evidentiary value.
23. Mr. Siddiqui further submits that even otherwise, the prosecution
has failed to corroborate the alleged recovery through scientific
evidence. The FSL report relating to the seized articles does not
disclose the presence of any incriminating material connecting the
said iron rod or screwdriver with the alleged crime. There is no
finding in the report showing the presence of blood or any other
forensic material linking the seized articles either with the
deceased or with the alleged incident. In absence of such
scientific corroboration, the alleged recovery remains a mere
formality without any evidentiary worth. It is thus argued that the
prosecution has failed to establish a credible chain of
circumstances to connect the appellant with the alleged offence.
The alleged recovery, which the prosecution seeks to rely upon as
an incriminating circumstance, stands completely discredited due
to the hostile testimony of the seizure witnesses and the absence
of supportive forensic evidence. Therefore, the said circumstance
cannot be taken into consideration against the appellant and the
learned Trial Court has committed a grave error in placing reliance
upon such doubtful recovery while recording the conviction.
24. Lastly, Mr. Siddiqui submitted that several material witnesses
including PW-5 Sunil Kumar Sahu, PW-6 Sakrajit Patel, PW-9
Sapna Sao and PW-11 Pritam Sao, have not supported the
prosecution version regarding the alleged mobile message and
other circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. The crime
details form and other documents prepared during investigation
also create serious doubts about the credibility of the prosecution
case. In such circumstances, it is submitted that the learned Trial
Court has failed to properly appreciate the contradictions and
infirmities in the evidence, and has stretched its imagination to
convict the appellant, which is impermissible in law. Hence, the
present appeal be allowed and the impugned judgment of
conviction deserves to be set aside.
25. Per-contra, Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, learned Government
Advocate appearing for the State, supported the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submitted that
the learned Trial Court has rightly appreciated the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record and has not committed
any illegality in holding the appellant guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. It is contended that
the prosecution has successfully established the circumstances
forming a complete chain pointing towards the guilt of the
appellant and excluding every hypothesis of innocence.
26. Mr. Baghel further submitted that merely because some of the
prosecution witnesses have not fully supported the prosecution
case or have been declared hostile, the entire prosecution case
cannot be discarded, particularly when their statements are
corroborated by other reliable evidence brought on record.
According to him, the testimony of hostile witnesses is not to be
rejected in toto and the Court is entitled to rely upon such portion
of their evidence which supports the prosecution case.
27. It is also argued by Mr. Baghel that the alleged discrepancies or
minor contradictions pointed out by the learned counsel for the
appellant are natural and do not go to the root of the matter. The
prosecution evidence, when read as a whole, clearly establishes
the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the crime.
Therefore, it is submitted that the learned Trial Court has rightly
appreciated the evidence in its proper perspective and the
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence do not
call for any interference by this Court.
28. 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 trial Court with utmost circumspection.
29. In light of the submissions advanced by learned counsel for the
parties and upon perusal of the record of the trial Court, the
following points arise for determination in the present appeal:-
(i) Whether the death of the deceased Saurabh Panda
occurred in the late night of 07.02.2019, and if so, whether
the nature of his death was homicidal?
(ii) Whether on the night of 07.02.2019, at Village Devgaon
or Village Sanda, the appellant/accused Kusumlal Sao
intentionally caused the death of the deceased Saurabh
Panda, and thereby committed the offence of murder
punishable under Section 302 of the IPC?
(iii) Whether the appellant/accused Kusumlal Sao, with the
intention of screening himself from legal punishment for the
alleged offence of murder, caused the disappearance of
evidence by throwing the dead body of the deceased
Saurabh Panda in the agricultural field of Pardeshi Ogre, and
by concealing the iron die and screwdriver allegedly used in
the commission of the offence, thereby committing an
offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC?
Point for Determination
(i) Whether the death of deceased Saurabh Panda occurred on the
night of 07.02.2019 and, if so, whether the nature of death was
homicidal?
30. From the evidence available on record, the factum of death of
deceased Saurabh Panda stands duly established. The father of
the deceased Fakir Charan Panda (PW-4) and mother Smt.
Sachala Panda (PW-3) have deposed that their son Saurabh
Panda had died and that his body was found lying in the field of
Kajubadi. Their evidence indicates that the deceased had been
assaulted and thereafter his body was thrown in the field.
31. Heeralal Patel (PW-1) has stated that he saw the dead body of
the deceased lying in the field of Pardeshi while he had gone to
his agricultural land in the morning. His statement is corroborated
by Manbodh Sahu (PW-2).
32. The identification proceedings of the dead body were carried out
vide Identification Panchanama (Ex.P-9), which has been duly
proved by Durgesh Panigrahi (PW-12) and Krishna Kumar
Panigrahi (PW-13), who stated that the dead body was identified
and the panchanama was prepared accordingly.
33. Kailash Panda (PW-10) has also stated that he saw the dead
body of the deceased lying at the place of occurrence. His
testimony has further been corroborated by Rajkishore Panigrahi
(PW-18), who stated that the deceased Saurabh Panda belonged
to their village. It is pertinent to note that the defence has not
seriously disputed the factum of death of the deceased. Hence,
the death of Saurabh Panda stands duly proved.
34. Heeralal Patel (PW-1) has stated in paragraph-2 of his
examination-in-chief that the deceased had sustained injuries on
the back side of his head and it appeared that someone had
inflicted the injury resulting in his death. Similar evidence has
been given by Manbodh Sahu (PW-2). Kailash Panda (PW-10)
has also stated that there was severe injury on the head of the
deceased and blood was oozing out, giving an impression that the
deceased had been assaulted. Durgesh Panigrahi (PW-12) has
admitted the prosecution suggestion that the condition of the body
indicated that the deceased had been assaulted elsewhere and
thereafter his body had been dragged and thrown in the field, as
both his shoes were worn out near the toes. The said evidence
has also been supported by Krishna Kumar Panigrahi (PW-13),
who stated that the head of the deceased was found broken.
35. The medical evidence further substantiates the prosecution case.
Dr. Sanjay Patel (PW-25), who conducted the post-mortem
examination, found the following injuries on the body of the
deceased:
• Lacerated wound measuring 4 × 2 cm on the left occipital
region with fracture of the left parietal bone and exposure of
brain material.
• Abrasion measuring 4 × 2 cm on the right cheek.
• Abrasions measuring 3 × 2 cm and 2 × 1 cm on the left cheek.
• Lacerated wound measuring ½ × ½ × 2 cm in front of the left
ear.
• Two deep lacerated wounds measuring ½ × ½ × 2 cm and ½
× ½ × 2.5 cm below the left ear.
• Two deep lacerated wounds measuring ½ × ½ × 3 cm on the
left side of the neck.
• Incised wound measuring 6 cm on the left palm.
36. On the basis of these injuries, Dr. Sanjay Patel (PW-25) opined
that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due to head
injury and that the nature of death was homicidal. He has proved
the post-mortem report (Ex.P-5) and Brief post-mortem report
(Ex.P-5A). Although suggestions were given on behalf of the
defence that such injuries could occur due to falling from a
motorcycle, Heeralal Patel (PW-1) and Manbodh Sahu (PW-2)
stated that they could not say whether the injuries could have
been caused by a fall from a motorcycle. However, Kailash Panda
(PW-10) denied such suggestion and reiterated that it appeared
that the deceased had been assaulted and killed.
37. Further, Durgesh Panigrahi (PW-12) proved the seizure memo
(Ex.P-11) regarding seizure of broken mobile phone, motorcycle,
rope and gamcha from the spot situated behind Kosabadi.
Krishna Kumar Panigrahi (PW-13) also stated that both the shoes
of the deceased were worn out and the condition of the body
suggested that he had been dragged and thrown at the place.
38. The place where the dead body was found was the agricultural
field of Pardeshi Ogre in village Sanda. Heeralal Patel (PW-1) has
proved the spot map (Ex.P-7 / Ex.P-8) and the same has also
been confirmed by the Investigating Officer R.C. Lahri (PW-22).
39. From the perusal of the spot map (Ex.P-8), it appears that the
body of the deceased was found in the middle of the field and
there was only a footpath ahead. Under normal circumstances, it
appears highly improbable that the deceased would ride a
motorcycle into the middle of the field and fall down accidentally.
40. Moreover, Ganesh Panda (PW-8) has stated in paragraph-3 of his
cross-examination that the motorcycle of the deceased was found
standing with the support of the stand.
41. Considering the nature of injuries found on the deceased
particularly the fracture of the parietal bone with exposure of brain
material and multiple injuries on the face, neck and head, it does
not appear probable that such injuries could have been caused
merely due to falling from a motorcycle at the said place.
42. Therefore, on the basis of the ocular testimony of the witnesses
who saw the body, the circumstances of the place of occurrence,
and the medical evidence of Dr. Sanjay Patel (PW-25) along with
the post-mortem report (Ex.P-5 / Ex.P-5A), this Court is of the
considered opinion that the death of Saurabh Panda was
homicidal in nature.
43. The learned Trial Court has rightly recorded the said finding after
proper appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence
available on record, and this Court finds no reason to take a
different view. Accordingly, the finding recorded by the learned
Trial Court on this point is hereby affirmed.
44. Accordingly, Point for Determination No. (i) is answered in the
affirmative and held to be proved.
(ii) Whether on the night of 07.02.2019 at Village Devgaon or Village
Sanda, the accused Kusumlal Sao intentionally caused the death
of the deceased Saurabh Panda and thereby committed the
offence of murder.
45. Upon careful examination of the evidence available on record, it
emerges that the dead body of the deceased Saurabh Panda was
discovered on 09.02.2019 in the agricultural field belonging to
Pardeshi Ogre situated in Village Sanda. The proceedings relating
to identification of the body, preparation of inquest and seizure of
articles from the spot, including the motorcycle, soil, rope and
gamchha, were duly carried out and have been proved by the
prosecution witnesses. The evidence further establishes that the
body of the deceased was thereafter sent for post-mortem
examination to the Community Health Centre, Barmkela. The
medical evidence assumes considerable significance. The post-
mortem examination conducted by the doctor reveals that the
deceased had sustained serious injuries on vital parts of the body,
particularly on the head. The report records fracture of the left
parietal bone in the occipito-parietal region, with exposure of brain
material. Multiple abrasions and incised wounds were also found
on the face, cheek, neck and behind the ear. The cause of death
was opined to be cardio respiratory arrest resulting from severe
head injury. The nature and gravity of the injuries clearly indicate
that they were caused by hard and blunt objects and were
sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.
46. The prosecution has further relied upon electronic evidence
recovered from mobile phone of witness Shakrajit Patel (PW-6).
The cyber forensic report and the WhatsApp message records
obtained from the Cyber Cell, Raipur, along with the certificate
under Section 65-B of the Evidence Act, reveal that on the night of
07.02.2019 there had been a quarrel between the accused
Kusumlal Sao and the deceased Saurabh Panda. The messages
exchanged during the relevant period indicate that the accused
had assaulted the deceased and thereafter taken him away on a
motorcycle. The sequence of these electronic communications
lends support to the prosecution version that the deceased was
last seen in the company of the accused on the night of the
incident.
47. The prosecution has also placed reliance upon the memorandum
statement of the accused recorded during investigation, pursuant
to which certain incriminating articles, namely an iron die/rod and
a screwdriver, alleged to have been used in the commission of the
offence, were recovered. The trial court has found this recovery to
be reliable and duly proved.
48. Another circumstance which has been brought on record is the
presence of injuries on the person of the accused Kusumlal Sao,
The medical examination conducted shortly after the incident
revealed abrasions on his fingers and thumb as well as on the
frontal region of the head. The doctor opined that these injuries
could have been caused by hard and blunt objects. Significantly,
the accused has not furnished any plausible explanation for these
injuries sustained by him during the relevant period.
49. While considering the aspect of intention, the evidence also
discloses that the deceased and the accused were known to each
other and shared friendly relations. However, as reflected in the
memorandum statement and the surrounding circumstances, a
dispute had arisen between them relating to certain personal
issues, which culminated in a violent altercation on the night of the
incident. During the course of this quarrel, the accused assaulted
the deceased with an iron rod and a screwdriver, causing grievous
injuries particularly on the head.
50. In order to determine whether the act of the accused would fall
within the definition of "murder" or "culpable homicide not
amounting to murder", reference must be made to Sections 299
and 300 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 299 defines culpable
homicide, whereas Section 300 specifies the circumstances in
which culpable homicide amounts to murder. In the present case,
the nature of the injuries inflicted, the weapon used, the part of the
body targeted, and the severity of the assault clearly demonstrate
that the accused either intended to cause such bodily injury as
was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death or
had knowledge that the act was so imminently dangerous that it
would in all probability cause death.
51. The medical evidence showing fracture of the parietal bone with
exposure of brain matter unmistakably indicates the extreme force
with which the blow was delivered. Moreover, after inflicting such
grievous injuries, the deceased was allegedly taken away and his
body was thrown in an isolated agricultural field where it remained
undiscovered until the following day. These circumstances
demonstrate not only the brutality of the assault but also the
conduct of the accused subsequent to the incident.
52. In light of the cumulative effect of these circumstances, the
quarrel between the accused and the deceased, the last seen
evidence supported by electronic records, the recovery of the
weapons pursuant to the memorandum statement, the
unexplained injuries on the accused, and the conclusive medical
evidence regarding the cause of death, a complete chain of
circumstances emerges pointing unerringly towards the guilt of
the accused Kusumlal Sao. The said chain is consistent only with
the hypothesis that it was the accused who inflicted the fatal
injuries upon the deceased.
53. Having regard to the manner in which the injuries were caused
and their fatal consequences, the act of the accused clearly falls
within the ambit of Section 300, Clause Fourthly of the Indian
Penal Code, as the act was so imminently dangerous that it must,
in all probability, cause death or such bodily injury as is likely to
cause death. None of the exceptions to Section 300 are attracted
in the facts of the present case.
54. Therefore, the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court that the
act committed by the accused Kusumlal Sao constitutes murder
punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code appears
to be well founded and based on proper appreciation of the
evidence on record.
55. Accordingly, Point for Determination No. (ii) is answered in the
affirmative.
(iii) Whether the accused Kusumlala Sav, with the intention of
screening himself from legal punishment for the offence of murder,
caused disappearance of evidence relating to the said offence and
thereby committed the offence punishable under Section 201 of
the Indian Penal Code.
56. From the evidence available on record, it stands established that
the deceased Saurabh Panda was assaulted on the night of
07.02.2019 and succumbed to the injuries caused to him. The
dead body of the deceased was recovered on the morning of
09.02.2019 from the agricultural field belonging to Pardeshi Ogre
situated in Village Sanda. The fact that the body was found lying
in an isolated field, away from the place where the assault had
allegedly taken place, is a circumstance which assumes
significance in the context of the present point for determination.
57. The evidence further discloses that the accused had taken the
deceased along with him on a motorcycle after the quarrel that
occurred between them on the night of the incident. This
circumstance is supported by the electronic messages retrieved
from the mobile phone records, which indicate that the deceased
was last seen in the company of the accused. The subsequent
recovery of the dead body from a field situated at a different
location strengthens the inference that after the assault the
accused transported the deceased to that place.
58. Another incriminating circumstance is the recovery of the articles
allegedly used in the commission of the offence, namely the iron
rod/die and the screwdriver, pursuant to the memorandum
statement made by the accused during the course of
investigation. The seizure of these articles has been duly proved
through the prosecution evidence. The very fact that the weapons
were recovered later, on the basis of the disclosure statement of
accused, suggests that they had been concealed after incident.
59. The conduct of the accused in removing the deceased from the
place of assault, transporting him on a motorcycle, and leaving
the body in the middle of an agricultural field where it remained
undiscovered until the next day clearly indicates an attempt to
distance himself from the crime and to prevent the immediate
detection of the offence. Such conduct is consistent with the
intention to screen himself from legal punishment.
60. Section 201 of the IPC makes punishable the act of causing
disappearance of evidence of an offence, or giving false
information with the intention of screening the offender from legal
punishment. In the present case, the circumstances established
by the prosecution show that after committing the offence of
murder, the accused disposed of the body in a secluded field and
concealed the weapons used in the assault. These acts constitute
clear attempts to cause disappearance of evidence relating to the
offence.
61. Therefore, the chain of circumstances established on record leads
to the conclusion that the accused Kusumlal Sao, having
committed the murder of the deceased Saurabh Panda,
attempted to screen himself from legal punishment by removing
and abandoning the body in an isolated place and by concealing
the weapons used in the commission of the offence.
62. In view of the above discussion, the finding recorded by the
learned Trial Court holding the accused Kusumlal Sao guilty of the
offence punishable under Section 201 of the IPC appears to be
justified and supported by the evidence on record.
63. Accordingly, Point for Determination No. (iii) is answered in the
affirmative and is held to be proved.
64. The next question that falls for consideration is whether the
learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the
appellant/accused Kusumlal Sao is the author of the crime and
whether the findings recorded by the Trial Court suffer from any
illegality, perversity or misappreciation of evidence warranting
interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
65. Before examining the rival contentions, it is necessary to note that
the present case is primarily based on circumstantial evidence. It
is well settled that where a case rests on circumstantial evidence,
the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be fully
established and the chain of circumstances so proved must be
complete, leaving no reasonable ground for a conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused. Each circumstance
must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and all the
circumstances, taken together, must form a chain which unerringly
points towards the guilt of the accused and excludes every
hypothesis except that of guilt.
66. In the present case, the prosecution has relied upon several
circumstances which, when considered cumulatively, form a
complete chain pointing towards the involvement of the appellant
in the commission of the offence. The first and foremost
circumstance forming the foundation of the prosecution case is
the homicidal death of the deceased Saurabh Panda. The medical
evidence of Dr. Sanjay Patel (PW-25), who conducted the post-
mortem examination, assumes great significance in this regard.
The witness has proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-5) and Brief
post-mortem report (Ex.P-5A) and has categorically stated that
the deceased had sustained multiple injuries on vital parts of the
body. The injuries included a lacerated wound on the occipital
region measuring 4 × 2 cm accompanied by fracture of the
parietal bone with exposure of brain matter, along with several
abrasions and lacerated wounds on the face, cheek, neck and
near the ear.
67. On the basis of the aforesaid injuries, the doctor has clearly
opined that the cause of death was cardio-respiratory arrest due
to severe head injury, and that the nature of death was homicidal.
The medical testimony is fully consistent with the injuries noted in
the post-mortem report and has remained unshaken during cross-
examination. No material contradiction or circumstance has been
brought on record by the defence to discredit the medical
evidence.
68. In view of the clear and cogent medical opinion coupled with the
nature and location of the injuries found on the body of the
deceased, it stands conclusively established that the death of
Saurabh Panda was not accidental but homicidal in nature,
thereby constituting the first and most significant circumstance in
the chain of events relied upon by the prosecution.
69. The second important circumstance relied upon by the
prosecution is the evidence relating to the discovery of the dead
body and the condition in which it was found. The testimony of
Heeralal Patel (PW-1) and Manbodh Sahu (PW-2) shows that the
dead body of the deceased was found lying in the agricultural field
of Pardeshi Ogre in Village Sanda. The said witnesses have
stated that the body bore visible injuries and blood was found
near the head of the deceased. Their statements have been
corroborated by Kailash Panda (PW-10) as well as by the inquest
proceedings and spot maps prepared during investigation. The
location where the body was found also assumes significance.
From the spot map and the evidence of the witnesses, it is evident
that the body was found in the middle of an agricultural field
where ordinarily a motorcycle cannot reach without deliberate
human intervention. This circumstance strongly suggests that the
body was brought and thrown at that place after the incident.
70. The prosecution has further relied upon the electronic evidence
relating to the communication between Sunil Kumar Sahu (PW-5)
and Shakrajit Patel (PW-6). The evidence on record shows that
certain messages were exchanged through WhatsApp in relation
to the incident. The Investigating Officer obtained the electronic
record from the Cyber Cell along with the certificate under Section
65-B of the Indian Evidence Act. The messages produced in
evidence (Ex.P-47 and Ex.P-48) indicate that there was a quarrel
between the appellant Kusumlal Sao and the deceased Saurabh
Panda on the night of the incident and that the appellant had
taken the deceased along with him on a motorcycle. These
electronic communications lend support to the prosecution case
regarding the last seen circumstance.
71. Another significant circumstance is the recovery of the weapons
allegedly used in the commission of the offence. During
investigation, the memorandum statement of the appellant was
recorded under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, pursuant to which
an iron die/rod and a screwdriver were recovered. The recovery
has been proved through the seizure memos and the evidence of
the Investigating Officer. Although some of the seizure witnesses
turned hostile during trial, it is well settled that the testimony of the
Investigating Officer cannot be discarded merely on the ground
that independent witnesses have not fully supported the
prosecution case, particularly when there is no material to suggest
that the recovery was fabricated. The Trial Court has carefully
examined this aspect and has rightly held that the recovery
pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant is a relevant
circumstance.
72. The prosecution has also brought on record the circumstance
relating to the injuries found on the person of the appellant. The
medical examination of the appellant revealed abrasions on his
fingers, thumb and head. The doctor opined that such injuries
could have been caused by hard and blunt objects. Significantly,
the appellant has not offered any explanation in his statement
under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. regarding these injuries. The
unexplained injuries on the person of the accused constitute an
additional circumstance which lends support to the prosecution
case that the appellant was involved in a physical altercation with
the deceased around the time of the incident.
73. It is also noteworthy that the conduct of the appellant subsequent
to the incident raises serious suspicion. The evidence indicates
that after inflicting injuries upon the deceased, the appellant
transported him to another location and abandoned the body in an
agricultural field. Such conduct clearly indicates an attempt to
conceal the crime and to avoid detection. This conduct is further
reinforced by the recovery of the weapons from the place pointed
out by the appellant.
74. The defence has attempted to argue that the death might have
occurred due to an accidental fall from a motorcycle. However,
this theory does not find support either from the medical evidence
or from the circumstances proved on record. The nature of injuries
found on the body of the deceased, particularly the fracture of the
parietal bone with exposure of brain matter and the presence of
multiple injuries on the face, neck and head, clearly indicate that
the injuries were inflicted by force and cannot be attributed merely
to an accidental fall from a motorcycle.
75. It has also been argued on behalf of the appellant that certain
prosecution witnesses turned hostile and therefore the
prosecution case becomes doubtful. However, it is a settled
principle of law that the evidence of hostile witnesses is not to be
rejected in its entirety. The Court is entitled to rely upon that part
of the testimony which is found to be reliable and corroborated by
other evidence on record. In the present case, even if some
witnesses did not fully support the prosecution case, the material
circumstances proved through other reliable evidence remain
intact and form a coherent chain pointing towards the guilt of the
appellant.
76. When the entire evidence on record is considered cumulatively,
the following circumstances stand firmly established:
(i) the homicidal death of the deceased Saurabh Panda;
(ii) the quarrel between the appellant Kusumlal Sao and the
deceased shortly before the incident;
(iii) the circumstance indicating that the deceased was last seen
in the company of the appellant;
(iv) the recovery of the weapons used in the commission of the
offence pursuant to memorandum statement of the appellant;
(v) the presence of unexplained injuries on the person of the
appellant; and
(vi) the conduct of the appellant in abandoning the body of the
deceased in an isolated field.
77. These circumstances, when taken together, form a complete and
unbroken chain which unmistakably points towards the guilt of the
appellant and excludes every reasonable hypothesis consistent
with his innocence. The prosecution has therefore succeeded in
establishing that it was the appellant Kusumlal Sao who caused
the death of the deceased Saurabh Panda and thereafter
attempted to conceal the evidence of the crime.
78. The learned Trial Court has carefully analyzed the oral as well as
documentary evidence available on record and has recorded
detailed findings while holding the appellant guilty of the offences
punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code.
This Court, upon independent re-appreciation of the evidence,
finds that the conclusions reached by the Trial Court are well
founded and based upon proper appreciation of the material on
record. No perversity or illegality has been pointed out which
would warrant interference in appeal.
79. Consequently, this Court is of the considered opinion that the
prosecution has successfully proved beyond reasonable doubt
that the appellant Kusumlal Sao is the author of the crime. The
conviction recorded by the learned Trial Court under Sections 302
and 201 of the IPC is therefore justified and does not call for any
interference.
80. Accordingly, the criminal appeal preferred by the
appellant/accused Kusumlal Sao being devoid of merit is liable to
be dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the
appellant by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh,
District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh in Sessions Trial No.8 of 2019 vide
judgment dated 30.03.2024 are hereby affirmed.
81. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is reported to be in
custody since 11.02.2019, he shall serve out the sentence as
ordered by the learned trial Court.
82. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is
undergoing his jail sentence 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.
83. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record
be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary
information and compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
Head Note
Ocular, medical, electronic, and circumstantial evidence including last-
seen testimony, recovery of weapons, and unexplained injuries on the
accused clearly established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable
doubt. Minor contradictions in the testimony of witnesses or the hostility
of some witnesses would not weaken the prosecution case and would
not constitute a ground for acquittal.
