1

2026:CGHC:901-DB

AFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1953 of 2025

Gulam Mustafa @ Kali Bhancha S/o Shaikh Abdul Qadir, Aged About 19 Years

R/o Chandmari, Near Circuit House, Raigarh, P.S. Kotwali, District Raigarh

(C.G.)

--- Appellant

versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Tikra Para, Raipur, District Raipur (C.G.)

--- Respondent

CRA No. 419 of 2025

Soyeb Ahamad @ Saif S/o Iqbal Khan Aged About 23 Years R/o Katra Bazar,

Before Galla Mandi, Maihar, P.S.-Maihar, District - Satna (M.P.), At Present R/o

Lamidarha, Boidadar, P.S. Chakradhar Nagar, District- Raigarh (C.G.)

---Appellant

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through - P.S. Tikra Para, Raipur, District - Raipur

(C.G.)

--- Respondent

For Appellant :Ms. Akanksha Jain, Advocate {Cr.A. No.

1953/2025}

Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, Advocate {Cr.A.

419/2025}

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate

General

Hon’ble Mr. Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Mr. Arvind Kumar Verma, Judge

2

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

07/01/2026

1.Challenge in this appeal filed under Section 374(2) of the Criminal

Procedure Code, 1973 is to the judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 08.01.2024 passed in Special Criminal Case No.

20/2024 by the learned Special Judge under the SC & ST (P.A.) Act,

Raipur, District Raipur, by which the appellants have been convicted and

sentenced as under:

Conviction under

Section

Jail SentenceFine Default Jail

sentence

302 / 34 of the Indian

Penal Code (for short,

the IPC)

Life

imprisonment

Rs. 2000/-2 months additional

rigorous

imprisonment

302 / 34 of IPC Life

imprisonment

Rs. 2000/-2 months additional

rigorous

imprisonment

3(2)(v) of the

Scheduled Castes and

Scheduled Tribe

(Prevention of

Atrocities) Act, 1989

(for short, the

Atrocities Act)

Life

Imprisonment

Rs. 2000/-2 months additional

rigorous

imprisonment

The sentences have been directed to run concurrently.

2.The appellants/convicts were charged for the offence punishable under

Sections 302 read with 34 and 201 read with 34 of the IPC and under

Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act alleging that on 10-12-2019, at

about 11:30 p.m., at the house of complainant Indarchand Sahu,

Godavari Nagar, near Little Flower School, Motinagar, Police Station

Tikrapara, Raipur, District Raipur, within the jurisdiction, the accused

persons, acting in furtherance of their common intention, caused the

3

murder of Manisha Sidar and Manju Sidar. In pursuance of the said

common intention, they assaulted Manisha Sidar and Manju Sidar on

their heads and faces with a frying pan, and also strangled them, thereby

intentionally causing their deaths. Further, with the intention of screening

themselves from legal punishment for the offence of murder, and with the

intention of causing disappearance of evidence, they threw their blood-

stained clothes from a moving train, thereby destroying the evidence of

the murder. It was also alleged against the accused persons that,

knowing that both the deceased were members of a Scheduled Caste

community, they committed the punishable offence of murder, which is an

offence punishable with imprisonment for life.

3.The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 10.12.2019, at about

11:25 a.m, the informant Indarchand Sahu (PW-5) lodged a merg

intimation (Exhibit P/9 and P/10) at the police station, stating that he has

a house situated at Godavari Nagar, in which tenants reside. On the

same day, i.e., 10.12.2019, at about 11:20 a.m., the tenant Anjali Kurre

(PW-1) telephoned him and informed him that sounds of a quarrel and

fighting were coming from the room of tenant Manisha Sidar. Thereupon,

he immediately rushed to the spot and, along with Anjali (PW-1), reached

outside Manisha’s room. The door was closed from inside. When he

opened the window slider and looked inside, he saw Manisha lying on the

floor, soaked in blood. As soon as the door was opened from inside, two

unknown boys ran away. Thereafter, the complainant, along with

Bhumika (PW-2) and Anjali (PW-1), went inside the room and saw that

Manisha Sidar and Manju Sidar were lying injured on the floor, covered in

blood. They were taken for treatment through Dial-112 to Mekahara

Hospital, where the doctor, after examination, declared them dead. The

deaths of Manisha Sidar and Manju Sidar occurred due to their murder

4

by two unknown boys. The prosecution case further states that on the

basis of the aforesaid information given by the complainant Indarchand

Sahu (PW-5), a merg intimation was registered at Police Station

Tikrapara, Raipur, and in relation to the said deaths, a merg intimation

was recorded. At the spot itself, without any delay, a unnumbered First

Information Report (FIR) (Exhibit P/8) was registered. Inquest

proceedings (Exhibit P/6 and P/7) of both the deceased were conducted,

and their bodies were sent for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, in

connection with the incident, Crime No. 709/2019 (Exhibit P/38) was

registered at Police Station Tikrapara, Raipur, and after completion of the

entire investigation, the charge-sheet was submitted before the learned

trial Court.

4.Charges were framed against the appellants for the offences under

Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, Section 201 of the IPC and

Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act. The appellants abjured the guilt and

prayed for trial.

5.In support of their case, the prosecution, examined the following

prosecution witnesses: Ku. Anjali Kuresh (PW-01), Ku. Bhumika Kuresh

(PW-02), Ravi Kumar Yadav (PW-03), Smt. Mamta Sirdar (PW-04),

Indrapan Sahu (PW-05), Dr. Vikas Kumar Dwivedi (PW-06), Dr. Rajesh

Kumar Sahu (PW-07), Jalandhar Sirdar (PW-08), Subhadra Sirdar (PW-

09), Rajesh Chaudhary (PW-10), Sanjay Shrivastava (PW-11),

Rameshwar Sahu (PW-12), Shalikram Sahu (PW-13), Srijan Sonkar

(PW-14), Tularam Yadav (PW-15), Devendra Kumar Verma (PW-16),

Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-17), Shiv Kumar Dhruv (PW-18), Rajendra

Kumar Dubey (PW-19), Mohsin Khan (PW-20), Yakub Memon (PW-21),

Kishan Singh Deewan (PW-22), and Brijbhavan Singh (PW-23) and

exhibited as many as 53 exhibits.

5

6.The appellants, in support of their case, did not produce any evidence. In

their examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellants expressed

their ignorance to most of the questions and some of them were denied

as well.

7.The learned trial Judge, after considering the evidence on record,

convicted and sentenced the appellant/accused as detailed in the

opening paragraph of this judgment. Hence, the present appeal by the

appellant/convict.

8.Ms. Akanksha Jain, learned counsel for the appellant-Gulam Mustafa @

Kali Bhancha and Mr. Akash Kumar Kundu, learned counsel appearing

for the appellant-Soyeb Ahamad @ Saif, submits that the appellants are

innocent and have been falsely implicated in this case. There are no eye

witnesses to the alleged incident and the conviction of the appellants is

based on circumstantial evidence. There was not motive for the

appellants to cause murder of the deceased. The test identification

parade is also defective as the appellants were already introduced by the

police to the witnesses who were to identify them. The seizure witnesses

have turned hostile and not supported the prosecution case. The witness

who had participated in test identification parade, namely Bhumika Kurre

(PW-2) had deposed that there were total 10-12 persons present but in

fact there were only 7 persons which shows that the test identification

parade was mere formality. There are omissions and contradictions in

the statement of the prosecution witnesses. As such, the appellants

deserve to be acquitted.

9.On the other hand, Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the State/respondent submits that the learned trial

Court has rightly arrived at a finding with regard to the guilt of the

appellants and the learned trial Court was fully justified in convicting and

6

sentencing them for the offences in question. The judgment is based on

evidence available on record and as such, the same does not warrant

any interference and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

10.We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival

submissions made herein-above and went through the records with

utmost circumspection.

11.According to the prosecution, there were three accused in this case. The

appellants-Soyeb Ahmad @ Saif and Gulam Mustafa @ Kali Bhancha

alongwith a child in conflict with law, whose trial is stated to be pending.

The weapon of assault is a griddle (Tawa) which was used to cause

injuries and a black-maroon coloured scarf which was used for

strangulating the deceased sisters.

12.There is no dispute with respect to the fact that the death of the

deceased Manju Sidar and Manisha Sidar was homicidal in nature which

is evident from the postmortem reports (Exhibit P/32 and P/33) and the

deposition of Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-17) who had opined that the

cause of death was shock and hemorrhage caused by multiple injuries

and neck compression by strangulation. In the postmortem report, the

Doctor found the following injuries on the body of the deceased Manisha

Sidar:

“External Injury.

1. Contusion of red color on whole anterior part of neck at & below

thyroid cartilage with over lying 2 no. of abrasion of dark red color. In

between these 2 abrasions of sizes approximately 6 cm. x 4 cm. &

3x2 cm. (large on mid neck & smaller one on left side of lower part of

neck) multiple small abrasions are present.

2. Multiple small abrasion on left malar eminence, left side of

forehead.

7

3. Incised looking lacerated wound of size 0.5 cm.x0.5 cm. x scalp

deep.

4. Nasal bones are fractured.

5. Right malar eminence shows small incised looking lacerated

wound, also present on lateral part of right eyebrow of small size.

6. Pressure abrasion at back of neck horizontal throughout & slightly

oblique toward the end & at mid line of neck at back. Pressure

abrasion is absent at right side of back of neck. Maximum width is

0.75 cm. This mark continues anteriorly on left side of neck

horizontally to merge till large abrasion on anterior part of neck as

mentioned above. The color of the abrasion is red.

7. Ulnar border of left forearm towards elbow & palm shows multiple

small contusions and multiple small abrasions on dorsum of left

hand.

xxx xxx xxx

1. खोपड़ी, फाल और कशेरुका का Under surface of scalp is contused

anteriorly at multiple places below the external injuries no. 2, 3 & 5 as

described. left temporal muscle is ecchymosed anteriorly. Dura tense

blue, slight subdural hemorrhage present.

xxx xxx xxx

3. म

स्तिष्क और मेरूरज्जू

Brain matter is oedematous.”

13.With respect to the deceased Manju Sidar, the Doctor found the following

injuries:

“External injuries.

1. Contusion on thenar eminence 3 cm. diameter area on both hands.

Lower lip also contused. Contusion is dark red in color.

2. Abrasion 1 cm. on tip of left shoulder.

3. Abrasion whole of left cheek, forehead, right malar eminence of 3

cm. diameter each of dark red color.

4. Small abrasions with small contusions whole of right side of right

angle of mouth & right side of chin & below right side of lower lip.

5. Small lacerated wound on medial part of left eye brow x scalp

deep.

8

6. Abrasion on bridge of nose, with incised looking lacerated wound

above right side of upper lip of length 2 cm. x skin deep x 2 mm.

width.

7. Scratch abrasions on right side of neck multiple in no. with tissue

piling on upper border directed below upwards with underlying

contusion.

8. Pressure abrasion on both sides of neck with contusion of size

approximately 3 cm. Diameter on left side above medial end of left

clavicle & on right side approximately 3 cm. Diameter above, medial

end of right clavicle. Contusion is of red color.

xxx xxx xxx

1. खोपड़ी, कपाल और कशेरुका का under surface of scalp contused on left

side on left frontal eminence of size 3 cm. diameter & right side on

right frontal eminence of size 3 cm. diameter. Anterior fibers of left

temporalis muscle is contused. Dura tense, blue. Slight subdural

hemorrhage more on cerebellum & subarachnoid hemorrhage on

right, temporal & frontal lobe bases.

xxx xxx xxx

3. म

स्तिष्क और मेरूरज्जू

Brain matter is oedematous.”

14.The Doctor opined that the injuries were antemortem in nature, were

caused by hard and blunt force impact or trauma caused by hard and

blunt surface or object and neck compression in form of strangulation

and the nature of death was homicidal. This aspect has not been

disputed by the learned counsel for the appellants and as such, we agree

with the findings recorded by the learned trial Court with regard to the

nature of death being homicidal.

15.The question for consideration by this Court in these appeals would be

whether on the basis of materials available on record, the appellants can

be held guilty of the offence?

16.There is no eye witness in this case. However, the prosecution has tried

to establish the link of chain of circumstances to arrive at a finding that it

9

was the appellants who had committed the offence in question. The law

with regard to circumstantial evidence is well settled. In a case where the

prosecution relies upon the circumstantial evidence, it must not only

prove the circumstances but should link them in such a fashion so as to

form an un-ending chain leading to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the

accused. If there is any chance of the accused being innocent or the

crime having been committed by some other person, then the accused

has to be given the benefit of doubt and on the basis of circumstantial

evidence, he cannot be convicted.

17.The case of the prosecution is that the deceased were real sister and

were tenants of a multi-storied building and the witness Inderchand Sahu

(PW-5) is the landlord of the said building. He is the complainant/

informant in this case. On the date of incident, he received a phone call

that some noise is coming from the house where the deceased resided

and the door was locked from inside. He asked the deceased sisters to

open the door but when the door could not be opened, he pushed the

slider of the window and saw that Manju and Manisha were lying on the

floor. He shouted as to who was there inside upon which the appellants

opened the door and ran away. He tried to chase them but could not

catch them. Thereafter, he called on Dial 112 upon which police

personnel reached and took the injured sisters who were later declared

dead at Mekahara Hospital, Raipur. At his instance, the unnumbered FIR

(Exhibit P/8) was registered by the Police. In the cross examination, he

has clearly deposed that while the accused persons were escaping, he

had seen their faces also and it was incorrect to say that he had identified

them on the basis of footage seen in the Tehsil Office.

18.Ku. Anjali Kurre (PW-1) is the neighbour of the deceased who resided in

the same building. Before the learned trial Court, she deposed that on

10

the date of incident, she woke up at around 10:30 a.m. and at about

10:50 a.m. she went into her kitchen, and when she heard the sound of a

quarrel coming from the third floor of the building above. After a short

while, she heard sounds of beating and screaming. She knew that the

deceased sisters were living in that house, but she also heard the voices

of boys, which made her suspect that something serious was happening.

Therefore, she called the landlord. After some time, the landlord, Banti

alias Indrachand Sahu (PW-5) arrived. She told him that noise was

coming from the third floor. On his asking, she went with him, while her

sister Bhumika Kurre (PW-2) remained downstairs. PW-5 knocked on

the door, but there was no response from inside. Then he opened the

sliding window. Through the window, they could see that Manju and

Manisha were lying on the floor, soaked in blood after which PW-5 called

the police. This witness had identified the accused persons vide Exhibit

P/1. In cross examination, she stated that before the incident, she was

knowing the accused Soyeb by face only

19.Bhumika Kurre (PW-2) is the sister of Anjali Kurre (PW-1). She was lying

in her room when her sister Anjali woke her up as some strange sounds

were coming from the neighbourhood. She has also deposed in the same

manner as deposed by Anjali Kurre. She also stated that she had seen

the accused persons running from the spot. She has also identified the

accused persons vide Exhibit P/2.

20.Mamta Sidar (PW-4) is the real sister of the deceased. She resided at

Raigarh and worked as Staff Nurse in the District Hospital. She stated

that she had received phone call from her mother stating that the

deceased had expired. She had also received phone call from the Police

asking whether the deceased were her sister and was asked to come to

Raipur. From there, she was taken to cyber cell, Raipur where she was

11

shown a video footage and asked whether she knew any person upon

which she could identify the appellant-Soyeb. She had asked the

deceased Manju Sidar as to who was the person in the photograph

which was uploaded on the facebook upon which Manju had informed

that he was his friend but he was bothering her. Thereafter, she came to

know from her mother that her mother had tried to counsel the accused

Soyeb alias Saif, upon which the accused Soyeb abused her mother

using filthy language. Despite repeated counselling, the accused Soyeb

alias Saif continued to harass Manju Sidar. Consequently, her mother

and Manju Sidar went to Chakradhar Police Station, Raigarh, to lodge a

report in this regard, after which the concerned Station House Officer

counselled the accused Soyeb. However, the accused Soyeb alias Saif

continued to harass Manju Sidar, due to which her other and Manju Sidar

again approached Chakradhar Police Station, Raigarh, to lodge a report

in respect of the said matter.

21.Jalandhar Sidar (PW-8) is the father of the deceased sisters. He came to

know about the death of her daughters through the phone call from his

wife Subhadra Sidar (PW-9) that some news was going on in the TV with

respect to murder of their daughter. His wife Subhadra Sidar had

informed him that one month prior to the incident, a written complaint was

made against the accused Soyeb at Chakradhar Nagar Police Station,

Raigarh as the accused used to upload photographs of the deceased

Manju on social media Tiktok and Whatsapp. When he was counselled

by the police, he had undertaken on a stamp paper that he would not

upload any photographs of the deceased Manju but he did not stop

uploading the photographs. The wife of this witness, namely Subhadra

Sidar (PW-9) has also made similar statement before the Court.

12

22.Admittedly, the deceased belong to the Scheduled Tribe community as is

evident from their caste certificates (Exhibit P/26 and P/27). From the

deposition of the witnesses namely Subhadra Sidar (PW-9), Jalandhar

Sidar (PW-8), Mamta Sidar (PW-4), Anjali Kurre (PW-1) and Bhumika

Kurre (PW-2), it is evident that the deceased were well known to the

accused persons and they were having the knowledge that the deceased

sisters belonged to Scheduled Tribe community.

23.The articles seized by the police namely cotton-A, B and C, Frying Pan-

D, T.Shirt-E1, Lower/Plazo-E2, Bra-E3, Underwear—G, Blood Sample-H

(belonging to deceased Manju Sidar), Bra-I1, Underwear-I2, Salwar-I-3,

Kurti-I4, Blood Sample-J, and Stoll (Scarf)-N (belonging to deceased

Manisha Sidar), Pant-L seized from accused Soyeb Ahmed @ Saif

Khan, Pant-M (seized from accused Gulam Mustafa @ Kali Bhancha,

were sent to the FSL for chemical examination. The FSL report states

that blood was found in Articles A, B, D, E1, G, H, I1, I2, I3, I4, J, L, M

and N and in the articles B, I1, I2, I4, M and N, human blood was found.

The blood found on Articles B, I1, I2, I4 and N was A. However, no

semen stains or sperms have been found in Article-G.

24.The police had seized the frying Pan vide Exhibit P/11 in presence of

witness Indra Chand Sahu (PW-5) from the place of incident which

contained human blood, as per the FSL report. With respect to the scarf

seized by the police, the police had made a query in response to which

Dr. Snigdha Jain Bansal (PW-17) had opined vide his report (Exhibit

P/35) that the deceased died because of strangulation and said scarf

could have been utilised for commission of the offence.

25.From the above discussion, it is apparent that the appellant-Soyeb

Ahmad @ Saif had been bothering the deceased Manju Sidar for a long

time regarding which a complaint was also made at Chakradhar Nagar

13

Police Station. Since the deceased Manju Sidar had tried to break all

relationship with the appellant-Soyeb Ahmad @ Saif, and the appellant

was further angry because she had good relationship with another boy

named Prakash Soni and the said person had threatened the appellant to

stay away from Manju. As such, he was enraged and had a motive to

commit the offence in question. The weapon of assault has been seized

which contains human blood and further human blood has been found in

the pants of the appellants for which there is no explanation. The

appellants were seen running away from the spot immediately after the

commission of the offence by the witnesses Anjali Kurrey (PW-1),

Bhumika Kurrey (PW-2) and Indrachand Sahu (PW-5) and they have

also been identified in the Test Identification Parade.

26.In the present case, the evidences not only proves the circumstances but

also links them in such a fashion so as to form an un-ending chain

leading to only one conclusion i.e. the guilt of the appellants.

27.In this case, the prosecution witnesses examined before the Court,

namely Anjali Kurre (PW-1) and Bhumika Kurre (PW-2), have clearly

deposed that they heard sounds of a fight/quarrel coming from the house

of the deceased persons. Thereafter, they called the landlord Indrachand

Sahu (PW-5) on the phone and asked him to come. The prosecution

witness Indrachand Sahu (PW-5) has stated that he came on receiving

the call from Anjali Kurre (PW-1). When Indrachand Sahu (PW-5) along

with prosecution witnesses Anjali Kurre (PW-1) and Bhumika Kurre (PW-

2) reached the house of the deceased, they found that the door of the

house was closed from inside. These witnesses have given consistent

and unbroken statements before the Court that when they reached near

the house of the deceased persons, they saw two persons running away

after coming out of the house of the deceased. These persons were later

14

identified to be the appellants in the identification proceedings. Further,

during investigation of this case, on examination of the ₹50/- stamp

paper collected and on scrutiny of the Court statements of prosecution

witnesses Mamta Sidar (PW-04) and Subhadra Sidar (PW-09), it has

emerged that the accused Soyeb Ahmad @ Saif used to harass and

trouble the deceased Manju Sidar by posting her photographs along with

his own on Facebook and WhatsApp. In this regard, prosecution witness

Subhadra Sidar (PW-09) has stated that the deceased Manju Sidar and

her mother had lodged a complaint at Police Station, Chakdhar Nagar,

District Raigarh. She has further stated that at Police Station Chakdhar

Nagar, the accused Soaib Ahmad alias Saif was counseled and he gave

a written undertaking on a ₹50/- stamp paper that he would not harass or

trouble Manju Sidar in the future. This circumstance clearly proves that

there was prior enmity between the appellant Soyeb Ahmad alias Saif

and the deceased Manju Sidar.

28.In the light of aforesaid discussion, we are inclined to endorse the

conclusion arrived at by the learned trial Court convicting the appellants

on the basis of evidence adduced by the prosecution witnesses.

Therefore, conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants as

detailed in the opening paragraph, by the learned trial Court is well

merited and does not call for any interference by this Court. We are of the

considered opinion that the view taken by the learned trial Court with

regard to conviction and sentence awarded to the appellants is just and

proper warranting no interference. Accordingly, the appeal(s) being

devoid of merit are liable to be and are hereby dismissed.

29.The appellants/convict are stated to be in jail. They shall serve out the

sentence awarded by the trial Court by means of the impugned judgment

of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court.

15

30.Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned

Superintendent of Jail where the appellants are undergoing the jail term,

to serve the same on the appellant informing him that they are 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.

31.Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be

transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information

and action, if any.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Arvind Kumar Verma) (Ramesh Sinha)

JUDGE CHIEF JUSTICE

Amit

16

HEAD NOTE

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, proof of motive, though not a sine

qua non where other incriminating circumstances are firmly established,

assumes significant importance in lending assurance to the prosecution case.

Motive becomes a vital link in the chain of circumstances when the prosecution

relies upon indirect evidence.