1

CGHC010129112023 2026:CGHC:35942-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

ACQA No. 124 of 2023

Prem Lal Dhivar S/o Sonu Ram Dhivar Aged About 35 Years R/o

Ghanshyam Chowk, Sahupara, Bhatagaaw, Purani Basti, Raipur Tehsil

And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Appellant

Versus

1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Purani Basti, Raipur,

Tehsil And District Raipur, Chhattisgarh

2 - Bramhanand Sonkar S/o Shri Diwan Sonkar Aged About 37 Years

R/o Behind Jagriti School, Sonkar Para, Bhataggw, P.S. Purani Basti,

Raipur, District : Raipur, Chhattisgarh

--- Respondents

CRA No. 495 of 2023

1 - Yogesh Yadav S/o Shri Santu Yadav Aged About 23 Years R/o

Thakurdev Para, In Front of Temple Bhathagaon, P.S. Purani Basti,

Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

2 - Deepak Vishvakrama S/o Late Kaushal Vishvakarma Aged About 24

Years R/o Chhirrapara Bhathagaon Lohar Chowk P.S. Purani Basti,

Raipur, District Raipur Chhattisgarh

3 - Arun Dhruv S/o Shri Devideen Dhruv Aged About 24 Years R/o

Chhirrapara Near Ganesh Chowk Bhathagaon, P.S. Purani Basti,

Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

4 - Sanjay Dhruv S/o Janak Dhruv @ Ghana Dhruv Aged About 24

Years R/o Chhirrapara Ganesh Chowk Bhathagaon, P.S. Purani Basti,

Raipur District Raipur Chhattisgarh

---Appellants

2

Versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate Raipur District Raipur

Chhattisgarh

... Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant

(In ACQA No.123/2023)

:Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, Advocate

For Appellants

(In CRA No.495/2023)

:Mr. Bishnu Muni, Advocate

For State/Respondent:Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate

General

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

13.08.2026

1.Heard Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel for the appellant in

Acquittal Appeal No.124/2023, Mr. Bishnu Muni, learned counsel

for the appellants in CRA No.495/2023 and Mr. Ashish Shukla,

learned Additional Advocate General, appearing for the State.

2.The present matter arises out of the judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 24.12.2022 passed by the learned 11th

Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur (Chhattisgarh)

in Sessions Trial No.22/2021, whereby the accused/appellants,

namely Yogesh Yadav, Deepak Vishvakarma, Arun Dhruv and

Sanjay Dhruv, have been convicted for the offences punishable

under Section 302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal

Code, 1860, and sentenced to undergo life imprisonment with

3

fine of 2,000/- each

₹

, with the stipulation that in default of

payment of fine, they shall undergo further rigorous imprisonment

for one year; further, accused/appellants Yogesh Yadav and

Deepak Vishvakarma have also been convicted for the offences

punishable under Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27(1) of the Arms Act

and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years

and five years respectively, with fine of 500/- each and

₹

corresponding default sentences. At the same time, co-accused

Brahmanand Sonkar came to be acquitted of the charges levelled

against him. Aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment, Criminal

Appeal No.495/2023 has been preferred by the convicted

accused/appellants, namely Yogesh Yadav, Deepak

Vishvakarma, Arun Dhruv and Sanjay Dhruv, challenging their

conviction and sentence, whereas Acquittal Appeal No.124/2023

has been preferred by the complainant Prem Lal Dhivar,

challenging the acquittal of accused Brahmanand Sonkar. Since

both the appeals arise out of the same judgment dated

24.12.2022 passed in Sessions Trial No.22/2021 and involve

common questions of fact and law, they are being considered and

decided together by this common judgment.

3.Briefly stated, the case of the prosecution is that on 12.03.2020 at

about 5:00 p.m., near Maa Durga Clinic, Bazar Chowk,

Bhathagaon, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Purani Basti,

Raipur, deceased Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri was allegedly attacked by

accused/appellants Yogesh Yadav, Deepak Vishvakarma, Arun

4

Dhruv and Sanjay Dhruv pursuant to a criminal conspiracy

hatched amongst them. It is the prosecution case that the

accused persons, in furtherance of their common design and with

the intention of causing the death of Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri,

assaulted him repeatedly with a knife and scissors, as a result of

which he sustained multiple serious injuries and subsequently

succumbed to the injuries. The incident is stated to have been

witnessed by, inter alia, Prem Lal Dhivar (PW-4), who was a

friend of the deceased, and Ved Prakash Jalkshatri (PW-4), son

of the deceased, besides other prosecution witnesses who were

examined during trial.

4.It is further the case of the prosecution that, immediately after the

occurrence, the matter was reported to the police and the criminal

law was set in motion. During the course of investigation, the

Investigating Officer inspected the place of occurrence, prepared

the spot documents and recorded the statements of the

witnesses. The prosecution relied upon the ocular account of the

witnesses who claimed to have witnessed the assault and

attributed specific participation to accused Yogesh Yadav, Deepak

Vishvakarma, Arun Dhruv and Sanjay Dhruv. The prosecution

also relied upon the evidence relating to the seizure and recovery

of the weapons allegedly used in the commission of the offence.

In particular, the seizure proceedings concerning the weapons

allegedly recovered at the instance of the accused persons were

relied upon by the prosecution to connect them with occurrence.

5

5.The prosecution further relied upon the medical evidence to

establish that the death of Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri was homicidal in

nature and was the result of the injuries sustained by him in the

assault. The medical evidence was relied upon in conjunction

with the ocular testimony to establish the nature, location and

manner of the injuries caused to the deceased. During

investigation, various articles connected with the occurrence were

seized and sent for forensic examination. The prosecution placed

on record the Forensic Science Laboratory report (Ex.P-39),

which records the detection of blood stains on the knife seized

from accused Deepak Vishvakarma and Yogesh Yadav, though

the blood stains had become disintegrated and the grouping

thereof could not be determined. The prosecution contended that

the said scientific evidence, read with the recovery of the

weapons and the testimony of the eyewitnesses, provided

corroboration to its case regarding the participation of the

accused persons in the commission of the offence.

6.The prosecution also relied upon electronic evidence collected

during investigation. It was alleged that a pen drive containing

CCTV footage was seized during investigation and the seizure

proceedings were sought to be proved through Dilip Kumar

Dhivar (PW-9) and Dev Kumar Jalkshatri (PW-14), who were

cited as witnesses to the seizure of the said article, marked as

Ex.P-17. The said witnesses, however, did not furnish any

substantive account regarding the contents of the pen drive or the

6

photographs/video allegedly contained therein. The learned Trial

Court nevertheless considered the said electronic material along

with the other evidence available on record. The prosecution

further examined the Investigating Officer and other formal and

seizure witnesses in order to prove the various stages of

investigation, including preparation of the relevant documents,

seizure of articles, recording of memorandum statements and

recovery of the alleged weapons.

7.In support of its case, the prosecution examined sixteen

witnesses, namely, PW-1 Prem Lal Dhivar, the complainant and

an alleged eyewitness to the occurrence; PW-2 Santosh Sonkar;

PW-3 Bhailal Anant; PW-4 Vedprakash Jalkshatri, son of the

deceased and an alleged eyewitness; PW-5 Nukesh Kumar

Singh; PW-6 Yogesh Kumar Tarak; PW-7 Ashok Verma; PW-8

Smt. Matibai; PW-9 Dilip Kumar Dhivar; PW-10 Kaleshwar

Kashyap; PW-11 Digvijay Singh Sidar; PW-12 Dr. Dipesh Shah;

PW-13 Ekeshwar Verma; PW-14 Devkumar Jalkshatri; PW-15 Dr.

M. Nirala, who proved the post-mortem examination and the

medical findings; and PW-16 Rajesh Singh, who was examined in

relation to the investigation and other formal aspects of the case.

The prosecution also relied upon the documentary evidence

exhibited as Ex.P/1 to Ex.P/41, including the First Information

Report (Ex.P/1), merg intimation (Ex.P/2), inquest proceedings

(Ex.P/4), crime details form (Ex.P/5), spot map (Ex.P/6), property

seizure memos (Ex.P/7 and Ex.P/11 to Ex.P/17), memorandum

7

statements (Ex.P/8 to Ex.P/10 and Ex.P/26), arrest/court

surrender memos (Ex.P/20 to Ex.P/24 and Ex.P/34 to Ex.P/38),

knife diagrams (Ex.P/18 and Ex.P/19), query report and related

documents (Ex.P/28), FSL-related documents (Ex.P/30 and

Ex.P/31), post-mortem application and report (Ex.P/32 and

Ex.P/33), FSL report (Ex.P/39), certificate (Ex.P/40) and the

statement recorded under Section 164 Cr.P.C. (Ex.P/41). The

prosecution also produced Article-1, the pen drive, as an article

admitted in evidence.

8.The prosecution case, in substance, rested upon the ocular

testimony of PW-1 Prem Lal Dhivar and PW-4 Vedprakash

Jalkshatri, who were relied upon as eyewitnesses to the

occurrence, besides the evidence of the other witnesses relating

to the circumstances of the incident, seizure and recovery of the

articles, and the investigation conducted by the police. The

prosecution also relied upon the evidence of PW-15 Dr. M. Nirala

to establish the nature and cause of death of deceased Jeevan

Lal Jalkshatri and upon the evidence of PW-12 Dr. Dipesh Shah

in relation to the medical aspects of the case. The seizure and

recovery proceedings, including the alleged recovery of weapons

and other articles, were sought to be established through the

concerned witnesses. The prosecution further relied upon FSL

report (Ex.P/39) in respect of the articles forwarded for forensic

examination and upon Article-1, pen drive, allegedly containing

CCTV footage, to lend corroboration to its version of occurrence.

8

9.Upon completion of the prosecution evidence, the accused

persons were examined under Section 313 of the Code of

Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’), wherein the

incriminating circumstances appearing against them in the

evidence of the prosecution were put to them. The accused

persons denied the allegations and the circumstances relied upon

by the prosecution, pleaded false implication and disputed their

involvement in the commission of the alleged offence. The

defence sought to challenge, inter alia, the credibility of the

alleged eyewitnesses, the recovery and seizure proceedings, the

medical and forensic evidence and the alleged electronic

evidence. In defence, DW-1 Dr. Shailendra Pushpkar was

examined, who was relied upon by the defence in support of its

case, particularly with regard to the nature and possible cause of

the injuries sustained by the injured persons.

10.On appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence brought on

record, the learned Trial Court, vide judgment dated 24.12.2022

passed in Sessions Trial No.22/2021, held that the prosecution

had succeeded in establishing the guilt of accused/appellants

Yogesh Yadav, Deepak Vishvakarma, Arun Dhruv and Sanjay

Dhruv for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with

Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The learned Trial

Court further found accused Yogesh Yadav and Deepak

Vishvakarma guilty of the offences punishable under Sections

25(1-B)(b) and 27(1) of the Arms Act. Accordingly, the aforesaid

9

four accused persons were convicted and sentenced as recorded

in the impugned judgment. However, insofar as accused

Brahmanand Sonkar is concerned, the learned Trial Court held

that the prosecution had failed to establish his involvement in the

alleged occurrence or the criminal conspiracy beyond reasonable

doubt and, consequently, acquitted him of the charges. Aggrieved

by the conviction and sentence, the four convicted accused have

preferred Criminal Appeal No.495/2023, whereas the complainant

Prem Lal Dhivar has preferred Acquittal Appeal No.124/2023,

challenging the acquittal of accused Brahmanand Sonkar.

11.Mr. Shubhank Tiwari, learned counsel appearing for the

appellant/complainant in Acquittal Appeal No.124/2023, would

submit that the learned Trial Court has committed a serious error

of law and fact in acquitting accused Brahmanand Sonkar,

despite there being sufficient material on record demonstrating

his involvement in the commission of the offence. According to

learned counsel, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses,

particularly the eyewitnesses, is required to be appreciated in its

entirety and cannot be discarded merely on account of minor

discrepancies or because a particular witness happens to be

related to, or acquainted with, the deceased. It is submitted that

the learned Trial Court itself has found the occurrence and the

participation of the other accused persons to have been

established, and therefore, the evidence relating to the criminal

conspiracy and the role of Brahmanand could not have been

10

discarded by adopting a hyper-technical approach. Learned

counsel would contend that the circumstances emerging from the

prosecution evidence, when considered cumulatively, establish

the involvement of respondent/accused Brahmanand beyond

reasonable doubt and that the acquittal recorded in his favour is

contrary to the evidence available on record.

12.Learned counsel would further submit that the learned Trial Court

has failed to properly appreciate the legal position governing the

proof of a criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B of the IPC. It

is argued that a conspiracy is ordinarily hatched in secrecy and,

therefore, direct evidence regarding the meeting of minds of the

conspirators is seldom available; the same can legitimately be

inferred from the conduct of the accused persons and the

surrounding circumstances forming part of the prosecution case.

According to learned counsel, the evidence led by the

prosecution, including the ocular account, the circumstances

emerging during investigation and the conduct of the accused

persons, furnishes sufficient material to establish the participation

of Brahmanand in the criminal conspiracy. It is, therefore,

submitted that the finding of acquittal recorded in favour of

Brahmanand Sonkar is unsustainable and deserves to be set

aside and he be convicted in accordance with law.

13.Mr. Bishnu Muni, learned counsel appearing for the

appellants/accused Yogesh Yadav, Deepak Vishvakarma, Arun

11

Dhruv and Sanjay Dhruv in Criminal Appeal No.495/2023, would

submit that the learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate the

prosecution evidence in its proper perspective and has convicted

the appellants principally on the basis of interested and unreliable

testimony. According to learned counsel, the alleged

eyewitnesses are either closely connected with the deceased or

otherwise interested in the prosecution case and their testimony

suffers from material contradictions, omissions and

improvements. It is submitted that merely because a witness is

related to the deceased, his evidence cannot be rejected outright,

but where such evidence is found to contain material

inconsistencies and is not corroborated by independent evidence,

the same cannot safely form the sole basis of conviction for an

offence carrying the sentence of life imprisonment.

14.Learned counsel would further contend that the prosecution has

failed to establish the alleged criminal conspiracy under Section

120-B IPC. It is submitted that the charge of conspiracy requires

proof of an agreement or meeting of minds between the accused

persons to commit the alleged offence and that mere presence,

association or suspicion cannot take the place of proof of such

agreement. According to learned counsel, there is no reliable

evidence demonstrating any prior meeting, arrangement or

agreement amongst the appellants to cause the death of

deceased Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri. The learned Trial Court, it is

argued, has inferred conspiracy merely from the alleged

12

participation of the appellants in the occurrence, which is legally

impermissible in the absence of cogent evidence establishing the

necessary meeting of minds.

15.Learned counsel would next challenge the alleged recovery and

seizure of the weapons. It is submitted that the independent

witnesses associated with the seizure proceedings have not

supported the prosecution case in material particulars and that

the alleged memorandum and seizure evidence does not inspire

confidence. The learned counsel would draw attention to the

evidence concerning the pen drive and CCTV footage ,

particularly the testimony of the witnesses associated with its

seizure, and submit that the contents of the electronic material

have not been satisfactorily proved in accordance with law. It is

contended that the CCTV footage does not establish the

participation of the appellants in the alleged assault and,

therefore, cannot be treated as corroborative evidence against

them.

16.Learned counsel would also submit that the FSL report (Ex.P/39)

does not conclusively connect the appellants with the murder.

Though blood stains were allegedly detected on the seized

knife/articles, the forensic report itself records that the stains had

become disintegrated and their blood grouping could not be

determined. Thus, according to learned counsel, the forensic

evidence does not establish that the blood found on the seized

13

articles was that of the deceased. The alleged recovery,

therefore, remains inconclusive and cannot furnish substantive

corroboration to the otherwise doubtful ocular testimony. Learned

counsel would further submit that the medical evidence does not

conclusively establish that the injuries attributed to the appellants

could have been caused in the manner alleged by the

prosecution.

17.It is lastly submitted that the prosecution is required to establish

its case beyond reasonable doubt and that the burden never

shifts upon the accused to explain deficiencies in the prosecution

case. The material contradictions in the testimony of the alleged

eyewitnesses, absence of reliable independent corroboration,

doubtful recovery of the weapons, inconclusive forensic evidence

and failure to establish the alleged conspiracy cumulatively create

serious doubt regarding the prosecution story. Learned counsel

would, therefore, submit that the appellants are entitled to the

benefit of doubt and deserve to be acquitted of all the charges. It

is further submitted that the learned Trial Court has adopted an

approach which overlooks the settled principle that suspicion,

however strong, cannot take the place of proof.

18.Per contra, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the State, would oppose the submissions

advanced by learned counsel for the appellants and support the

judgment of the learned Trial Court insofar as the conviction of

14

accused/appellants Yogesh Yadav, Deepak Vishvakarma, Arun

Dhruv and Sanjay Dhruv is concerned. He would submit that the

prosecution has led cogent and consistent evidence establishing

the homicidal death of Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri as well as the

participation of the appellants in the commission of the offence.

According to learned State counsel, the testimony of the

eyewitnesses cannot be discarded merely because they are

related to or acquainted with the deceased. Their presence at the

place of occurrence is natural and their evidence, when

considered in its entirety, establishes the material particulars of

the prosecution case. Minor discrepancies or variations, which do

not go to the root of the prosecution story, cannot be made a

ground for discarding otherwise reliable ocular evidence.

19.Learned Additional Advocate General would further submit that

the ocular evidence receives substantial corroboration from the

medical, seizure and forensic evidence available on record. The

prosecution has proved the relevant seizure proceedings and the

recovery of weapons, and Ex.P/39, the FSL report, also records

the presence of blood stains on the articles sent for forensic

examination. According to learned State counsel, the fact that the

blood grouping could not be ascertained because the stains had

become disintegrated does not render the entire forensic

evidence worthless, particularly when it is considered along with

the direct evidence of the eyewitnesses and the other

circumstances proved by the prosecution. It is contended that the

15

learned Trial Court has carefully considered the entire evidence

and has recorded a reasoned finding of guilt, which does not

warrant interference in appeal.

20.Learned Additional Advocate General would also oppose

Acquittal Appeal No.124/2023, insofar as the complainant seeks

reversal of the acquittal of accused Brahmanand Sonkar. He

would submit that the learned Trial Court, upon a proper

appreciation of the evidence, found that there was no reliable

substantive evidence establishing the participation of

Brahmanand in the alleged conspiracy or the commission of the

murder. In the absence of cogent evidence demonstrating his

meeting of minds with the other accused persons, the learned

Trial Court was justified in extending the benefit of doubt to him. It

is, therefore, submitted that the acquittal recorded in his favour

does not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting

interference in an appeal against acquittal.

21.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

and carefully as well.

22.In view of the rival submissions advanced by learned counsel for

the parties and upon consideration of the entire evidence, both

oral and documentary, available on record, the following

questions arise for determination in these appeals:

16

(i) Whether the learned Trial Court was justified in acquitting

accused Brahmanand Sonkar of the charge under Section

302 read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, and

whether the said finding of acquittal calls for interference in

Acquittal Appeal No.124/2023?

(ii) Whether the learned Trial Court was justified in holding

accused/appellants Yogesh Yadav, Deepak Vishvakarma,

Arun Dhruv and Sanjay Dhruv guilty for the offence

punishable under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC

and, so far as accused Yogesh Yadav and Deepak

Vishvakarma are concerned, under Sections 25(1-B)(b) and

27(1) of the Arms Act, and whether the conviction and

sentence recorded against them in Criminal Appeal

No.495/2023 call for interference by this Court?

Re: Question No. (i) — Acquittal Appeal No.124/2023

23.Before examining the correctness of the acquittal of accused

Brahmanand Sonkar, it would be apposite to notice the well-

settled parameters governing the jurisdiction of an appellate

Court while dealing with an appeal against acquittal. There is no

absolute bar upon the appellate Court in reappreciating the entire

evidence, but the presumption of innocence in favour of an

accused, which exists at the commencement of the trial, stands

further strengthened by an order of acquittal. The Supreme Court

in Sambasivam v. State, 2025 INSC 281, reiterated that an

17

acquitted accused enjoys a strengthened presumption of

innocence and that such presumption is required to be kept in

view while examining a challenge to the order of acquittal.

Likewise, in The State of Maharashtra v. Kamlakar @

Kamalakar & Anr., Criminal Appeal No.1715 of 2017, decided

on 27.02.2025, the Supreme Court reiterated that although an

appellate Court has full power to reappreciate the evidence in an

appeal against acquittal, interference is warranted where the

finding of the Trial Court is perverse, contrary to the weight of

evidence or otherwise unsustainable in law; where two

reasonable views are possible and the Trial Court has adopted

one such view, the acquittal ordinarily ought not to be disturbed.

24.24. More recently, the Supreme Court has again reiterated that

where the judgment under appeal reflects a legally possible view,

the same cannot be reversed merely because another view may

also be possible, unless the appellate Court finds the view to be

erroneous or perverse. Thus, the appellate exercise in an

acquittal appeal is not one of substituting a preferred view for a

reasonably possible view taken by the Trial Court. The question is

whether the conclusion reached by the learned Trial Court is such

that no reasonable judicial mind, upon a proper appreciation of

the evidence, could have arrived at it.

25.Applying the aforesaid principles to the present case, this Court

has undertaken an independent and careful reappraisal of the

18

entire evidence. The prosecution evidence regarding the actual

occurrence and the participation of the other accused persons

cannot, merely because it has been accepted against them, be

mechanically extended to accused Brahmanand Sonkar. The

criminal liability of each accused has to be established on the

basis of legally admissible and reliable evidence. In the present

case, the material eyewitnesses have not attributed any specific

overt act to Brahmanand Sonkar. More importantly, the

prosecution has failed to place on record any cogent and reliable

circumstance establishing his presence at the scene of

occurrence or his participation in the assault upon deceased

Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri.

26.The prosecution essentially seeks to connect Brahmanand

Sonkar with the offence through the allegation of criminal

conspiracy. The law relating to conspiracy, however, does not

permit the Court to infer a meeting of minds merely from

association, acquaintance or suspicion. In 2026 INSC 503, the

Supreme Court, while considering Section 120-B IPC, reiterated

the statutory distinction between criminal conspiracy and the

substantive offence and the necessity of establishing the

ingredients of conspiracy in accordance with law. Similarly, the

Supreme Court in its recent pronouncements has consistently

emphasised that the prosecution must establish circumstances

from which the requisite meeting of minds can reasonably and

safely be inferred.

19

27.In the present case, there is no direct evidence of any meeting,

agreement or prior arrangement between Brahmanand Sonkar

and the other accused persons. Nor has the prosecution brought

on record any independent circumstance of such compelling

nature from which his participation in the alleged conspiracy can

safely be inferred. The evidence of PW-6 Yogesh Kumar Tarak, to

the extent it seeks to attribute the involvement of Brahmanand on

the basis of what was allegedly stated by co-accused Sanjay

Dhruv before the police, cannot constitute substantive evidence

against Brahmanand. The statutory bar governing confessions

made to police officers assumes significance in this regard.

28.This Court is also conscious that in an appeal against acquittal,

the ultimate consideration is not whether the prosecution story is

merely probable, but whether the finding recorded by the Trial

Court is demonstrably unsustainable. On a complete reappraisal,

this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has considered the

material evidence and has arrived at a conclusion which is

certainly a possible and reasonable view of the evidence. There

is no material on record to hold that the acquittal of Brahmanand

Sonkar is the result of perversity, complete misreading of

evidence or application of an erroneous legal principle.

29.The complainant may legitimately entertain a grievance that the

evidence could have been appreciated differently; however, such

possibility, by itself, cannot justify reversal of an acquittal. The

20

Supreme Court has repeatedly cautioned that where the view

taken by the Trial Court is a possible view, the appellate Court

should not interfere merely because it may have reached a

different conclusion. The present case does not fall within the

exceptional category warranting reversal of an acquittal.

30.Accordingly, Question No.(i) is answered in favour of

accused Brahmanand Sonkar and against the

appellant/complainant. Acquittal Appeal No.124/2023 is,

therefore, liable to be dismissed.

Re: Question No. (ii) — Criminal Appeal No.495/2023

31.So far as Criminal Appeal No.495/2023 is concerned, the

appellants/accused persons, namely, Yogesh Yadav, Deepak

Vishvakarma, Arun Dhruv and Sanjay Dhruv, have called in

question the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

24.12.2022 passed by the learned 11th Additional Sessions

Judge, Raipur, in Sessions Trial No.22/2021, whereby they have

been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302

read with Section 120-B of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced

to undergo imprisonment for life with fine, and Yogesh Yadav and

Deepak Vishvakarma have further been convicted under Sections

25(1-B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act. The question before this

Court, therefore, is whether, upon a reappraisal of the entire

evidence, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court suffer

from any perversity, misreading of evidence, omission to consider

21

material evidence or error of law so as to warrant interference in

appellate jurisdiction.

32.The prosecution case, in substance, is that on 12.03.2020 at

about 5:00 p.m., near Maa Durga Clinic, Bazar Chowk,

Bhathagaon, within the jurisdiction of Police Station Purani Basti,

Raipur, the deceased Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri was attacked by the

appellants pursuant to a criminal conspiracy and was repeatedly

assaulted with a knife and scissors, resulting in multiple serious

injuries and ultimately his death. The prosecution case, therefore,

is not founded merely upon a subsequent recovery or an

inference drawn from suspicious circumstances; rather, the

prosecution has placed before the Court direct ocular evidence

regarding the occurrence, which is required to be examined in

conjunction with the medical, forensic and other corroborative

evidence.

33.At the outset, it is necessary to notice the evidence of PW-1 Prem

Lal Dhivar, the complainant and an eyewitness to the occurrence.

PW-1 has narrated the manner in which the deceased was

assaulted and has attributed participation in the occurrence to the

appellants. His evidence assumes considerable significance as it

relates directly to the occurrence and is not merely hearsay

evidence concerning what happened subsequently. The defence

has subjected this witness to detailed cross-examination and has

attempted to impeach his credibility on the ground of his

22

relationship with or proximity to the deceased and by pointing out

discrepancies in his narration. However, the cross-examination

has not brought out any such material contradiction or omission

which goes to the root of the prosecution case so as to render his

presence at the place of occurrence or his account of the assault

inherently improbable.

34.The testimony of PW-4 Vedprakash Jalkshatri, who is also an

eyewitness, is of particular relevance. He has supported the

prosecution version regarding the occurrence and the assault

upon the deceased. His evidence, when read as a whole,

materially corroborates the account given by PW-1 with regard to

the participation of the accused persons and the nature of the

assault. The fact that PW-4 is related to the deceased cannot, by

itself, constitute a ground for discarding his evidence. The law is

well settled that a related witness is not necessarily an interested

witness. What the Court is required to examine is whether such

witness had a natural opportunity to witness the occurrence,

whether his presence is established, whether his testimony is

intrinsically reliable and whether it receives assurance from the

surrounding circumstances and other evidence.

35.The Supreme Court has recently reiterated this principle in State

of Rajasthan v. Khemraj, 2025 INSC 655, observing that there

is no absolute rule that the evidence of related eyewitnesses

must invariably be corroborated by independent witnesses;

23

however, where their testimony suffers from contradictions going

to the root of the matter, the Court must carefully examine

whether such evidence can safely constitute the basis of

conviction. The converse principle is equally well settled: where

the testimony of a related witness withstands cross-examination

and is consistent on the material particulars and finds

corroboration from medical or other evidence, there is no legal

impediment in acting upon it.

36.The Supreme Court in Kunhimuhammed @ Kunheethu v. The

State of Kerala, 2024 INSC 937 also considered a case where

the testimony of an eyewitness, though assailed as that of an

interested witness and despite omissions and contradictions, was

found reliable when tested against the medical evidence and

surrounding circumstances. In the present case, the evidence of

PW-1 and PW-4, when examined in its entirety, inspires

confidence. Their testimony is consistent on the material aspect

that the deceased was subjected to a concerted assault by the

accused persons. The discrepancies highlighted by the defence

do not relate to the foundational facts of the occurrence. It is

necessary to bear in mind that witnesses to a violent occurrence

cannot be expected to reproduce every detail with photographic

precision. Human memory is not a mechanical recording device.

Minor variations as to the sequence of individual blows, exact

position of the assailants or other peripheral details are natural

and, unless such variations strike at the core of the prosecution

24

case, cannot be treated as sufficient to discard otherwise credible

ocular evidence.

37.The evidence of PW-2 Santosh Sonkar and PW-3 Bhailal Anant

has also been considered. Their testimony is relevant for

appreciating the circumstances surrounding the occurrence and

the prosecution version. Likewise, PW-5 Nukesh Kumar Singh

and PW-6 Yogesh Kumar Tarak have been examined by the

prosecution in relation to the subsequent investigation and

circumstances relied upon by the prosecution. The Court has not

overlooked that some of these witnesses have not supported

every part of the prosecution case with equal force. However, the

evidence of a witness cannot be evaluated on an all-or-nothing

basis.

38.In this connection, the recent judgment of the Supreme Court in

Tarun Sharma v. State of Haryana, 2025 INSC 1139 is

instructive. The Supreme Court reiterated that merely because a

prosecution witness has been declared hostile, his entire

testimony does not stand effaced from the record. The Court is

required to separate the reliable portion from the unreliable

portion and may rely upon that part of the testimony which

receives corroboration from other evidence. The maxim falsus in

uno, falsus in omnibus has no application as an inflexible rule in

Indian criminal jurisprudence. Thus, the fact that a particular

witness does not support the prosecution in its entirety does not

25

compel the Court to reject his entire deposition, particularly where

a material portion thereof is consistent with other reliable

evidence.

39.The ocular evidence receives significant corroboration from the

medical evidence. PW-15 Dr. M. Nirala, who conducted the post-

mortem examination of deceased Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri, proved

the post-mortem report Ex.P/33. The medical evidence

establishes that the deceased had sustained multiple injuries

attributable to a violent assault. The post-mortem findings are of

considerable significance because the prosecution case is that

the deceased was repeatedly assaulted with sharp-edged

weapons. The injuries found upon the person of the deceased,

read with the medical opinion regarding the cause and nature of

death, establish that the death was homicidal and that the

deceased had suffered serious bodily injuries before succumbing

to them.

40.The nature of the injuries, as emerging from the post-mortem

evidence, is also material in appreciating the ocular account. The

deceased had sustained multiple incised/sharp-edged injuries,

including injuries over the head and other parts of the body,

besides injuries corresponding to the use of sharp-edged

weapons. The medical evidence, therefore, is not inconsistent

with the prosecution allegation that the deceased was attacked

with a knife and scissors and was repeatedly assaulted. The

26

multiplicity and nature of the injuries also lend assurance to the

prosecution version that the occurrence involved a concerted and

repeated assault rather than a solitary or accidental injury.

41.The defence has relied upon the evidence of DW-1 Dr.

Shailendra Pushpkar and has sought to suggest that certain

injuries could have been caused in a manner different from that

alleged by the prosecution. The said submission, however, does

not demolish the prosecution case. The opinion of the defence

witness is required to be appreciated along with the proved

medical record and the ocular evidence. Unless the medical

evidence completely rules out the possibility of the occurrence in

the manner narrated by the eyewitnesses, it cannot be used to

displace trustworthy ocular evidence. In the present case, the

medical evidence does not render the account of PW-1 and PW-4

impossible or inherently improbable. On the contrary, the

existence of multiple sharp-edged injuries provides broad medical

support to their testimony.

42.It is also significant that the prosecution has produced PW-12 Dr.

Dipesh Shah and PW-15 Dr. M. Nirala in relation to the medical

aspects of the case. The medical evidence, therefore, is not

being considered in isolation or merely on the basis of the

contents of the post-mortem report. The evidence of the medical

witnesses, the post-mortem report Ex.P/33, and the other medical

material on record have been considered in juxtaposition with the

27

ocular account. The overall medical evidence establishes the

homicidal nature of the death and is compatible with the

prosecution allegation of assault by sharp-edged weapons.

43.The evidence relating to seizure and recovery also requires

consideration. The prosecution has proved several property

seizure memos, including Ex.P/07 and Ex.P/11 to Ex.P/17, the

memoranda Ex.P/08 to Ex.P/10, and the subsequent seizure

proceedings. In respect of the weapons, the prosecution has

relied upon the memorandum evidence and the corresponding

recovery of articles. Ex.P/18 and Ex.P/19 contain the diagrams of

the knife, while the FSL report has been proved as Ex.P/39. The

prosecution has thereby established that the investigation

resulted in recovery and forensic examination of the articles

connected with the occurrence.

44.It is true that the FSL report Ex.P/39 records blood stains on the

seized articles but, owing to disintegration of the blood material,

the blood group could not be ascertained. This Court, therefore,

does not treat the FSL report as conclusive scientific proof that

the blood found on the articles was that of the deceased.

Nevertheless, the evidentiary value of the recovery and the

forensic material cannot be assessed in a vacuum. The absence

of determination of the blood group merely limits the extent to

which the forensic report can be used as corroboration; it does

not automatically render the recovery inadmissible or

28

meaningless. More importantly, the conviction in the present case

is not founded solely upon the recovery or the FSL report. The

principal foundation is the ocular evidence, supported by medical

evidence and the surrounding circumstances.

45.The defence has also pointed out that certain witnesses

associated with the seizure did not support the prosecution case

in its entirety. The evidence of PW-9 Dilip Kumar Dhivar and PW-

14 Devkumar Jalkshatri, in particular, has been assailed in

relation to the seizure of the pen drive and other articles. The

electronic material has also been relied upon by the defence to

contend that it does not conclusively establish the occurrence.

Even if the electronic evidence or a particular seizure is kept

aside, the prosecution case does not collapse because there is

substantive ocular evidence of the occurrence which has

received material corroboration from the medical evidence. It is a

settled principle that an otherwise reliable prosecution case

cannot be rejected merely because every piece of corroborative

evidence does not independently establish the guilt of the

accused.

46.The defence has further argued that there was no established

previous enmity between the deceased and the appellants. The

submission, though relevant for consideration, does not advance

the defence case to the extent suggested. Motive assumes

greater significance where the prosecution case rests principally

29

upon circumstantial evidence. Where there is reliable direct

evidence of the occurrence, absence of proof of motive is not by

itself fatal to the prosecution. The Court is concerned with

whether the act of the accused has been proved by reliable

evidence. The Supreme Court has repeatedly held that a proved

motive is not an indispensable condition precedent for sustaining

a conviction where the direct evidence is otherwise trustworthy.

47.The next and more substantial question concerns the charge of

criminal conspiracy under Section 120-B IPC. The appellants

have argued that there is no direct evidence of any meeting or

agreement between them and that the prosecution has failed to

establish the conspiracy independently. It is true that mere

association, friendship, presence together or knowledge of an

intended crime would not, by themselves, constitute criminal

conspiracy. The prosecution must establish the existence of an

agreement to do an illegal act or to do a lawful act by illegal

means.

48.At the same time, criminal conspiracy is, by its very nature,

ordinarily hatched in secrecy and, therefore, direct evidence of

the precise conversation or agreement between the conspirators

is seldom available. In Gurdeep Singh v. State of Punjab, 2025

INSC 957, the Supreme Court reiterated that the meeting of

minds is the primary requirement of criminal conspiracy; however,

the agreement need not necessarily be proved by direct evidence

30

and may be inferred from the proved circumstances and conduct

of the accused. The Court further cautioned that every

incriminating circumstance relied upon to establish the conspiracy

must itself be proved by reliable evidence and the circumstances

must form a coherent chain.

49.Applying the aforesaid principle to the present case, the finding of

conspiracy recorded by the learned Trial Court cannot be said to

rest merely upon the fact that the appellants knew each other.

The prosecution evidence depicts their concerted participation in

the assault upon the deceased, the nature and manner of the

assault, the use of sharp-edged weapons, the subsequent

recovery proceedings and the other surrounding circumstances.

The acts attributed to the appellants, when considered

cumulatively rather than in isolation, provide the basis for the

inference that their participation was pursuant to a common

design.

50.The Court must, however, guard against converting suspicion into

proof. Criminal conspiracy cannot be inferred merely because a

number of persons happen to be present at the scene. What is

material is whether the proved conduct and circumstances

demonstrate that the accused persons were acting pursuant to a

common unlawful design. In the present case, the direct evidence

regarding the concerted assault, read with the medical evidence

showing multiple sharp-edged injuries and the other proved

31

circumstances, furnishes the necessary evidentiary foundation for

the finding recorded by the learned Trial Court.

51.The defence has also attempted to draw advantage from the fact

that certain witnesses have not supported the prosecution case in

its entirety. That submission cannot be considered in isolation.

The Supreme Court in 2025 INSC 1139 has made it clear that the

Court must distinguish the reliable portion of a witness's

testimony from the portion which does not inspire confidence,

rather than mechanically discarding the entire testimony merely

because the witness has resiled from some part of the

prosecution case. In the present case, the core testimony

concerning the occurrence stands supported by other evidence

on record.

52.It is also necessary to keep in view that the standard of proof is

proof beyond reasonable doubt, and not proof beyond every

conceivable or speculative doubt. The accused are entitled to the

benefit of a reasonable doubt arising from the evidence; they are

not entitled to an acquittal on the basis of fanciful, remote or

hypothetical possibilities. The Supreme Court's recent decisions

also emphasise that while contradictions which go to the root of

the prosecution case may justify acquittal, minor variations and

discrepancies which do not affect the substratum of the

prosecution version cannot be elevated into grounds for rejecting

otherwise reliable evidence.

32

53.On a careful examination of the evidence of PW-1 Prem Lal

Dhivar and PW-4 Vedprakash Jalkshatri, this Court finds that their

evidence regarding the occurrence remains substantially

consistent on the material particulars. Their testimony receives

assurance from the medical evidence of PW-15 Dr. M. Nirala, the

post-mortem report Ex.P/33, and the other material collected

during investigation. The injuries found upon the deceased are

consistent with the prosecution case of repeated assault by

sharp-edged weapons. The evidence of the remaining

prosecution witnesses, even where not wholly supportive, does

not create such a contradiction as would render the testimony of

the principal eyewitnesses inherently unreliable.

54.The Court has also carefully considered the defence evidence of

DW-1 Dr. Shailendra Pushpkar, the deficiencies pointed out in the

seizure proceedings, the inability of the FSL to determine the

blood group, the evidence concerning the pen drive, and the

alleged absence of motive or previous enmity. None of these

circumstances, either individually or collectively, is sufficient to

displace the direct evidence of the occurrence. At best, they

affect the degree of corroboration available from particular pieces

of evidence. They do not destroy the foundational prosecution

evidence.

55.So far as the conviction of Yogesh Yadav and Deepak

Vishvakarma under Sections 25(1-B)(b) and 27 of the Arms Act is

33

concerned, the recovery of the weapons, the seizure

proceedings, the testimony of the witnesses associated with the

recovery and the corresponding documentary evidence have

been considered. The fact that the FSL could not determine the

blood group on account of disintegration of the blood stains does

not, by itself, nullify the factum of recovery. The evidence relating

to possession and recovery has to be assessed on its own

footing along with the other evidence on record. On such

assessment, the findings recorded by the learned Trial Court

cannot be said to be perverse or unsupported by evidence.

56.This Court is conscious of the fact that an appeal against

conviction is a valuable statutory right and that the appellate

Court is required to undertake an independent assessment of the

entire evidence rather than merely examine whether the view

taken by the Trial Court is possible. Such independent scrutiny

has been undertaken in the present case. Having reappreciated

the depositions of the material eyewitnesses, the medical

evidence, the documentary evidence, the seizure proceedings,

the FSL report, the defence evidence and the submissions

advanced on behalf of the appellants, this Court finds no material

circumstance which would render the prosecution case doubtful

on the standard required in a criminal trial.

57.The cumulative effect of the evidence is therefore of considerable

significance. The prosecution has established the homicidal

34

death of Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri; the ocular witnesses have proved

the occurrence and the participation of the appellants; the

medical evidence corroborates the nature of the assault; the

recovery and forensic evidence provide additional corroborative

circumstances; and the evidence as a whole supports the finding

that the appellants acted in concert pursuant to the criminal

design. The prosecution case does not rest upon any isolated

circumstance but upon a body of evidence which, when read

together, establishes the guilt of the appellants beyond

reasonable doubt.

58.This Court is, therefore, unable to accept the contention that the

learned Trial Court convicted the appellants merely on the basis

of suspicion, defective recovery or an uncorroborated statement

of a related witness. On the contrary, the learned Trial Court has

examined the evidence in its proper perspective and has

recorded findings which are supported by the material available

on record. No material illegality, perversity or miscarriage of

justice has been demonstrated warranting appellate interference.

59.Accordingly, Question No.(ii) is answered against the

appellants/accused and in favour of the prosecution. This

Court holds that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing

beyond reasonable doubt the participation of Yogesh Yadav,

Deepak Vishvakarma, Arun Dhruv and Sanjay Dhruv in the

homicidal assault upon deceased Jeevan Lal Jalkshatri and has

35

further established the ingredients of the offence under Section

302 read with Section 120-B IPC. The additional convictions of

Yogesh Yadav and Deepak Vishvakarma under Sections 25(1-B)

(b) and 27 of the Arms Act are also found to be supported by the

evidence on record.

Conclusion

60.For the reasons discussed hereinabove, Acquittal Appeal

No.124/2023, preferred by the complainant Prem Lal Dhivar

against the acquittal of Brahmanand Sonkar, fails and is

accordingly dismissed. The acquittal of Brahmanand Sonkar

recorded by the learned 11th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur,

in Sessions Trial No.22/2021 is hereby affirmed.

61.Likewise, Criminal Appeal No.495/2023, preferred by Yogesh

Yadav, Deepak Vishvakarma, Arun Dhruv and Sanjay Dhruv,

also fails and is dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order

of sentence dated 24.12.2022 passed by the learned 11th

Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, District Raipur, in Sessions

Trial No.22/2021 are hereby affirmed.

62.In the ultimate analysis, this Court finds that the learned Trial

Court has adopted a legally permissible and evidence-based

approach in acquitting Brahmanand Sonkar, while the conviction

of the remaining four accused persons is founded upon reliable

and legally admissible evidence. Neither of the two appeals

discloses any ground warranting interference by this Court.

36

Accordingly, both the appeals, i.e. ACQA No.124/2023 and CRA

No.495/2023, therefore, stand dismissed.

63.It is stated at the Bar that the appellants are in jail, they shall

serve out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.

64.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.

65.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