1

2026:CGHC:10456-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 1152 of 2024

Ramanand Sahu @ Bhurva S/o Gudeshwar Sahu, Aged About 19 Years R/o

Village Dindori, Police Station- Lalpur, District - Mungeli (C.G)

Appellant(s)

Versus

State Of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station -

Navagarh, District- Bemetara (C.G.).

Respondent(s)

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Petitioner(s) :Mr. Sudhir Verma, Advocate

For Respondent(s) :Mr. Shaleen Singh Baghel, GA

Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon’ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

Per, Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge

28/02/2026

1.This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is

against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

29/04/2024 passed in Sessions Trial No. 45/2023 by the learned I

Additional Sessions Judge (Children Court), Bemetara (C.G.), whereby

the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:-

2

Conviction Sentence

U/s 302 read with 120 (b) of the

IPC

Rigorous imprisonment for 14 years

along with fine of Rs. 1000/- with

default stipulation

U/s 201 of the IPC Imprisonment for 3 years with fine of

Rs. 500/- with default stipulation.

In the crime in question, three accused persons were involved, out

of whom two, namely Rahul Sahu and Sesh Kumar @ Sajan, had

preferred CRA No. 2134/2023 challenging their conviction and sentence

dated 06/10/2023 passed in ST No. 08/2023 by the I Additional Sessions

Judge, Bemetara. The said appeal has already been dismissed by this

Court vide judgment dated 30/06/2025. The present appellant was a

Child in Conflict with Law (CCL) at the relevant time. He was tried

separately as an adult and has been convicted vide the impugned

judgment. Hence, the present appeal has been preferred.

2.(a)In brief, the prosecution case is that on 14/12/2022, Munnalal

Diwakar, the Kotwar of the village (hereinafter referred to as “the

Complainant”), lodged a zero number merg regarding the dead body of

an unknown person. He reported, inter alia, that on the said morning, at

about 7:00 a.m., while he had woken up and was sprinkling water in the

field, one Suraj Dhruw informed him that a dead body was lying near

Moharangiya Nala, close to the Shamshan Ghat. Upon receiving the

information, he immediately proceeded to the spot and found the body of

an unidentified person lying there. The head portion of the body was in a

raised position within the water at the edge of the drain. There was

substantial bleeding from the head. The deceased was dressed in a

3

catechu-coloured floral jacket, black jeans pants, and blue sports shoes

on both feet. The grass on the bank of the drain near the body was

stained with blood for some distance, and a considerable quantity of

blood was scattered approximately 50–55 feet away from the body. A

piece of cement concrete stone, stained with blood, was also found lying

nearby.

(b)During the course of investigation, it transpired that the present

appellant (CCL), in furtherance of a conspiracy hatched with the co-

accused, namely Rahul Sahu and Sesh Kumar, had taken the deceased to

the place of occurrence and thereafter caused his death by committing

his murder.

(c)On the basis of the information furnished by the Complainant, a

zero-number inquest intimation was recorded. After preparation of the

inquest (panchnama) over the dead body, the same was forwarded to the

Community Health Center, Navagarh for postmortem examination.

Thereafter, Inquest No. 49/2022 was registered and, at Police Station

Navagarh, Crime No. 296/2022 was duly recorded against the accused

persons.

3.After completion of the investigation, since the present appellant was a

Child in Conflict with Law (CCL), a charge-sheet was submitted before

the Juvenile Justice Board. The Board, upon consideration, came to the

conclusion that the CCL was required to be tried as an adult and,

accordingly, transferred the case to the learned I Additional Sessions

Judge (Children Court), Bemetara. Thereafter, he was tried as an adult

4

and his trial proceeded separately. After framing of charges, the same

were read over and explained to the appellant. He denied the charges and

claimed trial.

4.In order to establish the offence, the prosecution examined 54 witnesses

in support of its case. The statement of the accused/appellant under

Section 313 Cr.P.C. was recorded, wherein he pleaded innocence and

alleged false implication in the matter.

5.The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence

available on record, by its judgment dated 29/04/2024 convicted and

sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment.

6.Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the conviction is wholly

unsustainable as the prosecution case rests entirely upon circumstantial

evidence and the alleged chain of circumstances is incomplete. It is

argued that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence and the so-called

“last seen” evidence is inconsistent and unreliable. Attention is drawn to

the testimony of PW-48, who stated that the deceased was with him at

about 6:30 PM, thereby contradicting the prosecution theory that the

deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant. It is further

contended that the statements of material witnesses under Section 161

CrPC were recorded belatedly and that in several instances the witnesses

did not name the appellant in their police statements but introduced such

allegations during their deposition before the Court, amounting to

material improvements and afterthoughts which strike at the root of the

prosecution case. Learned counsel also questions the identification of the

5

dead body by pointing out discrepancies regarding the tattoo described

by witnesses and as noted in the post-mortem report, thereby creating

doubt about the identity of the deceased. It is further submitted that the

seizure of the knife and other articles is doubtful as independent panch

witnesses have not supported the prosecution case and have denied the

recovery in their presence. Emphasis is laid on the FSL report which

records that no blood was detected on the clothes seized from the

appellant; it is argued that if the appellant had inflicted a fatal throat

injury, blood stains would naturally have been found on his clothes, and

the absence thereof renders the prosecution version improbable. On

these grounds, it is urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the case

beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to benefit of doubt.

7.(a)Per contra, learned State counsel submits that the conviction is

well-founded and based on a proper appreciation of the entire evidence

on record. It is contended that the homicidal nature of death stands

conclusively established by the medical evidence which proves multiple

injuries consistent with assault by sharp and blunt objects. The

prosecution has proved a complete chain of circumstances including

motive, the presence of the appellant with the deceased shortly before

the incident, recovery of the weapon at the instance of the appellant,

seizure of relevant articles and corroborative forensic evidence. It is

argued that minor discrepancies regarding timing or peripheral details

are natural and do not affect the substratum of the prosecution case. The

delay in recording statements under Section 161 CrPC is not fatal in the

absence of demonstrated prejudice, and improvements which do not go

6

to the core of the prosecution story cannot be treated as material

contradictions. With regard to identification of the dead body, it is

submitted that the body was duly identified and subjected to postmortem

examination, and any variation in the description of a tattoo is a minor

inconsistency insufficient to create doubt about identity. As regards the

seizure, it is contended that recovery pursuant to memorandum is legally

admissible and can be proved through the testimony of the Investigating

Officer even if some panch witnesses have turned hostile. Concerning

the FSL report, it is submitted that absence of blood on the seized clothes

does not demolish the prosecution case, particularly when blood was

detected on the recovered weapon though grouping had disintegrated,

and the possibility of change or washing of clothes cannot be ruled out.

(b)Learned State counsel further submits that the appeal preferred by

the co-accused persons namely Rahul Sahu and Sesh Kumar, bearing

CRA No. 2134/2023, has already been considered by this Court and vide

judgment dated 30/06/2025, the said appeal was dismissed and the

judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the trial Court

were affirmed. It is submitted that against the said judgment dated

30/06/2025, one of the co-accused, Sesh Kumar, has approached the

Hon’ble Supreme Court by filing Special Leave Petition (Criminal)

Diary No(s). 52733/2025, wherein the Hon’ble Supreme Court vide

order dated 20/02/2026 has issued notice. It is thus argued that the

findings recorded by the trial Court have already been upheld by this

Court in respect of similarly placed co-accused and no ground is made

out for taking a different view in the present appeal. Accordingly, it is

7

prayed that the appeal deserves to be dismissed.

8.We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable length and

have bestowed our anxious and thoughtful consideration to the rival

submissions advanced herein-above. We have also minutely examined

the entire record of the case, including the oral testimony of the

witnesses, documentary exhibits, scientific reports and the reasoning

assigned by the learned trial Court, with utmost circumspection, as is

required in an appeal against conviction.

9.Admittedly, there is no eye-witnesses to the incident and the case of the

prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence and memorandum

statement of the appellants.

10.The nature of evidence and degree of proof required to sustain the

conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence has been dealt by the

Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of

Maharashtra reported in AIR 1984 SC 1622, wherein the Supreme

Court has underlined the conditions, which must be fulfilled for

convicting the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and held

in para-152 as under:

“152.A close analysis of this decision would show that the

following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an

accused can be said to be fully established:

(1)the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be

drawn should be fully established.

It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the

8

circumstances concerned ‘must or should’ and not ‘may be’

established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal

distinction between ‘may be proved’ and ‘must be or should be

proved’ as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahebrao Bobade Vs.

State of Maharashtra, (1973) 2 1 AIR 1984 SC 1622 SCC 793 :

(AIR 1973 SC 2622) where the following observations were made:

“certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be

and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the

mental distance between ‘may be’ and must be’ is long and divides

vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”

(2)the facts so established should be consistent only with the

hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should

not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused

is guilty.

(3)the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and

tendency.

(4)they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the

one to be proved, and

there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any

reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the

innocence of the accused and must show that in all human

probability the act must have been done by the accused.”

11.Dr. Roshan Sahu (PW29) has conducted the postmortem of the Deceased

and from his evidence it is apparent that the homicidal nature of death

9

stands firmly and conclusively established. The postmortem report

(Ex.P50), duly proved by PW29, who conducted the autopsy on

14.12.2022 at 3:30 PM, records multiple injuries on the right side of the

skull and face along with fracture of thyroid cartilage. The internal

examination revealed hemorrhage, shock and hypoxia resulting from the

said injuries. The doctor has categorically opined that the injuries were

ante-mortem in nature and were sufficient in the ordinary course of

nature to cause death. The time since death was assessed to be within 18

to 20 hours prior to the postmortem examination, which squarely

corresponds to the intervening night of 13.12.2022 and 14.12.2022. The

defence has not been able to elicit anything substantial in cross-

examination to discredit the medical opinion. There is no suggestion on

record of accidental fall or suicidal act which could explain the nature,

multiplicity and location of the injuries. The fracture of thyroid cartilage,

coupled with craniofacial injuries, clearly indicates violent assault. Thus,

the conclusion drawn by the trial Court that the deceased met with a

homicidal death is well-supported by unimpeachable medical evidence

and calls for no interference.

12.PW-1 Sukhiram Sahu (father of the deceased) deposed that he was

acquainted with the accused persons present before the Court, including

Rahul Sahu and Shesh Kumar. According to him, on 13.12.2022 at about

7:00 p.m., the CCL came to his house and took his son to attend a

“Chhathi” programme at village Semarkona. His son left with the

juvenile on a motorcycle. He further stated that his son did not return

home that night. When his other son, Deepak, telephoned the deceased,

10

he initially responded that he was on his way back. However, upon

making another call, the mobile phone was found switched off. As the

deceased did not return, he made inquiries among relatives and searched

for him, but to no avail. Thereafter, he informed the police that his son

had last gone in the company of the CCL and had not returned home.

The witness also stated that the police later called him to the hospital,

where he identified the dead body of his son. He noticed injuries on the

neck, appearing to be caused by a sharp-edged weapon, and injuries on

the head, which, according to him, appeared to have been inflicted by a

blunt object. During cross-examination, he admitted that he had not

witnessed the actual incident. He was unable to state the registration

number of the motorcycle on which his son had gone. He volunteered to

add that he is an illiterate person.

13.PW-2 Mohardas Diwakar, Sarpanch of the village, deposed that he

received information from certain persons that the body of an unknown

individual was lying in the nala. Upon receiving such information, he

intimated the police. He stated that, at the instance of the police

authorities, Munnalal, Dinesh and Santosh assisted in removing the body

from the drain. He proved the notice (Ex.P1) and the inquest panchnama

(Ex.P2). He further deposed that the police prepared the spot map

(Ex.P3) and seized blood-stained soil (Ex.P4). Water from the drain,

where the body was found, was also collected in a bottle under seizure

memo (Ex.P5).

14.This witness further stated that two teeth found near the body, four

11

additional teeth recovered from a short distance away, hair entangled in

the throat of the deceased, and a clump of hair embedded in concrete

were seized vide memo (Ex.P6). Blood-stained pieces of concrete and

broken bricks were also taken into possession under Ex.P7. In addition, a

diary found near the body, bearing certain names and a mobile number

on its cover, along with certain loose papers containing objectionable

writings and a passport-sized photograph of a boy and a girl, were seized

vide Ex.P8. A pair of black shoes, spectacles and four empty liquor

bottles were also seized in his presence under Ex.P9. During cross-

examination, he admitted that the place of occurrence was an open area.

He also stated that he had no knowledge as to who had committed the

murder.

15.PW-3 Dinesh Sahu, who is a villager supported the preparation of notice

Ex.P1 and inquest panchnama Ex.P2. He stated that he later heard that

the accused persons, namely Shesh Kumar Sahu, Rahul Sahu and the

CCL, were responsible for the death of the deceased. In cross-

examination, he admitted that he had not personally witnessed the

commission of the offence.

16.PW-4 Munnalal Sahu is the seizure witness. He stated that he informed

the police about the dead body lying in the drain and proved the merg

intimation (Ex.P10). He further deposed that he assisted in taking the

body out of the drain at the direction of the police. He proved the notice

(Ex.P1), inquest panchnama (Ex.P2) and seizure memos (Ex.P4 to

Ex.P9). In cross-examination, he admitted that the spot was an open

12

place and that people occasionally gathered there for consuming liquor.

He denied the suggestion that no recovery was effected in his presence.

His testimony remained consistent with his examination-in-chief. PW-5

Sarju Dhruv stated that he informed Munnalal about the body lying in

the drain. He also proved notice Ex.P1 and inquest panchnama Ex.P2.

17.The last seen witness namely; PW-6 Holi Ram Sahu deposed that on

13.12.2022, after returning from his sister’s house at village Bhensbor,

he noticed the deceased proceeding towards village Semarkona to attend

a “Chhathi” programme in the company of the CCL. On the following

morning, he learnt that the deceased had not returned home and

subsequently came to know about his death. He proved the identification

panchnama of the dead body (Ex.P11). During cross-examination, he

admitted that he had not specifically informed the police in his earlier

statement that the deceased and the juvenile had travelled on a

motorcycle. However, he denied the suggestion that he had not seen the

deceased in the company of the juvenile.

18.PW-7 Ganga Ram Sahu is the panchnama witness. He proved the

identification panchnama (Ex.P11). PW-8 Ayodhya Singh Koshle (Head

Constable) produced information relating to the previous criminal record

of the CCL. He proved the correspondence and related documents

(Ex.P13 and Ex.P14), which were forwarded to Police Station Nawagarh

in response to the requisition memo (Ex.P12).

19.PW-9 Deepak Sahu, brother of the deceased, deposed that the incident

13

relates to the intervening night of 13.12.2022 and 14.12.2022. According

to him, on 13.12.2022 at about 7:00 p.m., his brother left for village

Semarkona to attend a “Chhathi” programme in the company of the

CCL, who had come on a motorcycle. He substantially supported the

version given by PW-1, Sukhiram Sahu. During cross-examination, he

admitted that in his earlier statement to the police, he had not specifically

mentioned that the deceased had gone to village Semarkona on a

motorcycle along with the juvenile. Except for this omission, his

testimony remained largely consistent with his examination-in-chief.

20.PW-10 Sunita Sahu is the mother of the deceased. She stated that on the

day of the incident, her son informed her that he was proceeding to

village Semarkona along with the CCL. She deposed that her son left the

house seated on a motorcycle driven by the juvenile. She correctly

identified the juvenile in Court. In cross-examination, she admitted that

her police statement had not been read over to her at the relevant time.

She was unable to explain why the fact that her son had left with the

juvenile on a motorcycle was not recorded in her earlier statement

(Ex.D3).

21.PW-11 Dinesh Kumar Sahu is the memorandum and seizure witness. He

proved the identification panchnama of the dead body (Ex.P11). He

deposed that the police recorded the memorandum statement (Ex.P15) of

the accused regarding the disposal of the knife allegedly used in the

offence and proved the recovery said to have been effected at the

instance of the juvenile under seizure memo Ex.P20. He further proved

14

memorandum statements Ex.P16 to Ex.P18 and seizure memos Ex.P19

to Ex.P24, Ex.P26 to Ex.P27 and Ex.P29. He also proved seizure of

Article A-1 (Assignment Copy) and Article A-2 (piece of diary). The

spot map prepared by the police (Ex.P25) and the search panchnama

(Ex.P28) were also proved by him. He further proved the arrest memos

of the juvenile and the co-accused persons (Ex.P30 to Ex.P32). During

cross-examination, he stated that the juvenile had not himself handed

over any mobile phone to the police; however, he volunteered that the

police showed a mobile phone stated to belong to the juvenile and then

seized it in his presence. He also admitted that it is correct to suggest that

no knife was directly recovered from the possession of the juvenile.

22.PW-12 Anjordas Anchal (Principal) produced the original admission and

discharge register and proved the date of birth of the CCL as 15.03.2005

(Ex.P37 and its copy Ex.P37(c)). He also proved other documents

relating to age verification (Ex.P35, Ex.P36 and copy Ex.P36(c)) as well

as notices Ex.P33 and Ex.P34. PW-13 Santosh Kumar Sahu stated that

the police served notice upon him (Ex.P38). He deposed that the mobile

number 79996617563 belonged to him but was being used by his

nephew, the CCL, for personal purposes. PW-14 Jethuram, Safai

Karamchari, proved seizure memo Ex.P35, by which the police took into

possession the original school register relating to the academic results of

the juvenile for the years 2018–19 and 2022–23. PW-15 Santosh Kumar

(Safai Karamchari) also proved seizure memo Ex.P35 concerning the

said school records and further proved the superdnama (Ex.P39).

15

23.PW-18 Mahesh Nishad is the husband of Kanak Nishad (PW-17),

substantially corroborated her version. He also spoke about certain facts

which, according to the prosecution, were relevant to establish motive.

He deposed that the CCL and others had telephonically warned him to

maintain distance from his wife, making disparaging remarks about her

character. He further stated that the juvenile had once asked him to

arrange a pistol with the intention of killing the deceased, alleging that

the deceased had teased his wife. He also deposed that the juvenile had

suggested that they go to Raipur, consume liquor and eliminate the

deceased. However, he claimed to have refused. After a few days, he

came to know that a dead body had been found in the village. He stated

that the police had made inquiries from him and later released him after

arresting the accused persons. In cross-examination, he denied the

suggestion that he was falsely implicating the juvenile. His evidence, on

material aspects, remained consistent with his chief examination.

24.PW-20 Panchram Sahu deposed that on the date of the incident, the

juvenile had taken certain sleeping tablets stating that they were required

for his mother. Subsequently, he came to know that the juvenile had

allegedly committed murder. During cross-examination, he was

confronted with his earlier statement regarding the taking of two tablets

of Alprazolam. He stated that he could not explain why that specific

detail was not recorded in his police statement (Ex.P2).

25.PW-20 Ramdhun Sahu stated that he had received a SIM card from the

juvenile for the purpose of using internet services. He deposed that the

16

police later served him with notice (Ex.P43) and seized the SIM card and

mobile phone under seizure memo Ex.P29. In cross-examination, he

denied the suggestion that the juvenile had not given him the SIM card.

His testimony substantially remained in line with his examination-in-

chief. PW-21 Gulshan Sahu deposed broadly on the same lines as stated

by Panchram Sahu. He supported the version that the juvenile had taken

sleeping tablets from his father on the pretext of his mother’s illness and

that he later came to know about the alleged involvement of the juvenile,

along with co-accused persons, in the murder of the deceased.

26.PW-22 Ram Kumar Suryawanshi is the Probation Officer; witness to

voice sampling. He proved memo Ex.P45, whereby the Station House

Officer, Nawagarh, requested the presence of officials during the

collection of the voice sample of the juvenile. He stated that the mobile

phone was shown to him and that no prior voice recording was found

therein, for which a panchnama (Ex.P46) was prepared. He further

deposed that the voice sample of the juvenile was recorded in his

presence and proved the declaration form (Ex.P47). In cross-

examination, he stated that he was unaware of the service provider of the

SIM card used in the phone. He also mentioned that approximately half

an hour was taken for recording the voice sample. His evidence

remained substantially consistent. PW-23 Bhojram Sahu also supported

the version of PW-22. He stated that he was present at the time of

recording of the voice sample of the juvenile and proved his declaration

form (Ex.P48).

17

27.PW-24 Krishna Nishad deposed that, at the direction of the police, he

along with Anup Nishad and Shankar Nishad searched the drain using a

fishing net and recovered a knife therefrom. He stated that a recovery

panchnama was prepared by the police at the spot. In cross-examination,

he denied the suggestion that no such recovery was effected in his

presence. PW-25 Shankar Nishad supported the version of PW-24 and

stated that he was present during the recovery of the knife from the

drain. He proved the recovery panchnama (Ex.P49).

28.PW-26 Dr. M.M. Raza is the Medical Officer. He deposed that he, along

with Dr. Roshan Sahu, conducted the post-mortem examination of the

deceased. According to him, the time of death was approximately 18–20

hours prior to examination and the nature of death was homicidal. He

proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P50) and the subsequent query

reports (Ex.P52 to Ex.P57). In cross-examination, he admitted that he

had not drawn any sketch of the knife but had described it in the query

report. He denied the suggestion that the knife sent to him was covered

with mud. He also denied the suggestion that he had neither examined

the knife nor prepared any report in that regard. PW-27 Dinesh Sahu

(Labourer) identified his signature on the notice issued under Section 91

Cr.P.C. He admitted having informed the police that mobile SIM No.

7067855530 was being used by accused Shesh Kumar. He also

acknowledged that the contents of document Ex.P58 were written in his

handwriting.

29.PW-28 Patiram Sen (Patwari) proved memo Ex.P59, whereby he was

18

directed to prepare the map of the place of occurrence. He also proved

the Nazri Naksha (Ex.P60) prepared by him. PW-29 Dr. Roshan Sahu

(Medical Officer) corroborated the testimony of PW-26. He deposed that

he had jointly conducted the post-mortem examination and proved the

post-mortem report (Ex.P50) along with query reports (Ex.P62 and

Ex.P63).

30.PW-30 Vidyasagar Ram (Manager, Reliance Retail) stated that the police

had sought information regarding the juvenile through notice Ex.P64. He

deposed that the juvenile had been employed at Reliance Retail from

14.07.2022 to 14.12.2022 and, during that period, was using mobile

number 7999617563. Despite opportunity, the defence chose not to

cross-examine this witness.

31.PW-31 Chandresh Joshi (Constable) proved seizure memo Ex.P65,

whereby viscera, wearing apparel of the deceased, blood samples and

other articles were taken into possession in sealed condition from

Constable Mohinder Verma, who had brought them from Community

Health Center, Nawagarh. He also proved seizure memos Ex.P66 to

Ex.P72. PW-32 Rajendra Sahu (Constable) deposed that he carried

sealed articles, including bricks, concrete pieces, teeth, clothing of the

deceased and other exhibits, to the Community Health Center, Nawagarh

for medical queries. After obtaining the response, he returned the articles

to the Station House Officer under seizure memos Ex.P66 to Ex.P72. In

cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that he had not visited the

hospital for this purpose.

19

32.PW-33 Santosh Kumar Sahu (Constable) stated that he transported the

seized articles, in sealed condition, to the Forensic Science Laboratory

and handed over the acknowledgment to the Station House Officer. He

proved memo Ex.P73 and acknowledgment Ex.P74. PW-34 Mahinder

Kumar Verma (Constable) deposed that he facilitated the conduct of the

post-mortem examination at the Community Health Center. After

completion thereof, he handed over the post-mortem report, viscera,

blood samples and wearing apparel of the deceased to ASI Tula Ram

under seizure memo Ex.P65. He further stated that he transported certain

articles for chemical examination and obtained acknowledgment thereof.

He proved memos Ex.P75 and Ex.P76, as well as acknowledgments

Ex.P77 and Ex.P78. PW-35 Firoj Sahu (Constable) prepared the

inventory of seized articles (Ex.P79) and proved the specimen seal

panchnama (Ex.P80) prepared in his presence.

33.PW-36 Panchram Ghorbande (Constable, Cyber Cell) deposed that the

Station House Officer, Ajay Kumar Sinha, had preserved the call

recordings of the mobile phone of accused Sheshnarain in a compact

disc, which was sealed and kept in safe custody. He proved the specimen

seal panchnama (Ex.P80).

34.PW-37 Bholaram Sahu stated that he carried certain seized articles to the

Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination in sealed

condition and proved the acknowledgments thereof (Ex.P81 and

Ex.P82). He further deposed that certain writings recovered from the

spot, along with specimen handwriting of the accused, were forwarded

20

to the Director, Handwriting Expert, Police Headquarters, Raipur, for

comparison and expert opinion. He proved the forwarding memo

(Ex.P83) and acknowledgment (Ex.P84). PW-38 Bhupendra

Chandravanshi corroborated the testimony of PW-37 and stated that he

accompanied him to Police Headquarters, Raipur, for submission of the

questioned and specimen writings to the handwriting expert.

35.PW-39 Ajay Kumar Sinha (Station House Officer and Investigating

Officer) entered the witness box and proved the attested copy of the First

Information Report (Ex.P86) and the information forwarded to the

Superintendent of Police (Ex.P87). He deposed regarding various steps

undertaken during investigation, including recording of memorandum

statements of the accused, preparation of recovery and seizure memos,

preparation of the site plan, conducting voice sampling proceedings and

preparation of relevant panchnamas. He further stated that upon

completion of investigation, the charge-sheet was filed before the

Juvenile Justice Board. During cross-examination, he denied several

suggestions put to him, including the suggestion that the knife had been

procured from the market and falsely shown as recovered, that no

recovery was made from the juvenile, and that a false charge-sheet had

been submitted on incorrect facts. PW-40 Satish Verma (Constable)

deposed that he transported mobile phones marked as Article-A and

Article-B to Police Headquarters, Raipur, for examination and, after

depositing them, obtained acknowledgment. He proved the forwarding

memo (Ex.P83) and acknowledgment (Ex.P84).

21

36.PW-41 Arvind Verma (ASI) deposed that the Thana Incharge had sent a

memo seeking technical assistance from the Observation Home for

taking the voice sample of the CCL. In compliance thereof, he deputed

Head Constable Mohit Chalek for providing technical assistance. The

copy of the memo is Ex.P-130 and the authorization letter is Ex.P-133.

He further proved memo Ex.P-131 and authorization letter Ex.P-132,

issued by the Superintendent of Police, Bemetara, for preparation of a

CD of the voice recording contained in the mobile phone in digital form.

Head Constable Mohit Chalek prepared the CD of the said voice

recordings.

37.PW-42 Ashutosh Dubey (Independent Witness) deposed that although he

did not personally know the CCL, he was called by the police to witness

the voice sampling of the co-accused. The notice issued to him is Ex.P-

95. He stated that the Thana Incharge recorded the voice samples of

accused Rahul Sahu and Shesh Kumar in his presence and prepared a

panchnama (Ex.P-97). He also issued certificates in that regard, which

are Ex.P-100 and Ex.P-134. The DVD pertaining to the voice samples of

Rahul Sahu and Shesh Kumar was seized vide Ex.P-102. Though

opportunity for cross-examination was granted, the defence did not put

any question to this witness.

38.PW-43 Vikrant Singh Thakur (Scientific Officer) deposed that he was

posted as Scientific Officer at the State Forensic Science Laboratory,

Raipur, from 2019 to 09.02.2023 and is presently serving as Senior

Scientist. He stated that vide memo Ex.P-82, two CDs and two DVDs

22

were received in sealed covers in the laboratory. Along with Senior

Scientist Dr. Dinesh Kumar Sahu, he conducted scientific examination of

the voice samples and call recordings of the accused persons. The

forwarding letter is Ex.P-127 and the detailed report, consisting of 12

pages, is Ex.P-135.

39.PW-44 Mohit Chalek (Constable and Voice Sampling Witness) deposed

that on instructions, he transferred eleven voice recordings from the

mobile phone seized from accused Shesh Kumar into a CD and issued a

certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian Evidence Act, which is

Ex.P-137. The CD was sealed by the Thana Incharge and the specimen

seal panchnama is Ex.P-80.

40.He further stated that on 21.12.2022, voice samples of Rahul Sahu and

Shesh Kumar @ Sajan were recorded in his presence using a Samsung

mobile phone and preserved in separate CDs. He issued a certificate in

that regard (Ex.P-138). The CDs were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P-

102. He also deposed that he was instructed to provide technical

assistance for taking the voice sample of the CCL at the Observation

Home. The voice sample was recorded in his presence by Constable

Mahinder Verma using a Samsung mobile phone and preserved in a CD.

The certificate of authenticity is Ex.P-139 and the CD was seized vide

memo Ex.P-106. During cross-examination, he denied the suggestion

that the CDs were not genuine documents.

41.PW-45 R.K. Alma (Handwriting Expert) entered the witness box and

proved his opinion (Ex.P-140), which was forwarded in a sealed cover

23

vide memo Ex.P-124. During cross-examination, he denied any material

variation in the writings examined.

42.PW-46 Fageshwar Deshmukh (Head Constable) deposed that he was a

recovery witness regarding the articles seized vide Ex.P-66 to Ex.P-69.

The seized articles were handed over to him for safe custody and he

made the necessary entry in the Rojnamcha, the certified copy of which

is Ex.P-14(c).

43.PW-47 Tularam Deshmukh (Part Investigation Officer) deposed that he

lodged the merg intimation No. 0/2022 (Ex.P-10), prepared the site map

and the dead body panchnama (Ex.P-2). He seized various articles and

thereafter handed over the remaining investigation to the Thana

Incharge.

44.PW-48 Kaleshwar Yadav (Labourer) deposed that on a Tuesday in the

month of December, he had gone to the market and saw the deceased

Anand Sahu in the company of the CCL. After returning home and

taking his meal, he made a mobile call to Anand, who informed him that

he had gone to Mungeli accompanied by the CCL. During cross-

examination, the witness admitted that his statement was recorded by the

police after a delay of 13 days. He further admitted that thereafter his

statement was not recorded again. However, he denied the suggestion

that his statement was recorded after three months.

45.PW-49 Tikaram Sahu (Memorandum and Recovery Witness) deposed

that the accused made a memorandum statement before the police in his

presence and that recovery was effected from the place pointed out by

24

the accused. He proved the relevant disclosure statements and recovery

memos. During cross-examination, he admitted that the CCL had not

given any statement to the police in his presence, nor was any article

recovered from the CCL in his presence.

46.PW-50 Sanjeev Nema (Nodal Officer, Jio Company) deposed that in

compliance with memo Ex.P-144, he provided the call detail records

(CDR) along with a certificate under Section 65-B of the Indian

Evidence Act (Ex.P-145). He stated that mobile SIM No. 9617347946

was issued to Gudeshwar Sahu (father of the CCL), and proved the

customer application form (Ex.P-146). He further deposed that SIM No.

8103526019 was issued to Sukhiram (father of the deceased), the

customer application form being Ex.P-147. SIM No. 7999617563 was

issued to Santosh Sahu (uncle of co-accused Rahul Sahu), and the

corresponding application form is Ex.P-148. SIM No. 7067855530 was

issued to Dinesh Sahu (father of accused Sheshnarayan), and the

customer application form is Ex.P-149. He proved the ownership details

of the aforesaid mobile numbers and the call detail records, which are

Ex.P-152 to Ex.P-156. The documents were forwarded to the police vide

letter Ex.P-157. During cross-examination, he admitted that as per the

CDR, no conversation took place between mobile numbers 9617347946

and 7067855530 during the period from 12.12.2022 to 13.12.2022. He

further admitted that no conversation took place between mobile

numbers 9617347946 and 8103526019 during the period from

01.07.2022 to 13.12.2022.

25

47.PW-51 Hemprashad Sahu (Constable) deposed that he called fishermen

Krishna Nishad, Shankar Nishad and Anup Nishad to retrieve a knife

allegedly pointed out by the CCL. The fishermen recovered the knife

from a drain by casting a net. He proved the recovery memo (Ex.P-49).

48.PW-52 Rahul Dubey (Constable) deposed that the Thana Incharge seized

the CD containing the voice sample of the CCL from Mohit Chalek in

the presence of Constable Mahinder Verma. He proved the seizure memo

Ex.P-106.

49.PW-53 Anup Nishad (Fisherman) deposed that on the direction of the

police, he along with Krishna Nishad and Shankar Nishad retrieved the

knife from the drain as pointed out by the CCL by casting a net. He

proved the recovery memo Ex.P-49.

50.PW-54 Pankaj Rameya (Nodal Executive, Idea Company) deposed that

his company had issued mobile SIM No. 9644794698 to the CCL. He

proved the call detail records, which are Ex.P-159 to Ex.P-161.

51.The statement of the CCL under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal

Procedure was recorded, affording him an opportunity to explain the

incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the prosecution

evidence. The CCL denied the allegations and pleaded false implication.

No witness was examined in defence.

52.Upon a comprehensive scrutiny of the entire material available on

record, tested on the touchstone of the settled principles governing cases

founded on circumstantial evidence, as laid down by the Hon’ble

Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra

26

(AIR 1984 SC 1622), it becomes incumbent upon this Court to

determine whether the circumstances established by the prosecution are

so complete and conclusive in nature as to form an unbroken chain

leading exclusively to the guilt of the appellant and ruling out every

reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.

53.The first and foremost circumstance is the homicidal death of the

deceased. As already discussed herein-above, the medical evidence of

PW-26 Dr. M.M. Raza and PW-29 Dr. Roshan Sahu, coupled with the

post-mortem report (Ex.P-50), conclusively establishes that the death

was homicidal in nature. Multiple ante-mortem injuries on vital parts,

including craniofacial injuries and fracture of thyroid cartilage, clearly

indicate a violent assault. The defence has not been able to create any

dent in the medical opinion. Thus, the foundational fact of homicidal

death stands firmly proved.

54.The next circumstance relied upon by the prosecution is that of “last seen

together.” PW-1 (father), PW-9 (brother) and PW-10 (mother) have

consistently deposed that on the evening of 13.12.2022 at about 7:00

p.m., the appellant came to the house of the deceased and took him along

to attend a “Chhathi” programme at village Semarkona. PW-6 Holi Ram

Sahu corroborates this version by stating that he had seen the deceased

proceeding towards Semarkona in the company of the appellant. PW-48

Kaleshwar Yadav also deposed that he had seen the deceased in the

company of the appellant and even spoke to the deceased telephonically

thereafter. The minor omissions regarding the motorcycle or exact

27

wording of earlier police statements do not demolish the core of the

prosecution case. Such omissions are natural, particularly when

witnesses are rustic villagers. The consistent thread in their testimony is

that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant on

the relevant evening.

55.The time gap between the deceased being last seen with the appellant

and the estimated time of death is narrow. The post-mortem indicates

death within 18–20 hours prior to 3:30 p.m. on 14.12.2022, which takes

the time of death to the intervening night of 13/14.12.2022. The

deceased had left home around 7:00 p.m. on 13.12.2022 with the

appellant and never returned. In such circumstances, the burden shifts

upon the appellant to offer a plausible explanation as to when and under

what circumstances he parted company with the deceased. The appellant,

in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., has merely denied the

allegations and has not offered any explanation whatsoever. The silence

of the appellant on this crucial aspect constitutes an additional link in the

chain of circumstances.

56.The prosecution has also sought to establish motive. PW-18 Mahesh

Nishad has deposed regarding previous altercations and threats allegedly

made by the appellant concerning the deceased. Though motive is not a

sine qua non where the chain of circumstances is otherwise complete, in

the present case the testimony of PW-18 lends support to the prosecution

case that there existed animosity between the appellant and the deceased.

His evidence has remained unshaken in material particulars.

28

57.The recovery of the weapon of offence is another incriminating

circumstance. PW-24 Krishna Nishad, PW-25 Shankar Nishad and PW-

53 Anup Nishad have categorically stated that, at the instance of the

appellant, a knife was recovered from the drain by casting a net. The

recovery panchnama (Ex.P-49) stands duly proved. The Investigating

Officer (PW-39) has also deposed regarding the memorandum statement

and consequent recovery. Merely because certain panch witnesses have

turned hostile in part or have stated that the knife was not recovered

directly from the possession of the appellant does not render the

recovery illegal. It is well settled that recovery pursuant to a disclosure

statement is admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act to the

extent it leads to discovery of a fact. The consistent testimony of the

fishermen and police witnesses inspires confidence.

58.The medical opinion (query reports Ex.P-52 to Ex.P-57 and Ex.P-62 to

Ex.P-63) further indicates that the injuries found on the body of the

deceased were possible by the seized knife. Thus, the recovery is not an

isolated circumstance but stands corroborated by medical evidence.

59.With regard to the FSL report and the absence of blood on the clothes

allegedly seized from the appellant, the same by itself does not demolish

the prosecution case. It is not the case of the prosecution that the

appellant was apprehended immediately after the incident wearing the

same clothes. There was sufficient opportunity for change or washing of

clothes. The law is well settled that failure to detect blood on the clothes

of the accused is not fatal when other circumstances firmly establish

29

guilt. Moreover, the blood-stained articles recovered from the spot and

the weapon of offence were duly sent for forensic examination through a

proper chain of custody, as proved by PW-31 to PW-37.

60.The call detail records proved by PW-50 and PW-54 establish the

ownership and usage of the relevant mobile numbers. Although certain

calls between specific numbers were not found during a particular

period, that does not negate the prosecution case, especially when the

“last seen” evidence and recovery of weapon constitute strong

incriminating circumstances. The scientific evidence regarding voice

sampling, as proved by PW-41 to PW-44 and the report Ex.P-135,

further corroborates the communication between the accused persons in

proximity to the incident. No serious challenge has been made to the

authenticity of the Section 65-B certificates.

61.The contention regarding delayed recording of statements under Section

161 Cr.P.C. also does not persuade this Court to discard the prosecution

case. Delay in recording statements is not ipso facto fatal unless

prejudice is demonstrated or material contradictions are established. In

the present case, the core of the testimony of the material witnesses

remains consistent. The omissions pointed out are not of such magnitude

as to affect the substratum of the prosecution story.

62.The identification of the dead body has been duly proved through PW-1

and other family members under panchnama Ex.P-11. Minor

discrepancies regarding description of a tattoo or peripheral features

cannot override the categorical identification made by close relatives,

30

especially when the body was recovered from the vicinity of the village

and was promptly subjected to postmortem.

63.It is also of significance that the co-accused persons, who were tried

separately, have had their conviction affirmed by this Court in CRA No.

2134/2023 vide judgment dated 30.06.2025. Though each case must be

examined on its own evidence, the role attributed to the present appellant

is not distinguishable on material particulars so as to warrant a different

view.

64.On a cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence, the following

circumstances stand proved: (i) homicidal death of the deceased; (ii) the

deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant on the

evening of 13.12.2022; (iii) failure of the appellant to explain the

circumstances under which he parted company with the deceased; (iv)

recovery of the weapon of offence at the instance of the appellant; (v)

medical opinion supporting the use of such weapon; and (vi)

corroborative scientific and documentary evidence. These circumstances

form a complete chain which leads only to the hypothesis of the guilt of

the appellant and are inconsistent with any other rational hypothesis.

65.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court is of the considered

opinion that the learned trial Court has properly appreciated the evidence

on record and has rightly convicted the appellant for the offences

punishable under Sections 302 read with 120-B IPC and 201 IPC. The

findings recorded by the trial Court are based on cogent evidence and do

not suffer from perversity or illegality warranting interference in appeal.

31

66.Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is hereby dismissed. The

conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant vide judgment dated

29/04/2024 passed by the learned I Additional Sessions Judge (Children

Court), Bemetara in Sessions Trial No. 45/2023 is hereby affirmed. The

appellant shall undergo the remaining part of his sentence in accordance

with law.

67.It is stated that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the remaining

sentence.

68.Registry is directed to send a certified copy of this judgment along with

the original record of the case to the trial court concerned forthwith for

necessary information and compliance and also 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.

69.Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the

Trial Court concerned for necessary information and compliance.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Rahul/Gowri