1

CGHC010044022026 2026:CGHC:34737-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 316 of 2026

Pappu Lahare S/o Chhaliya @ Kalapram Aged About 38 Years R/o

Village Jhagarindeeh, Police Station Basna, District Mahasamund

(C.G.) At Present R/o Village Holdharpali, Police Station Sarangarh,

District Sarangarh- Bilaigarh (C.G.)

... Appellant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through Station House Officer, Police Station

Sarangarh, District Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

... Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant : Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, Advocate

appeared as Amicus Curiae

For Respondent/State : 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

07 . 08 .202 6

1.This criminal appeal preferred under Section 415(2) of the Bhatiya

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, ‘BNSS’) is directed

against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence dated 29.11.2025 passed by the learned Additional

Sessions Judge, Sarangarh, District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh (C.G.)

(Sessions Division, Raigarh) in Sessions Trial No. 01 of 2021,

2

whereby the appellant has been convicted for offence punishable

under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced

to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in

default of payment of fine, additional rigorous imprisonment for 01

year.

2.According to the prosecution story, the deceased Nonibai was

married to accused Pappu Lahare of Jhagrindih village and they

have three children. Nonibai lived with her husband, accused

Pappu Lahare, in a separate house in Holdharpali village. Nonibai

and Pappu Lahare had frequent fights and quarrels. Eight days

prior to the incident, on 18.07.2020, accused Pappu Lahare had

assaulted Nonibai. Nonibai, fearing the situation, had been living

at her maternal home, Ganga Ram's house. Later, accused

Pappu Lahare took Nonibai to his home, where he had been

bewitching her. Consequently, 18.07.2020, accused Pappu

Lahare, under the influence of the spell, assaulted the deceased

Nonibai with a stick and strangled her with his hands, killing her.

On the morning of 18.07.2020, Karan Lahare informed

informant/complainant Ganga Ram Narang that the deceased

was unable to wake up. Informant/complainant Ganga Ram

Narang, along with his brother Kanhaiya and mother Tukasha,

went to the accused's house and found the deceased lying on the

cot, covered with a sari and blanket, and not breathing. Blood was

coming out of her left ear, and marks of strangulation were visible

on her neck. A wooden stick was found under the cot, and there

3

were marks of stick-strike marks on the deceased's right leg and

back.

3.Based on the information, a rural complaint was filed on zero and

after registering the inquest intimation, the investigation

panchnama was taken up for proceedings. A First Information

Report was registered against the accused under Section 302 of

the Indian Penal Code at Police Station Sarangarh in Crime No.

481/2020. A spot map of the crime scene was prepared. A State

Bank of India passbook with account number 34652021460 in the

name of the accused Pappu Lahare was found at the head of the

cot on which the deceased's body was lying, in the last cover of

which, the accused's name was mentioned. He had written, "What

should I do, Sir? I have no other option, please forgive me, I will

go to the police station myself, I made a mistake by coming to my

in-laws' house." The passbook was seized from the scene and a

panchnama was prepared in front of witnesses. A handwriting

identification panchnama was prepared. A panchnama was

prepared after giving notice to the witnesses. The body was sent

for post-mortem examination, and the post-mortem report was

obtained. The body was subsequently handed over. Statements

were recorded from witnesses Ganga Ram Narang, Tukasha

Narang, Kanhaiya Narang, Amarnath Narang, Ramadhar Narang,

Saheb Ram, Sunil Kumar, Lalita Jangde, and Vishnu alias

Chandrashekhar Lahare. The accused was arrested, and his

family was informed of the arrest. After a thorough investigation,

4

Sarangarh Police Station filed a final report number 544/2020

against the accused Pappu Lahare.

4.On receiving the charge sheet and the documents attached

therewith, the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Sarangarh,

District – Sarangarh-Bilaigarh, after hearing the parties, framed

charges against the accused Pappu Lahare under Section 302 of

the IPC and the charges were read out and explained to the

accused, and the accused denied having committed the crime.

5.The prosecution in support of its case has examined as many as

13 witnesses and exhibited 23 documents. The accused was

examined under Section 313 of the CrPC, in which he pleaded not

to give evidence in his defence and stated that he was falsely

implicated in the case.

6.The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence available on record and considering that it is the

appellant who has committed the murder of his wife deceased

Nonibai, convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC

and sentenced him to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and

fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous

imprisonment for 01 year. Hence, this appeal.

7.Mr. Jitendra Nath Nande, learned Amicus Curiae, appearing on

behalf of the appellant submitted that the judgment of conviction

passed by the learned Trial Court is contrary to the evidence

available on record and is liable to be set aside. The prosecution

5

has failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable

doubt, as the case is based entirely on circumstantial evidence

and the chain of circumstances is incomplete. There are material

contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses,

particularly between the statements of the informant, Ganga Ram

(PW-1), and the village Kotwar, Ramadhar Narang (PW-3), on

material aspects of the prosecution case. Further, the statements

of the deceased's two brothers are also inconsistent with each

other, thereby creating serious doubts about the reliability of the

prosecution version. These contradictions strike at the root of the

prosecution case and render the evidence unsafe for sustaining a

conviction. It is further submitted that the prosecution has failed

to establish any convincing motive for the alleged offence. The

evidence on record shows that the appellant and the deceased

had been married for several years and were blessed with three

children, indicating a long-standing matrimonial relationship. The

allegation that the deceased had occasionally gone to her

parental home after being scolded by the appellant is a natural

incident of matrimonial life and cannot, by itself, be treated as

evidence of homicidal intent. He also submitted that the appellant

loved the deceased, and there is evidence that he had gone out

for work three or four days prior to the incident. Moreover, there is

no memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Indian

Evidence Act leading to any recovery at the instance of the

appellant, nor has any incriminating article or property been

6

seized from his possession. These circumstances substantially

weaken the prosecution case. He contended that the prosecution

has also placed reliance on the seizure of an SBI passbook

allegedly containing an incriminating note. However, the appellant

has consistently stated that the passbook remained in the

possession of the deceased, and the prosecution has failed to

prove that the alleged writing or signature was that of the

appellant. No handwriting expert was examined, nor was any

expert opinion obtained to establish the authorship of the alleged

note. In the absence of scientific or expert evidence, the passbook

cannot be treated as a reliable incriminating circumstance. Thus,

the prosecution has failed to prove every link in the chain of

circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded

by the learned Trial Court is therefore based on conjectures and

suspicion rather than legally admissible evidence. It is, therefore,

prayed that this Hon'ble Court may be pleased to allow the

appeal, set aside the judgment of conviction and sentence passed

against the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC, acquit him of

the charge by extending the benefit of doubt.

8.Per contra, learned State counsel would submit that the judgment

of conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court is

well reasoned, based on proper appreciation of the oral and

documentary evidence, and does not warrant any interference by

this Hon'ble Court. It is contended that the prosecution has

successfully established a complete chain of circumstances

7

proving that the appellant alone was responsible for the homicidal

death of his wife, Nonibai. The medical evidence corroborates the

prosecution case by establishing that the deceased died an

unnatural and homicidal death, and the surrounding

circumstances, including the recovery of the passbook containing

the incriminating note from the place of occurrence, further

strengthen the prosecution case. It is further submitted that the

alleged contradictions in the statements of the prosecution

witnesses are minor in nature and do not affect the core of the

prosecution case. The evidence on record clearly establishes the

strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased and

the appellant has failed to offer any plausible explanation

regarding the homicidal death of his wife. The prosecution has

proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, and therefore, the

conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC is fully

justified. Accordingly, it is prayed that the appeal being devoid of

merit deserves to be dismissed and the judgment of the learned

Trial Court be affirmed.

9.We have heard the learned counsel for the parties and considered

their rival submissions made hereinabove and also went through

the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.

10.The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial

Court was justified in holding that death of deceased Nonibai was

homicidal in nature ?

8

11.In this regard, PW-10 Dr. Ritesh Sen, Medical Officer, examined

the deceased dead body and gave Post Mortem report Ex.P-12

wherein it has been specifically stated that cause of death is

asphyxia due to throttling and homicidal in nature. This witness

has stated in his judicial statement that during examination, a

lump of wet soil was found on the chest of deceased in

postmortem stain of reddish-blue color was present on the back of

her body, both hands, and the lower surfaces of both legs. On the

neck of injuries measuring 0.5× 0.5 cm, 0.2 x 0.5 cm, and many

small reddish scratch marks were found on other parts of the

neck. A scratch measuring 0.5 x 0.5 cm was found on the left jaw.

A red contusion measuring 4 x 2 cm was present from the chin

toward the left jaw. Another red contusion measuring 3 x 1.5 cm

was found on another part of the neck, and a red scratch

measuring 1 x 1 cm was present on the left arm. It was also noted

that blood was flowing from both ears of deceased. In paragraph

12 of the main examination, stated that the injuries on deceased's

body were ante-mortem (before death) and were caused by

fingernails and palms. That deceased's death was not natural and

caused by suffocation (Asphyxia) due to pressing of the neck.

12.The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Ritesh Sen (PW-

10), who has conducted postmortem over the body of deceased

Nonibai and Postmorterm report Ex.P-12, recorded the finding

that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. The said

finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on

9

evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor

contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously

disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby

affirm the said finding.

13.The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial

Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime.

14.It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on

circumstantial evidence.

15.We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme

Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10

SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:

“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the

settled law is that the circumstances from which the

conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved

and such circumstances must be conclusive in

nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be

complete and there should be no gap left in the chain

of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must

be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of

the accused and totally inconsistent with his

innocence....”.

16.In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC

79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests

upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the

following tests:

10

“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of

guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and

firmly established;

(2) those circumstances should be of a definite

tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the

accused;

(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form

a chain so complete that there is no escape from the

conclusion that within all human probability the crime

was committed by the accused and none else; and

(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain

conviction must be complete and incapable of

explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the

guilt of the accused and such evidence should not

only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but

should be inconsistent with his innocence.”

17.In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104),

it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be

taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence

relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in

favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out

that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been

fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so

established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.

18.Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial

Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to

be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts

alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved

and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum

11

probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who

asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability;

(3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the

best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case

admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory

facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and

incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis

than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the

guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”.

19.Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case

based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the

Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v.

State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :-

“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of

guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The

circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not

“may be” established;

(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

(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as

not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion

12

consistent with the innocence of the accused and must

show that in all human probability the act must have

been done by the accused.”

20.The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State

of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of

circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make

inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the

accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus :

“41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as

Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to

Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is

that the prosecution case should reflect careful

portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences

thereof and their compatibility with a singular

hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the

case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt.

42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which

the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast

between direct evidence and circumstantial

evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the

courts are called upon to make inferences from the

available evidence, which may lead to the accused's

guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is

usually drawn by establishing the case from its

initiation to the point of commission wherein each

factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact

or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to

identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case

within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then

see whether the case is made out beyond

reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time

13

followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant

case, which of course needs to be followed herein

also.”

21.The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan

and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180

observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates

two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of

circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused

must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt

and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing

out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this

judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles

have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time

and again.

22.In the present case, the evidence of Ganga Ram Narang (PW-1),

Kanhaiya Narang (PW-2), Ramadhar Narang (PW-3), Tukasha

Bai (PW-4), Vishnu Lahare (PW-9) and Karan Lahare (PW-13)

consistently establishes that the accused and the deceased were

husband and wife and had been residing together in a separate

house at village Holdharpali. Though the couple had three

children, the evidence clearly reveals that none of them ordinarily

resided with the deceased and the accused. Vishnu Lahare (PW-

9) was residing separately at village Jhagrindih, whereas Karan

Lahare (PW-13) and his younger brother used to stay at their

maternal uncle's house and would visit their parents only for

meals. Consequently, during the intervening night of the incident,

14

the deceased and the accused alone occupied the house where

the deceased was subsequently found dead.

23.The contention advanced on behalf of the appellant regarding

contradictions in the evidence of Ganga Ram Narang (PW-1) and

Karan Lahare (PW-13) as to whom Karan first informed about the

incident does not create any dent in the prosecution case. Karan

Lahare (PW-13) has categorically explained that the houses of

Ganga Ram Narang (PW-1) and Kanhaiya Narang (PW-2) were

adjoining/connected. Kanhaiya Narang (PW-2) has also deposed

that Karan informed him that his mother was not waking up and

that blood was coming out of her ears. The alleged discrepancy is

therefore only with regard to the sequence of communication and

not regarding the factum of the discovery of the deceased. Such

minor inconsistencies, which naturally occur in the testimony of

truthful witnesses, do not affect the substratum of the prosecution

case.

24.The defence has taken the plea that the accused had gone to

Basna for labour work three or four days prior to the incident and

was not present in the house. However, this plea is not borne out

from the evidence on record. Karan Lahare (PW-13), who is the

son of the accused and the deceased and has no reason to

falsely implicate his father, has categorically stated that on the

evening preceding the incident, at about 6:00 p.m., he had dinner

in his parents' house and both the accused and the deceased

were present together. This version receives independent

15

corroboration from Ramadhar Narang (PW-3), who has

specifically deposed that he had seen the accused in the village at

about 6:00 to 7:00 p.m. on the same evening. The defence

evidence that the accused occasionally remained away from the

village for labour work cannot outweigh the direct evidence

placing him in the house on the evening immediately preceding

the occurrence. The plea of alibi taken by the accused, therefore,

remains wholly unsubstantiated.

25.The medical evidence furnished by Dr. Ritesh Sen (PW-10)

unequivocally establishes that the death of Nonibai was homicidal

and caused by asphyxia resulting from strangulation. The post-

mortem findings are fully consistent with the injuries noticed

during the inquest proceedings and with the testimony of the

witnesses who first reached the place of occurrence. Thus, there

is no dispute that the deceased met with a homicidal death inside

her matrimonial home during the night intervening the evening

when she was last seen alive with the accused and the following

morning when her body was discovered.

26.The evidence further establishes that shortly before the incident,

the relationship between the accused and the deceased had

become strained. The testimonies of Ganga Ram Narang (PW-1),

Kanhaiya Narang (PW-2), Tukasha Bai (PW-4) and Karan Lahare

(PW-13) consistently show that about eight days prior to the

occurrence the accused had assaulted the deceased, due to

which she had gone to her parental home. It has also come in

16

evidence that the accused suspected the character of the

deceased and had assaulted her on earlier occasions. Although

motive by itself is not sufficient to sustain a conviction, where the

prosecution has otherwise established the chain of

circumstances, proof of motive lends additional assurance to the

prosecution case.

27.The Court also finds no merit in the challenge to the seizure of the

SBI passbook (Article-1). The passbook was recovered from the

place of occurrence under a duly proved seizure memo (Ex.P-10),

which has been supported by the seizure witnesses Ramadhar

Narang (PW-3) and Amarnath Narang (PW-5). The investigating

officer has also proved the seizure proceedings. The note

contained in the passbook, though not proved through expert

opinion, constitutes one incriminating circumstance among

several others and cannot be viewed in isolation. Even if the

evidentiary value of the said writing is kept aside, the remaining

circumstances independently form a complete and unbroken

chain pointing towards the guilt of the accused.

28.The conduct of the accused after the occurrence is equally

significant. It is undisputed that when the deceased's relatives

reached the house after receiving information from Karan Lahare

(PW-13), the accused was absent. The explanation furnished by

him under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure that he

had gone to Basna several days earlier stands contradicted by the

evidence of Karan Lahare (PW-13) and Ramadhar Narang (PW-

17

3), who had seen him in the house and village on the previous

evening. The false explanation offered by the accused constitutes

an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

29.The place of occurrence also assumes importance. The evidence

of Ganga Ram Narang (PW-1), Kanhaiya Narang (PW-2),

Ramadhar Narang (PW-3), Tukasha Bai (PW-4), Amarnath (PW-

5), Saheb Ram (PW-6) and Sunil Kumar (PW-7) consistently

establishes that the house of the accused and the deceased was

situated at the outskirts of the village on an elevated plateau

surrounded by forest and away from habitation. There is

absolutely no evidence of any enmity between the deceased and

any third person. In such circumstances, the possibility of an

unknown person entering the house during the night, committing

the murder and leaving without any motive or evidence is highly

improbable and does not inspire confidence.

30.The prosecution has further established that the deceased was

found dead inside the matrimonial home where she was residing

with the accused. The evidence of Karan Lahare (PW-13) clearly

proves that both the accused and the deceased were together in

the house on the previous evening. In these circumstances, the

fact as to how the deceased suffered a homicidal death inside the

house was especially within the knowledge of the accused. The

accused failed to furnish any plausible explanation either during

investigation or in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. Once

the prosecution had established the foundational facts that the

18

deceased died a homicidal death inside the shared residence

where she and the accused alone were present during the

relevant period, the burden under Section 106 of the Indian

Evidence Act squarely shifted upon the accused to explain the

circumstances leading to her death. His failure to do so provides

an additional link completing the chain of circumstances.

31.This Court is, therefore, satisfied that the prosecution has proved

beyond reasonable doubt the following circumstances:

(i) the accused and the deceased were living together in

the matrimonial home;

(ii) the deceased was last seen alive with the accused on

the evening preceding the incident;

(iii) the deceased suffered a homicidal death by

strangulation inside the matrimonial home during the

night;

(iv) the accused had a motive arising from his suspicion

regarding the character of the deceased and had

assaulted her shortly before the incident;

(v) there was no possibility of intervention by any

outsider;

(vi) incriminating material including the seized passbook

was recovered from the place of occurrence;

(vii) the accused absconded after the incident and

furnished a false explanation regarding his absence; and

19

(viii) the accused failed to explain the homicidal death of

his wife occurring inside their shared residence.

These circumstances form a complete chain which is wholly

inconsistent with the innocence of the accused and exclude every

reasonable hypothesis except that of his guilt.

32.In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no perversity

or illegality in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial

Court. The prosecution has succeeded in proving the charge

under Section 302 of the IPC beyond all reasonable doubt

through a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial

evidence. The conviction and sentence recorded against the

appellant are fully justified and call for no interference by this

Court.

33.Accordingly, the criminal appeal, being devoid of merit, is

dismissed. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of

the IPC and the sentence of imprisonment for life with fine, as

imposed by the learned Trial Court, are hereby affirmed.

34.It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out

the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.

35.The trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent

back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and

necessary action.

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

concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is

20

undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant

informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment

passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble

Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal

Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services

Committee.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Chandra