Reaffirming the Requirement for a Complete Chain of Circumstantial Evidence and the Limited Scope of Section 27 of the Evidence Act in Criminal Trials
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1843/2019 of ONKAR SINGH @ KONDA Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010404962019 |
| Date of Registration | 30-11-2019 |
| Decision Date | 02-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur |
| Bench | Division Bench (Rajani Dubey & Amitendra Kishore Prasad, JJ.) |
| Precedent Value | Binding on subordinate courts |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms existing Supreme Court precedents on circumstantial evidence and Section 27 |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (IPC §302; Evidence Act §27; CrPC §374) |
| Questions of Law | Whether a conviction for murder under IPC §302 can rest solely on the “last seen together” theory and recoveries made under Evidence Act §27 without any corroborative evidence to complete the chain of circumstances. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
|
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied |
|
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
|
| Citations | 2025:CGHC:44510-DB |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts considering circumstantial-evidence cases; can guide Supreme Court quashing petitions |
| Follows | State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman; Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha; Krishna Jhali v. State of Chhattisgarh |
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that “last seen together” evidence, without additional links in the chain (motive, eye-witness, injuries, etc.), cannot alone sustain a murder conviction.
- Clarifies that under Evidence Act §27, only the fact of discovery (object or place) is admissible; any broader confession extracted in custody is inadmissible.
- Emphasises the need for corroborative evidence when relying on recoveries made at the accused’s instance.
- Reinforces that suspicion—however grave—cannot replace the proof required for conviction beyond reasonable doubt.
- Provides a precedent to challenge convictions based on weak circumstantial chains and section 27 recoveries.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
-
Nature of Homicidal Death
- Post-mortem reports (Ex. P/37 & P/38) opined possible homicidal asphyxia and brain injury.
- Court examined whether other evidence conclusively established homicide by the appellant.
-
Evaluation of Circumstantial Evidence
- The trial court relied on: (a) last seen together, and (b) recoveries under Section 27.
- Supreme Court precedents hold last-seen is weak without corroboration; prosecution must complete the chain so that only hypothesis of guilt remains.
-
Scope of Section 27 (Evidence Act)
- Citing Asar Mohammad and Pulukuri Kotayya, the court held Section 27 admits only the fact of discovery; does not permit admission of confessional or incriminating narrative.
-
Application of Precedents
- State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman: blood-stained weapon with matching group insufficient alone.
- Kanhaiya Lal and successors: last-seen is inconclusive without motive or direct evidence.
- Sujit Biswas: suspicion cannot substitute proof.
-
Benefit of Doubt
- Material discrepancies, eyewitness admissions of police torture, and plausible non-criminal explanations introduced reasonable doubt.
-
Conclusion
- Prosecution failed to negate all other hypotheses; conviction unsafe. Appeal allowed; appellant acquitted.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The prosecution story is improbable and contrary to natural conduct.
- Bodies could not have been placed atop the kiln by one person without aid.
- Witnesses were hostile, intoxicated, and inconsistent; statements recorded under duress.
- Section 27 recoveries (T-shirt, stick) lacked corroboration; the accused’s memorandum was obtained under torture.
- No direct evidence or motive established; conviction unsustainable.
Respondent (State):
- Prosecution witnesses gave categorical accounts; trial court correctly appreciated oral and documentary evidence.
- FSL report confirmed human blood on recovered items.
- Post-mortem findings support homicidal death.
- No ground for interference with well-founded conviction.
Factual Background
On 02 March 2017 two villagers, Narhar and Kuntal Dhruv, were found dead atop a brick kiln in Ghura police station limits. An FIR was registered against “unknown persons.” Investigation led to seizure of a ladder, a blood-stained T-shirt and a Semhar wood stick at the appellant’s instance under Section 27. Post-mortems opined homicidal asphyxia and brain injuries. The appellant was charged under IPC §302, convicted at trial on last-seen and recovery theories, and sentenced to life imprisonment. He appealed under CrPC §374(2).
Statutory Analysis
- IPC §302 (Murder): Definition and punishment.
- Evidence Act §27: Admissibility of information leading to discovery of objects or places; limited to the fact of discovery, not admissions of guilt.
- CrPC §374(2): Appeals from convictions in Sessions Trials.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – reaffirms Supreme Court jurisprudence on Section 27 and last-seen evidence
- 🚨 Breaking Precedent – None (upholds existing law)
Citations
- 2025:CGHC:44510-DB
- Ex. P/37 & P/38 (post-mortem reports)
- Ex. P/34 (FSL report)
- State of Rajasthan v. Hanuman (CRA No. 631/2017; 19.06.2025)
- Padman Bibhar v. State of Odisha (SLP(Cr.L.) No. 17440/2024)
- Krishna Jhali v. State of Chhattisgarh (CRA No. 2172/2023; 29.04.2024)