Chhattisgarh High Court reaffirms that in cases relying entirely on circumstantial evidence for murder, all circumstances must form a complete chain excluding every hypothesis except the accused’s guilt; doubts or missing links entitle the accused to acquittal. This judgment upholds established Supreme Court precedent and serves as binding authority within the state.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/427/2022 of HARISH CHANDRA SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010077492022 |
| Date of Registration | 08-03-2022 |
| Decision Date | 10-09-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE (concurring) |
| Court | High Court of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: HON’BLE THE CHIEF JUSTICE, HON’BLE SHRI JUSTICE BIBHU DATTA GURU |
| Precedent Value | Binding within Chhattisgarh; persuasive elsewhere |
| Overrules / Affirms | Affirms established Supreme Court precedent on circumstantial evidence |
| Type of Law | Criminal Law – Evidence |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained when the case is based solely on incomplete circumstantial evidence and absence of motive. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
In cases based entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete chain of circumstances which, in all probabilities, points only towards the guilt of the accused and excludes every possible hypothesis of innocence. The absence of last seen evidence, lack of clear motive, and inconclusive forensic evidence break the chain, entitling the accused to benefit of doubt. The standard is not what may be, but what must be. In such cases, if any reasonable doubt persists or links are missing, conviction is unsafe and should be set aside. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court |
The Bench reviewed leading Supreme Court decisions on circumstantial evidence, reiterating that convictions cannot rest on broken or incomplete chains of evidence. It reasserted the “panchsheel” principles for circumstantial cases (Sharad Birdhichand Sarda), placed burden on prosecution to close all gaps and exclude hypotheses of innocence, and stressed that in a tie, benefit must go to the accused. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The deceased, an elderly couple, were found murdered in their remote hut. There were multiple injuries, and certain blood-stained articles were recovered. The prosecution relied only on circumstantial links: alleged recovery of articles, presence of the accused in the area, and suggestions of prior presence. No direct evidence, no eyewitnesses, no clear motive, and inconclusive forensic evidence (no blood group matching; no last seen evidence). The appellant was convicted by the trial court based solely on these circumstances. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Reaffirms that in murder cases based solely on circumstantial evidence, all links in the chain must be complete, credible, and must exclude every reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
- Absence of last seen evidence, absence of clear motive, and inconclusive forensic results (especially failure to establish exclusive blood group/matching) are fatal to the prosecution in circumstantial cases.
- The “benefit of doubt” rule applies strongly in circumstantial evidence cases with missing or weak links.
- Lawyers can cite this precedent in Chhattisgarh for acquittal where prosecution evidence is incomplete or lacks direct connection with the accused.
- Jurisprudence on “must be” versus “may be” guilt applies: mere suspicion is not enough for conviction.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- The Bench reaffirmed that in cases depending entirely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove a complete and conclusive chain of circumstances, without any missing link, leading exclusively to the guilt of the accused and eliminating the possibility of innocence.
- The Court analysed key Supreme Court precedents—Babu v. State of Kerala, Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab, and others—to distil the “panchsheel” (five golden principles) applicable to circumstantial evidence.
- Absence of motive, though not always fatal, becomes crucial where the evidence is circumstantial and no other credible link is shown.
- The Court observed that the prosecution failed to establish the last seen evidence, did not produce motive, and the forensic evidence (like blood stains) lacked serological matching to connect with the accused.
- The Court reasoned that in such circumstances, benefit of doubt must go to the accused, and there was a real possibility of innocence.
- Accordingly, the conviction was set aside and the appellant acquitted, in line with the precedents.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- The conviction is not sustainable on facts or law; evidence was improperly appreciated.
- The entire case was circumstantial, with the alleged motive unproven and improbable.
- No evidence linked the appellant directly to the offence.
- Forensic/testing evidence was inconclusive; seizure of weapon not exclusive to the appellant.
- No evidence of the appellant’s presence at the scene at the relevant time.
- In absence of legal proof for each ingredient, the benefit of doubt should apply.
Respondent (State):
- The prosecution proved the case beyond reasonable doubt.
- The evidence (statements, forensic articles) was sufficient.
- The trial court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
Factual Background
The case involved the murder of an elderly couple, Dayaram Netam and Tulsa Bai, who lived in a farm hut near a village in Chhattisgarh. Their son found them dead with head injuries and blood stains. Police registered the offence and seized a wooden stick and other blood-stained items. The prosecution presented evidence suggesting the accused’s presence in the area and his possible connection through circumstantial links. There were no eyewitnesses, no conclusive identification of the murder weapon, no direct evidence, and no proven motive or connection between the accused and the deceased. The trial court initially convicted the appellant based only on these circumstantial elements.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code: Addresses punishment for murder.
- Section 374(2), Code of Criminal Procedure: Pertains to appeal against conviction to the High Court.
- Section 437-A, Code of Criminal Procedure: Relates to bail pending appeal/SLP.
- The judgment interprets the requirement for criminal conviction based on circumstantial evidence, relying on legal principles that every relevant circumstance must be proven to the standard of eliminating any reasonable doubt regarding innocence.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
No separate dissenting or concurring opinion; both judges concurred in the reasoning and the order.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed immediate release of the appellant upon acquittal, subject to compliance with Section 437-A of the CrPC and furnishing of personal bonds with sureties, to ensure compliance in the event of further appeal.
- The trial court was ordered to receive the record and judgment for prompt compliance.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment strictly follows and reaffirms existing Supreme Court precedent regarding circumstantial evidence and benefit of doubt.