Court holds that mere recovery of a dead body at the instance of the accused, or the accused’s post-offence conduct, cannot suffice to convict under Sections 302, 316, or 201 IPC in the absence of other clinching evidence. Judgment affirms prevailing Supreme Court standards, narrows reliance on recovery evidence alone, and is binding on subordinate courts for cases relying primarily on circumstantial recovery evidence.
Summary
| Category | Data |
|---|---|
| Case Name | CRA/1802/2019 of HOMESHWAR SAHU @ HOMESH SAHU Vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH |
| CNR | CGHC010392652019 |
| Date of Registration | 28-11-2019 |
| Decision Date | 17-10-2025 |
| Disposal Nature | PARTLY ALLOWED |
| Judgment Author | Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey |
| Concurring or Dissenting Judges | Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad (Concurring) |
| Court | High Court Of Chhattisgarh |
| Bench | Division Bench: Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad |
| Precedent Value | Binding authority for all subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Overrules / Affirms |
|
| Type of Law | Criminal Law (Indian Penal Code, Evidence Act) |
| Questions of Law | Whether conviction under Sections 302, 316, and 201 IPC can be sustained solely on recovery of dead body and accused’s conduct. |
| Ratio Decidendi |
The court held that the mere recovery of a dead body at the instance of the accused and post-offence conduct, in the absence of additional incriminating circumstances or evidence, are insufficient to sustain a conviction under Sections 302, 316, or 201 IPC. Reliance was placed on decisions of the Supreme Court which have clarified that recovery evidence and accused’s conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act must be corroborated by other direct or circumstantial evidence. The prosecution’s failure to establish homicidal death beyond reasonable doubt, as well as failure to prove recovery of the body pursuant to valid memorandum, compelled the appellate court to acquit under the aforementioned sections. However, conviction under Section 307 was found sustainable on the basis of assault and corroborated medical evidence. |
| Judgments Relied Upon |
|
| Logic / Jurisprudence / Authorities Relied Upon by the Court | Supreme Court precedents on the limitation of circumstantial evidence; Section 8 and Section 27 of Indian Evidence Act; requirement of corroborative evidence for conviction in murder cases. |
| Facts as Summarised by the Court |
The appellant was convicted by the trial court for offences under Sections 302, 307, 316, and 201 IPC. The case arose from a complaint regarding assault on Sushila Patel and the subsequent death of her daughter, Karishma, whose body was allegedly recovered based on the appellant’s memorandum. The prosecution relied mainly on recovery evidence and conduct of the accused. The High Court found several gaps: medical evidence was inconclusive about the cause of death, recovery proceedings were not proved as per law, and crucial supporting evidence (such as DNA) was missing. Assault on Sushila Patel was, however, supported by medical evidence. |
Practical Impact
| Category | Impact |
|---|---|
| Binding On | All subordinate courts in Chhattisgarh |
| Persuasive For | Other High Courts, Supreme Court (in the context of evidentiary standards for circumstantial recovery evidence) |
| Follows |
|
What’s New / What Lawyers Should Note
- Restates that conviction for murder and related offences cannot rest solely on recovery of a dead body at the instance of the accused or the accused’s post-offence conduct.
- Medical evidence must conclusively prove homicide; mere suspicion is not sufficient, and failure to establish homicide beyond reasonable doubt benefits the accused.
- Section 8 Evidence Act “conduct” evidence and Section 27 “recovery” evidence must be corroborated by other probative evidence.
- Lawyers should scrutinize whether recovery was properly established through admissible memorandum and corroborating witnesses.
- The judgment applies Supreme Court precedents with clarity, especially regarding the inadequacy of recovery evidence in absence of other incriminatory circumstances.
Summary of Legal Reasoning
- Framing of Core Issue: The principal question addressed was whether conviction under Sections 302, 316, and 201 IPC can be sustained where prosecution primarily relies on recovery of dead body and post-offence conduct of accused, without further incriminating evidence.
- Evaluation of Medical Evidence: The postmortem evidence failed to conclusively classify the death as homicidal; the doctor admitted not opining on whether death was homicidal or suicidal.
- Recovery Evidence Scrutinized: The court examined the memorandum under Section 27 Evidence Act and found that neither the recovery of the dead body nor of other items could be reliably linked to the accused’s confessional statement or to the deceased.
- Reliance on Supreme Court Precedent: The court cited and applied Umesh Tukaram Padwal (2019), Aghnoo Nagesia, Kanbi Karsan Jadav, and Subramanya v. State of Karnataka for the proposition that recovery under Section 27 or conduct under Section 8 cannot, standing alone, support conviction for murder.
- Exclusion of Inconclusive Evidence: The absence of DNA evidence or custodial linking between the accused and the deceased further weakened the prosecution’s case.
- Conviction Under Section 307 Maintained: Independent medical and ocular evidence established that the accused assaulted Sushila Patel with intent to cause death, supporting conviction under Section 307 IPC.
- Benefit of Doubt Applied: For Sections 302, 316, and 201 IPC, the appellant was acquitted applying the principle of benefit of doubt given substantial evidentiary shortcomings.
Arguments by the Parties
Petitioner (Appellant):
- There were material omissions and contradictions in the prosecution witnesses’ statements.
- The dispute was simple and not of grave character.
- Memorandum and seizure witnesses did not support the prosecution’s recovery case.
- Conviction was based on conjecture, not concrete evidence.
- Medical and FSL reports did not support the prosecution’s version of homicide.
- Relied on Supreme Court (Umesh Tukaram Padwal) and High Court (Virendra Kumar Dhruve) judgments to emphasise the inadequacy of recovery evidence.
Respondent (State):
- Supported the trial court’s appreciation of evidence and conviction.
- Argued that the dead body of the deceased was recovered pursuant to the memorandum of the appellant.
- Pointed to the injured eyewitness (Sushila Patel) as having delivered clear evidence against the appellant.
Factual Background
The case arose from an incident where Sushila Patel and her daughter Karishma met the appellant at Kurud. The appellant took Karishma purportedly for medical treatment but later returned alone and also took Sushila, assaulting her en route. The dead body of Karishma was subsequently recovered. The prosecution based its case on the alleged recovery of the dead body based on the accused’s memorandum, injured eyewitness testimony, and assault evidence. The trial court convicted the appellant under Sections 302, 307, 316, and 201 IPC, but the High Court examined whether the evidence for the homicidal death and recovery of the corpse met the required standard for these convictions.
Statutory Analysis
- Section 302 IPC (Murder): Court required that evidence, including cause of death, be established beyond reasonable doubt; sole reliance on recovery or conduct without other evidence deemed insufficient.
- Section 307 IPC (Attempt to murder): Conviction affirmed owing to strong ocular and medical evidence of the appellant’s assault on the informant.
- Section 201 IPC (Causing disappearance of evidence): Court held that prerequisites for application were unfulfilled in the absence of clinching evidence of homicide and recovery.
- Section 27 & Section 8 Evidence Act: Court applied restrictive interpretation, underscoring the need for corroboration of recovery and conduct evidence.
- Section 481 BNSS 2023: Procedural compliance for release on bond directed as per new criminal statutes.
Dissenting / Concurring Opinion Summary
Both judges on the Division Bench (Hon’ble Smt. Justice Rajani Dubey and Hon’ble Shri Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad) delivered a unanimous decision; no dissenting opinion recorded.
Procedural Innovations
- The court directed compliance with Section 481 of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 for execution of personal bond upon acquittal, reflecting adaptation to the new legislative scheme.
- Ordered immediate dispatch of the trial court record and judgment copy to relevant officers for compliance and release.
Alert Indicators
- ✔ Precedent Followed – The judgment closely follows and applies existing Supreme Court authority.