Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Appellants in Murder Case, Finding Testimony “Neither Reliable Nor Trustworthy” and Prosecution “Deliberately Fabricated Evidence”
Sanchayita Lahkar
The Division Bench of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, comprising Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal, has allowed appeals setting aside the convictions of three appellants for murder and related offenses. The judgment, delivered on April 25, 2025, stated the inadequacy of relying solely on a child witness's testimony without adequate corroborative evidence. The Court recorded that, "the evidence of the said child witness- (PW-4) is neither found to be reliable or trustworthy, nor even the same was found to be corroborated by the other circumstantial evidence."
The appellants had been convicted under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life along with fines. Setting aside these convictions, the Court directed the immediate release of the appellants if not required in any other case.
The case arose from an incident reported on September 19, 2017, wherein Ward Boy of District Hospital, Balodabazar, informed Police Station City Kotwali that the deceased, Raja @ Sanjay Vaishnav, was brought dead by his wife, Savitri Bai. Investigations revealed that Savitri Bai allegedly had illicit relations with appellant Hetram Sahu, who frequently visited her residence. On the fateful day, it was alleged that Hetram Sahu, accompanied by Pappu @ Kashi Sahu and Savitri Bai, assaulted the deceased after he used filthy language against his wife.
During the investigation, a bloodstained cricket bat, purportedly used in the assault, and bloodstained clothes and slippers were seized. The autopsy report concluded that the death resulted from haemorrhage and shock due to head injuries caused by a hard and blunt object.
Statements were recorded from the deceased's minor children (PW-4). An FIR was subsequently registered under Sections 302, 201, and 109 read with Section 34 of IPC. The trial court framed charges under Sections 120-B, 302/34, and 201/34 IPC.
The prosecution examined 17 witnesses and submitted 38 documents. In defense, two witnesses were examined by the appellants. The trial court convicted the appellants, heavily relying on the testimony of (PW-4).
During the appeal, the appellants challenged the conviction on the grounds that there were material discrepancies in the prosecution's evidence, including delay in lodging FIR, absence of proper recovery of crucial evidence like a broken bat, contradictions in the child witness's statement, and potential tutoring by relatives.
The Court observed that the conviction primarily rested on the testimony of child witness (PW-4). Before recording his testimony, the trial court failed to satisfy the requirement under Section 118 of the Evidence Act to record an opinion that the child understood the duty of speaking the truth.
The Court recorded, "the trial Court has, however, even without recording his opinion and satisfaction that the said child witness- (PW-4) is competent to state, placed reliance on his testimony while convicting the appellants."
It was further stated, "the father of him was assaulted by the appellant- Hetram with the aid of cricket bat while Pappu @ Kashi Sahu had pressed his neck by his legs and mother (Smt. Savitri Bai) had assaulted him as well with the bat and the alleged cricket-bat was found to be broken into pieces."
However, the Court noted contradictions: the bat recovered was intact, and the postmortem did not indicate any presence of alcohol despite the chid (PW 4) stating his father was drunk. The Court observed, "Even otherwise, the alleged seizure was not found to be corroborated by its attesting witnesses."
The Court referred to Supreme Court precedents, including Pradeep vs. State of Haryana (2023 SCC OnLine SC 777), stating that the court must record satisfaction regarding a child witness's understanding of the duty to speak the truth.
Moreover, discrepancies such as failure to immediately arrest the appellants despite early statements implicating them, and questionable seizure of key evidence ("paper" and "curtain"), were noted. The Court remarked, "the approach of the prosecution, thus, appears to have been made in order to implicate the appellants for the commission of the alleged crime somehow or the other."
The Court, quoting Dattu Ramrao Sakhare v. State of Maharashtra (1997) 5 SCC 341 and Panchhi v. State of U.P. (1998) 7 SCC 177, stated that while corroboration of a child witness's testimony is not mandatory, prudence requires careful scrutiny.
Summarizing the discrepancies, the Court concluded, "it would, therefore, be unsafe to place the reliance upon his testimony attributing the appellants for the commission of the alleged crime. The appellants are, thus, entitled to get the benefit of doubt."
Allowing the appeals, the Court ordered, "the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.10.2019 passed by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Balodabazar in Sessions Trial No.05/2018, are hereby set aside and the appellants are directed to be released forthwith, if not required in any other case."
The Court directed that certified copies of the judgment and original record be transmitted to the trial court for necessary information and action and instructed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the concerned jail superintendent immediately.
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For Appellants: Shri Rajesh Jain (through Legal Aid), Shri Adil Minhaj, and Shri T.K. Jha, appearing along with Shri N.P. Thakur
For State/Respondent: Ms. Pragya Pandey, Deputy Government Advocate
Case Title: Kanshiram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh; Smt. Savitri Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh; Hetram Sahu v. State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:18744-DB
Case Numbers: CRA No. 1795 of 2019, CRA No. 1808 of 2019, CRA No. 76 of 2020
Bench: Justice Sanjay S. Agrawal and Justice Radhakishan Agrawal
[Read/Download order]
