'Suspicion Cannot Take the Place of Proof': Chhattisgarh High Court Acquits Appellant in Murder and Rape Case for Lack of Conclusive Evidence
Sanchayita Lahkar
The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur, Division Bench comprising Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput, delivered a judgment on April 8, 2025, acquitting the appellant previously convicted for offences under Sections 302, 376, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. The appellant had been sentenced to life imprisonment and other penal terms by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, through a judgment dated March 3, 2020.
The Court recorded that the conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence did not meet the legal standard for sustaining a criminal conviction. The bench noted the absence of conclusive proof tying the appellant to the crime, citing gaps in the evidence chain and unreliable testimony.
The deceased, was found dead in her house on July 28, 2018. According to the inquest and postmortem report, the body was in an advanced state of decomposition, with signs of asphyxia due to compression of nose and mouth, and indications of sexual assault. (PW-16), the autopsy surgeon, concluded the death was homicidal in nature and due to asphyxia.
The initial report (Ex. P-24) was filed by (PW-15), who discovered the deceased's body after receiving a call from the village Sarpanch, (PW-14). Police launched an investigation under Sections 302, 376, and 201 IPC based on suspicions raised during the initial inquiry.
The prosecution alleged that on July 27, 2018, the appellant had consumed alcohol with the deceased and then forcibly engaged in sexual intercourse. When the deceased resisted, the appellant allegedly suffocated her with a bedsheet, causing death. Further allegations included theft of Rs.1650 from her purse and destruction of her mobile phone and SIM card.
The prosecution's case relied primarily on circumstantial evidence, including the testimonies of (PW-3), (PW-7), and (PW-9), who were presented as last seen witnesses. These witnesses claimed to have seen the appellant with the deceased a day prior to her death.
However, the defence contested the reliability of these witnesses and the credibility of the seizure memos. It was submitted that there were significant lapses, including:
- None of the key last-seen witnesses definitively confirmed that they saw the appellant and deceased together in a timeframe that excludes third-party involvement.
- Witnesses to the seizure and memorandum, (PW-1) and (PW-2), were declared hostile and did not corroborate the seizure of the mobile and SIM.
- Investigating Officer (PW-21) failed to establish the origin and ownership of the mobile SIM allegedly recovered.
- The forensic report (Ex. P-39) confirmed the presence of spermatozoa on multiple articles, but no conclusive link was established to the appellant.
- Statements of key witnesses were recorded weeks and even months after the initial FIR, raising questions about their reliability.
The Division Bench recorded in clear terms that the conviction could not be sustained merely on the basis of the last-seen theory and circumstantial evidence that was not conclusively corroborated.
"It is well settled position of law that the conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that accused was last seen with the deceased... normally the Court is required to look for some other corroborative piece of evidence," the Court observed.
Referring to multiple precedents including Ravinder Singh @ Kaku Vs. State of Punjab [(2022) 7 SCC 581] and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116], the Court held that in cases of circumstantial evidence, the chain must be so complete as to exclude all reasonable hypotheses other than the guilt of the accused.
"There is a huge gap (one day) between the last seen and death of deceased and the possibility of third person coming in between the period cannot be excluded," the judgment stated, rejecting the credibility of PW-3 and PW-9 as valid last-seen witnesses.
Further, the Court noted that the memorandum statement of the appellant and related recoveries could not be relied upon, as the witnesses had turned hostile and had admitted to signing the documents under police instructions without actually witnessing the events.
In reference to the forensic evidence, the Court observed: "The prosecution has failed to prove this fact that recovered SIM belonged to deceased’s mobile... merely on the ground of conversation with the appellant on the date of incident is not sufficient to hold him guilty."
The Court also pointed out that the FIR was lodged on July 31, 2018, but several key witness statements were recorded much later, weakening the reliability of the prosecution’s sequence of events.
"Howsoever strong the needle of suspicion moves, it cannot take the place of the evidence," the Bench recorded, citing Commissioner of Police, Delhi & Others V. Jai Bhagwan [2011 (6) SCC 376].
The Division Bench stated:
"Conviction of the accused/appellant under Sections 302, 376 and 201 IPC is not based on due appreciation of the evidence available on record and that being so he is entitled for benefit of doubt."
Accordingly, the judgment dated March 3, 2020, of the trial court was set aside. The appellant, who was on bail, was acquitted of all charges. The Court ordered that:
"His bail bonds shall remain operative for a period of six months in view of Section 481 of BNSS."
Advocates Representing the Parties:
For the Appellant: Qamrul Aziz, Advocate
For the Respondent: Devesh G. Kela, P.L.
Case Title: XXX vs State of Chhattisgarh
Neutral Citation: 2025: CGHC:16336-DB
Case Number: CRA No. 593 of 2020
Bench: Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Sachin Singh Rajput
[Read/Download order]
