Chattisgarh High Court
Ram Prakash Kujur vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 6 May, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:21124-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2403 of 2025
Ram Prakash Kujur S/o Moharlal Kujur Aged About 28 Years R/o
Siklima, Police Station Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station
Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-titles taken from Case Information System) For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade and Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 06.05.2026
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned Senior Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade and Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu, Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN BRIJMOHAN MORLE MORLE Date:
2026.05.13 learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned 19:02:43 +0530 Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.2
2. Though the matter is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 1 of 2025, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, considering that the appellant has been in custody since 25.05.2019, and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is taken up for final hearing.
3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant/accused under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS"), assailing the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2025 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratapupur, District North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as "the learned trial Court") in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction under Section Sentence
Section 364 of the Indian :Rigorous imprisonment (for short,
Penal Code (for short, 'IPC') 'R.I.') for 07 years and fine of
Rs.500/-, to default of payment of
fine, 01 month R.I. more.
Section 302 of the IPC :R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-,
to default of payment of fine, 02
months R.I. more.
Section 120(B) of the IPC :R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-,
to default of payment of fine, 02
months R.I. more.
Section 201 of the IPC :R.I. for 07 years and fine of
3
Rs.500/-, to default of payment of
fine, 01 month R.I. more.
All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, on the report lodged by the complainant, Ramlal Koreti (PW-1), regarding the missing of his daughter Kumari Kavita Koreti, Missing Person Report No. 09/2019 was registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur. During the course of investigation into the missing person case, Investigating Officer Sub- Inspector Lalit Singh Negi (PW-16), on 20.05.2019, on the basis of call detail records, went to Kirandul and interrogated the appellant Ram Prakash Kujur, who was then posted as a constable in E-Company, 16 th Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force. As he failed to provide satisfactory information, he was brought to Police Station Bhanupratappur, where during interrogation he disclosed that he had a love affair with Kumari Kavita Koreti and had left her at the house of his friend Sanju Tirkey at Thakurpur, Ambikapur. On the basis of such disclosure, his memorandum/confessional statement was recorded in the presence of witnesses as Ex.P/14.
5. Thereafter, on the basis of the said disclosure statement, the appellant was taken to Ambikapur, where upon further interrogation on 22.05.2019, appellant Ram Prakash Kujur disclosed that he had taken his girlfriend Kumari Kavita Koreti to the bank of Tonahi Nala, assaulted her, strangulated her to death, and after killing her, informed his friend Sanju Tirkey and, along with him, buried the dead body. 4
6. The prosecution case further is that, upon such disclosure by the appellant regarding the incident, Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector Lalit Singh Negi (PW-16) prepared the inquest/excavation panchnama (Ex.P/6) in the presence of villagers and Panch witnesses for excavation at the place indicated by the appellant. Pursuant to the written order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur, excavation proceedings were carried out on 22.05.2019 in the presence of villagers. Prior to the excavation, Tahsildar Bhushan Singh Mandavi (PW-17) prepared the site panchnama (Ex.P/4) and the excavation panchnama (Ex.P/6). Thereafter, in the presence of the deceased's father Ramlal Koreti and villagers, an order for excavation (Ex.P/5) was prepared. Upon excavation, a dead body was recovered from a depth of approximately two feet, whereupon a recovery panchnama (Ex.P/7) was prepared. On the same day, notices were issued to witnesses for identification proceedings (Ex.P/3), and a spot map/inquest map (Ex.P/22) was prepared. The body was identified by the deceased's father, Ramlal Koreti, on the basis of the clothes worn by the deceased. Thereafter, the opinion of Panch witnesses regarding postmortem examination was obtained (Ex.P/9), and the body was handed over to ASI Naval Kishore Dubey (PW-19) of Police Station Jaynagar, District Surajpur, for postmortem examination under Supurdnama Ex.P/47.
7. The prosecution case further is that on 22.05.2019, upon the report lodged by Ramlal Koreti at Village Thakurpur, Police Station Jaynagar, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Investigating Officer Naval Kishore Dubey (PW-19), posted at Police Station Jaynagar, District 5 Surajpur, registered an unnumbered merg intimation under Section 174 of the Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P/2, and thereafter registered an unnumbered First Information Report (Ex.P/1). On the same day, from near the dead body of Kumari Kavita Koreti found in the drain of the field of Kanwal Sai Uraon, plain soil and soil found above the stomach area of the deceased, each approximately 1 kilogram, were collected, sealed on the spot in plastic containers, and after recovery of the body, soil from beneath the body, approximately 1 kilogram, was also seized and sealed in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/16. Statements of witness Hiresh Singh were also recorded.
8. The prosecution case further is that on the same day, i.e., 22.05.2019, Investigating Officer Lalit Singh Negi (PW-16), after recovery of the body of missing girl Kumari Kavita Koreti through excavation, got the body identified by her father Ramlal Koreti in the presence of witnesses, in relation to which identification panchnama Ex.P/11 was prepared, followed by preparation of recovery panchnama Ex.P/13. Thereafter, the body was handed over to the relatives of the deceased after postmortem for last rites, and burial/funeral panchnama Ex.P/12 was prepared in the presence of witnesses. On the same day, Constable Madan Lal Netam produced before the witnesses the sealed packets preserved by the Doctor after postmortem, containing a light green-white coloured dupatta, stomach, small and large intestine, parts of the heart, liver, kidneys and lungs, right-side human femur bone, molar teeth, femur, foetal bone, uterus material and sample formalin, which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/28. One blue salwar and 6 one green suit stained with mud were also produced and seized vide seizure memo Ex.P29. Thereafter, on 22.05.2019, Investigating Officer (PW-16) interrogated complainant Ramlal Koreti regarding the incident and recorded his statement. On his identification, the place of occurrence was inspected and a spot map (Ex.P/42) was prepared. On 23.05.2019, appellant Ramprakash Kujur was interrogated regarding the incident, and his memorandum statement (Ex.P/15) was recorded in the presence of witnesses. On the same day, he was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/18, and intimation of arrest (Ex.P/43) was given to his relatives. On 24.05.2019, the appellant was produced before the Court at Jaynagar, District Surajpur, and after obtaining transit remand, was brought to Police Station Bhanupatpur. Thereafter, Merg No.37/2019 under Section 174 of the CrPC was registered at Police Station Bhanupatpur vide Ex.P/44 dated 24.05.2019, and on the basis thereof, FIR No. 93/2019 under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC was registered against appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur and co-accused, Sanju Tirkey vide Ex.P/45.
9. Subsequently, on 26.05.2019, another Investigating Officer, Sub- Inspector Paras Singh Thakur (PW-18), pursuant to the memorandum statement of appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur, recovered a black-coloured Vivo Android touchscreen mobile phone belonging to the deceased from beneath a fencing wire behind the mess of CAF "E"-Company at Kirandul, District Dantewada, in the presence of witnesses. Recovery panchnama Ex.P/20 and seizure memo Ex.P/19 were prepared accordingly. Thereafter, when the case diary was handed over for 7 further investigation to Inspector Shashikala Uike (PW-15), she sent a letter dated 03.07.2019 to the Tahsildar, Ambikapur, requesting a Patwari map of the place of occurrence at Tonahi Nala, Thakurpur (Ex.P/34). On 19.07.2019, she sent a requisition to the Superintendent of Police, Kanker (Cyber Cell), for issuance of a certificate under Section 65-B in respect of the call detail records (Ex.P/36). On 22.07.2019, she sent a query to the Medical Officer, Bishrampur, District Surajpur, seeking a report regarding the light green coloured dupatta of the deceased (Ex.P/37). Thereafter, on 03.08.2019, she sent a requisition to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Komaldev Hospital, Kanker, for appointment of a Doctor to preserve blood samples of appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur and deceased's father Ramlal Koreti (Ex.P/39).
10. The prosecution case further is that on 05.08.2019, Inspector Shashikala Uike (PW-15) seized three EDTA vials containing 2 ml blood sample of complainant Ramlal Koreti and three EDTA vials containing 2 ml blood sample of appellant Ram Prakash Kujur, preserved by the Doctor and produced through Constable Rajendra Rawate from District Hospital, Kanker, vide seizure memos Exs.P/26 and P/17. On the same day, through the Superintendent of Police, Kanker, she forwarded the seized articles to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for DNA examination vide memo Ex.P/38. On 07.08.2019, she sent another requisition (Ex.P/35) to the Medical Officer, Bishrampur, regarding preservation details of the seized foetal bones and uterus material of the deceased. During investigation, statements of witnesses Shakun 8 Komra, Viran Bai, Ramkunwar, Suraj Samarth and Mohd. Rasul were recorded. On 26.09.2019, PW-16 again visited Thakurpur, Police Station Jaynagar, and recorded statements of witnesses Rahul Bada and Amjeet Lakra. On the same day, upon tracing co-accused Sanju Tirkey, he was interrogated in the presence of witnesses and his memorandum statement Ex.P/23 was recorded. Pursuant thereto, co- accused Sanju Tirkey produced one iron spade fitted with a wooden handle from behind Barsana Residency, Village Thakurpur, which was seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/24. Thereafter, co-accused Sanju Tirkey was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P/25 and intimation of arrest (Ex.P/46) was given to his relatives. The record further includes the DNA examination report dated 30.09.2019 (Ex.P/40) and the forensic examination report dated 23.09.2019 (Ex.P/41) issued by the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur.
11. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
12. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant under Sections 364, 120-B, 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to the appellant, who denied the same, pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. During pendency of the trial, co-accused Sanju Tirkey expired.
13. During trial, the appellant was examined under Section 351 of the 9 BNSS (which is the corresponding provision of the earlier Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.). Under this provision, he denied all the allegations and stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
14. In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, the prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 50 documents. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of the defence.
15. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available on record, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 04.09.2025, convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 364, 302, 120(B) and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him accordingly, as mentioned in paragraph 03 of this judgment. Being aggrieved and dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence, the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
16. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant submitted that the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence and there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged incident. It was contended that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of the offence. He further submitted that the so-called disclosure statements and memorandums alleged to have been made by the appellant before the police are inadmissible in evidence except to the limited extent permissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, and therefore, the learned trial Court erred in placing reliance upon the 10 same for recording conviction. It was argued that the recovery and identification proceedings suffer from serious infirmities, particularly when the dead body was recovered in a highly decomposed condition after about two to three months.
17. Learned Senior Advocate also contended that the prosecution has failed to prove any strong motive for commission of the offence and that the entire case rests upon suspicion, conjectures and surmises, which cannot take the place of legal proof. It was, therefore, argued that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
18. Per contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based upon cogent, reliable and duly proved circumstantial evidence. It was argued that the appellant himself disclosed his relationship with the deceased and, pursuant to his memorandum statement, the dead body of the deceased was recovered from the place pointed out by him. He further submitted that the medical evidence clearly establishes that the death was homicidal in nature and the postmortem findings, coupled with the recovery proceedings, memorandum statements, seizure of articles, call detail records and forensic evidence, form a complete chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant. It was further contended that the prosecution witnesses have consistently supported the case of the prosecution and there are no material contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution story. According to the learned State counsel, the learned trial Court has meticulously 11 appreciated the entire evidence on record and has rightly held the appellant guilty of the offences charged. Therefore, no interference with the impugned judgment is warranted and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions and carefully perused the entire record.
20. The first question for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that the death of deceased Kavita Koreti was homicidal in nature.
21. In this regard, the learned trial Court relied upon the testimony of Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh (PW-12), one of the members of the three- member medical board which conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased on 22.05.2019. PW-12 deposed that the body was identified by the deceased's father and that during external examination the body was found in a decomposed condition with mud stains, foul smell, protruded tongue pressed between the teeth, and ligature-like marks on the left side of the neck. During internal examination, partial decomposition of organs and fracture of the tracheal bone were noticed. Foetal bones were also found in the uterus.
22. PW-12 further stated that viscera, bones, foetal remains and the light green coloured dupatta were preserved for chemical and DNA examination. According to his medical opinion, the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the death was homicidal in nature, having occurred approximately two to three months prior to the 12 postmortem examination. He further opined vide query report Ex.P/33 that the seized dupatta could have been used for strangulation. The findings recorded in the postmortem report Ex.P/31 were duly supported by the other members of the medical board, namely Dr. Amit Bhagat (PW-13) and Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo (PW-14).
23. During cross-examination, PW-12 admitted that the body was in a decomposed condition and that putrefaction ordinarily commences within 72 hours of death. However, he specifically denied the suggestion that the fracture of the tracheal bone could have occurred due to accidental fall and reiterated that strangulation by the seized dupatta was possible. Even otherwise, the homicidal nature of death has not been seriously disputed on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, we affirm the said finding recorded by the learned trial Court.
24. The present case is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence, as there is no direct eyewitness account of the incident.
25. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., reported in (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus:
"In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the 13 hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....".
26. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., reported in AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests:
"(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
27. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Hon'ble Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established 14 and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
28. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book "Wills' Circumstantial Evidence" (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted".
29. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :-
"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned "must" or "should"
and not "may be" established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be 15 explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."
30. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus:
"41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt.
42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial 16 evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of "chain link theory"
and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the "chain link theory" since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also."
31. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., reported in AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again.
32. The present case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence as there is no direct eyewitness account of the incident. The prosecution 17 has sought to establish a complete chain of circumstances which, according to it, leads only to the conclusion of guilt of the appellant.
33. In the present case, the prosecution has established the following circumstances against the appellant:
(i) The death of deceased Kavita Koreti is homicidal in nature, as conclusively proved by the medical evidence.
(ii) The investigation revealed that the appellant was closely associated with the deceased and was aware of her movements and whereabouts prior to her disappearance.
(iii) During the course of investigation, the appellant made voluntary disclosure statements leading to discovery of crucial facts, including the place where the body was concealed.
(iv) Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, excavation was carried out at Tonahi Nala, Thakurpur, and the dead body of the deceased was recovered from a depth of about two feet.
(v) The excavation and recovery proceedings were conducted in the presence of independent witnesses and duly recorded through seizure and panchnama proceedings, thereby lending authenticity to the recovery.
(vi) The dead body was identified by the father of the deceased, Ramlal Koreti (PW-1), on the basis of clothing and other identifiable features.
(vii) Various articles including clothes of the deceased and other material objects were seized from the spot and forwarded for forensic examination.
(viii) The forensic and DNA reports corroborate the prosecution case by scientifically linking the seized materials and biological samples with the deceased and the crime scene.18
(ix) A mobile phone belonging to the deceased was also recovered at the instance of the appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
(x) The cumulative effect of disclosure, recovery of body and articles, forensic evidence, and conduct of the appellant establishes a complete chain of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant and excludes any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
34. The next question for consideration is whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty on the basis of the following circumstances:
(i) The homicidal nature of death stands proved beyond doubt on the basis of postmortem report Ex.P/31 and the consistent testimony of PW-12 Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh, duly corroborated by PW-13 and PW-14.
(ii) The medical evidence clearly establishes death by asphyxia due to strangulation, consistent with homicidal violence.
(iii) The most significant incriminating circumstance is the discovery of the dead body at the instance of the appellant pursuant to his memorandum statement Ex.P/15, which falls squarely within the ambit of Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
(iv) The recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased and other incriminating articles further strengthens the prosecution case and demonstrates the active knowledge and participation of the appellant.19
(v) The forensic evidence, including DNA and FSL reports, provides scientific corroboration to the oral and documentary evidence and strengthens the chain of circumstances.
35. It can thus clearly be seen that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established. The Court holds that it is a settled principle that the accused "must be" and not merely "may be" guilty before a conviction can be recorded. There is a clear distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or should be proved". The facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and not explainable on any other hypothesis. The circumstances must be such as to exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved. There must be a complete chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable doubt consistent with the innocence of the accused, and it must show that in all human probability the offence was committed by the accused.
36. It is equally well settled that suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused is presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable doubt, and conviction cannot be based on conjectures or surmises.
37. In the light of these well-settled principles, the present case is required to be examined on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution.
20
38. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court, it would reveal that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the disclosure statement of the appellant and consequential recoveries, as well as corroborative oral and documentary evidence. The complainant / father of the deceased, Ramlal Koreti (PW-1), deposed regarding the missing of his daughter and subsequent developments during investigation. During interrogation, the appellant Ram Prakash Kujur is stated to have disclosed that he had taken the deceased to Tonahi Nala and had buried her body along with co-accused Sanju Tirkey. The said disclosure led to recovery of the dead body from the place pointed out by the appellant.
39. The memorandum statement of appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur is Ex.P/15, on which his signatures appear, and the seizure memos Exs.P/16 and P/17 also bear his signatures. Upon seeing the clothes of the deceased, he identified them as belonging to the deceased, which included a light blue salwar and a light green kurta with floral prints. When the seized salwar and kurta of the deceased were shown to the witness in the trial Court, he identified them as belonging to the deceased; the same were marked as Article A-01. Apart from these, no other clothes were found on the body of the deceased.
40. Further, Mukesh Kumar Salam (PW-7), a close relative of the deceased, deposed that the deceased had disclosed her relationship with the appellant and that the appellant's photograph was found in her belongings. He further stated that on being apprehended, the appellant had made disclosures during interrogation regarding the whereabouts of 21 the deceased, pursuant to which police proceeded to the indicated place and skeletal remains / body material were recovered. Though PW-7 did not personally accompany the police, his testimony corroborates the initial link between the deceased and the appellant and the subsequent investigation process.
41. The prosecution has also relied upon recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased at the instance of the appellant pursuant to his memorandum statement, which was recovered from a concealed place at Kirandul, thereby further strengthening the evidentiary chain. The confessional memorandum of the appellant is Ex.P/14.
42. In this regard, Sub-Inspector Lalit Singh Negi (PW-16) also conducted exhumation proceedings of the dead body and, after postmortem proceedings, on 23.05.2019, he recorded the memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/15) in the presence of witnesses, as per the appellant's disclosure. Thereafter, the appellant was arrested as per arrest memo Ex.P/18.
43. The defence has argued that the memorandum statement Ex.P/15 is suspicious as it was allegedly obtained in violation of legal procedure and was not duly corroborated by witnesses. In this regard, it is clear that initially the appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur misled the investigation. However, the fact remains that the disclosure made by him led to discovery of the dead body and other incriminating recoveries. The sequence of events shows that the investigation proceeded on the basis 22 of information given by the appellant which ultimately resulted in recovery of the dead body and associated material objects.
44. It may be noted that there is a variation in the sequence of procedural steps taken by the Investigating Officer PW-16, as in practice the exhumation proceedings were conducted first at the place pointed out by the appellant, followed by recovery of the body, its identification, and thereafter the memorandum statement Ex.P/15 was recorded. Although this sequence shows some procedural irregularity, it does not create any doubt in the case; rather, it supports the truthfulness of the proceedings conducted. The said proceedings and recording of the statement are also corroborated by prosecution witnesses Ramlal Koreti (PW-1) and Kotwar Bhagwat Chauhan (PW-3) in their respective testimonies before the learned trial Court.
45. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as under: -
"27. How much of information received from accused may be proved.--Provided that, when any fact is deposed to as discovered in consequence of information received from a person accused of any offence, in the custody of a police officer, so much of such information, whether it amounts to a confession or not, as relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered, may be proved."
46. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only if the confessional statement relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered. 23
47. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Asar Mohammad and others v. State of U.P., reported in AIR 2018 SC 5264 with reference to the word "fact" employed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act has held that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word "fact" as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to "actual physical material object". It has been further held that the discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place and it includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. Their Lordships relying upon the decision of the Privy Council in the matter of Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor, AIR 1947 PC 67 observed as under: -
"13. It is a settled legal position that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word "fact"
as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to "actual physical material object". The discovery of fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the informant as to its existence at a particular place. It includes a discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to its existence. It will be useful to advert to the exposition in the case of Vasanta Sampat Dupare v. State of Maharashtra1, in particular, 1 (2015) 1 SCC 253 24 paragraphs 23 to 29 thereof. The same read thus:
"23. While accepting or rejecting the factors of discovery, certain principles are to be kept in mind. The Privy Council in Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor (supra) has held thus: (IA p. 77) "... it is fallacious to treat the 'fact discovered' within the section as equivalent to the object produced;
the fact discovered embraces the place from which the object is produced and the knowledge of the accused as to this, and the information given must relate distinctly to this fact. Information as to past user, or the past history, of the object produced is not related to its discovery in the setting in which it is discovered.
Information supplied by a person in custody that 'I will produce a knife concealed in the roof of my house' does not lead to the discovery of a knife; knives were discovered many years ago. It leads to the discovery of the fact that a knife is concealed in the house of the informant to his knowledge, and if the knife is proved to have been used in the commission of the offence, the fact discovered is very relevant. But if 25 to the statement the words be added 'with which I stabbed A', these words are inadmissible since they do not relate to the discovery of the knife in the house of the informant.
xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx xxx"
48. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja alias Perumal v. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC 12 has defined the 'custody'. It held that the expression "custody" under Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical purposes, in the custody of the police.
49. The Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of Boby v State of Kerala, 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 held that the basic idea embedded in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of a fact, it becomes a reliable information. Section 27 puts a bar to use 26 the confessional statement, but the fact that discovery and information which proved to reliable would be a circumstantial evidence.
50. In the present case, the prosecution has been able to establish a strong and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence which includes the disclosure statement of the appellant leading to discovery of the dead body, recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased, and corroborative forensic and scientific evidence. The recovery of the dead body from a concealed place at the instance of the appellant is a highly incriminating circumstance, which clearly establishes his knowledge of the place where the body was concealed. Such discovery, being in consequence of information furnished by the appellant while in police custody, is a vital link in the chain of circumstances. The FSL and DNA reports further corroborate the prosecution case by scientifically connecting the seized articles and biological material with the deceased. The appellant has failed to furnish any plausible explanation for these incriminating circumstances, which were especially within his knowledge.
51. From the cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence on record, it is evident that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent and consistent, and it unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellant. Each circumstance has been independently established by reliable evidence and collectively they form a complete chain which excludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the appellant. The discovery of the dead body pursuant to the disclosure statement of the appellant is a circumstance of significant probative 27 value, which cannot be ignored in a case resting on circumstantial evidence.
52. The medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report, duly proved by the medical witnesses, rules out any possibility of accidental or natural death. The forensic evidence, including DNA examination and FSL reports, further strengthens the prosecution case by establishing a scientific link between the deceased, the accused, and the recovered articles. The scientific evidence being objective in nature provides strong corroboration to the ocular and circumstantial evidence on record.
53. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish a complete chain of circumstances which must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.
In the present case, all such circumstances stand duly proved beyond reasonable doubt. The defence has failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the incriminating circumstances appearing against the appellant, particularly the recovery of the dead body and mobile phone at his instance.
54. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the evidence is insufficient or doubtful does not inspire confidence. Minor inconsistencies or procedural variations in investigation, if any, do not affect the core of the prosecution case. It is a settled principle of law 28 that defective investigation cannot be a ground to discard otherwise reliable and trustworthy evidence, especially when the prosecution case is otherwise fully established through cogent material.
55. The learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded well-reasoned findings based on correct appreciation of facts and law. The conclusions drawn by the trial Court are fully supported by the material on record and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
56. This Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and leaves no room for any other inference except the involvement of the appellant in the commission of the offence.
57. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the present appeal. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court is just, proper and based on sound appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. The same does not warrant any interference.
58. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed.
59. In view of the final disposal of the appeal, I.A. No. 1 of 2025, application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail does not survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of.29
60. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.
61. The learned trial court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action.
62. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon'ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan