Chattisgarh High Court
Heeralal Kurre vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 14 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally
CGHC010379352022 2026:CGHC:29557-DB
signed by
ANURADHA
ANURADHA TIWARI
TIWARI Date:
NAFR
2026.07.14
17:22:00
+0530
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 1843 of 2022
Heeralal Kurre S/o Late Santkumar Kurre Aged About 38 Years R/o
Village Sendha, Police Station Podi, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur),
Chhattisgarh
... Appellant
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through- Station House Officer, Police Station
Podi, District : Koriya (Baikunthpur), Chhattisgarh
... Respondent
(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Shishir Dixit, Advocate
For State/Respondent : Mr. Sumit Singh, Deputy Advocate
General
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
14.07.2026
1. Heard Mr. Shishir Dixit, learned counsel for the appellant. Also
heard Mr. Sumit Singh, learned Deputy Advocate General,
appearing for the State/respondent.
2
2. This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused under
Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short,
‘CrPC‘) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence dated 09.11.2022 passed by the learned
Second Additional District Judge, Manendragarh, District Korea
(C.G.) in Sessions Case No.18/2020, by which, the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under :-
Conviction Sentence
Under Section 363 of the : Rigorous imprisonment for 05
Indian Penal Code, 1860 years along with fine of Rs.500/-,
in default of payment of fine,
additional rigorous imprisonment
for 15 days.
Under Section 364 of the : Rigorous imprisonment for 10
Indian Penal Code, 1860 years along with fine of Rs.500/-,
in default of payment of fine,
additional rigorous imprisonment
for 15 days.
Under Section 302 of the : Imprisonment for life along with
Indian Penal Code, 1860 fine of Rs.500/-, in default of
payment of fine, additional
rigorous imprisonment for 15
days.
All the sentences were directed to run concurrently
3. The prosecution case, as unfolded during the course of trial and
emerging from the First Information Report, the documentary
evidence and the testimony of the prosecution witnesses, in brief,
3
is that the deceased, namely, Shravan Kumar, was a minor boy
aged about seven years and was residing with his parents,
namely, Rajesh Kurre (PW-1) and Rekha (PW-2), in Village
Sendha, Police Station Podi, District Korea. It is the case of the
prosecution that on 08.12.2019, Rajesh Kurre (PW-1), father of
the deceased, had gone to his place of employment near Verma
Plant at about 9:00 a.m. and returned home at approximately 5:40
p.m. On reaching home, he was informed by his wife Rekha (PW-
2), his elder son Sawan and other family members that Shravan
Kumar, who had been playing in front of the house during the
afternoon, had gone missing since about 4:30 p.m. Despite an
extensive search conducted by the family members and villagers
throughout the evening, the whereabouts of the child could not be
ascertained.
4. Consequently, Rajesh Kurre (PW-1) approached Police
Assistance Centre, Nagpur, on the very same night and lodged
information regarding the disappearance of his minor son. On the
basis of the said information, a missing person report bearing
Missing Person No.29/2019 was recorded in the daily diary. The
said report has been brought on record as Ex.P-15, while the
Dehati Nalishi has been proved as Ex.P-1. On the strength
thereof, an offence under Section 363 of the Indian Penal Code
against an unknown person came to be registered and, thereafter,
Crime No.186/2019 was registered at Police Station Podi. The
formal First Information Report has been proved as Ex.P-21.
4
5. The prosecution further alleges that on the following day, namely,
09.12.2019, while the search operation was still continuing, the
father-in-law of Rajesh Kurre noticed a pair of pink-coloured
slippers floating in the well situated in the premises belonging to
the appellant-Hiralal Kurre. This information was immediately
conveyed to Rajesh Kurre and other villagers. Thereafter, in the
presence of several villagers and police personnel, a grappling
hook was lowered into the well and the dead body of the minor
child Shravan Kumar was recovered from the said well.
6. Upon recovery of the body, merg intimation under Section 174
CrPC was registered. The merg intimation has been exhibited as
Ex.P-2. The investigating agency thereafter prepared the recovery
panchnama of the dead body (Ex.P-10), issued notice to the
panch witnesses (Ex.P-9), prepared the inquest report (Ex.P-9A),
and initiated further investigation into the unnatural death. During
investigation, the investigating officer seized from the well one
pair of pink slippers allegedly belonging to the deceased, water
from the well preserved in a bottle, and a plastic sack. The seizure
memo evidencing the said recovery has been proved as Ex.P-11.
7. The dead body of the child was thereafter forwarded for post-
mortem examination by requisition Ex.P-16, and the forwarding
memo issued to the constable carrying the dead body has been
proved as Ex.P-17. Dr. O.L. Barman (PW-12) conducted the post-
mortem examination and submitted the post-mortem report Ex.P-
5
18, opining that the death had occurred due to drowning resulting
in asphyxia and that the death had taken place within
approximately 20 to 25 hours prior to the examination.
8. The prosecution further alleges that during investigation suspicion
fell upon the appellant on account of previous animosity between
him and the family of the deceased. It was alleged that the
appellant had earlier maintained an intimate relationship with
Rekha (PW-2), the mother of the deceased, prior to her marriage
with Rajesh Kurre (PW-1), and that the relationship had
subsequently deteriorated, resulting in longstanding hostility
between the parties. According to the prosecution, the appellant
had even threatened Rekha shortly before the occurrence. It is
further alleged that after the appellant was taken into custody on
10.12.2019, his memorandum statement under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act was recorded in the presence of witnesses,
which has been proved as Ex.P-13. Pursuant to the said
memorandum, a silver locket allegedly belonging to the deceased
was recovered from the possession of the appellant. The said
locket was subsequently identified by Rekha (PW-2) during
identification proceedings, the identification memo whereof has
been proved as Ex.P-29.
9. The investigating agency also caused the water collected from the
well and the tibia bone preserved during post-mortem examination
to be forwarded to the Forensic Science Laboratory. The
6
forwarding letter has been exhibited as Ex.P-25, acknowledgment
as Ex.P-26, and the Forensic Science Laboratory report as Ex.P-
27. According to the prosecution, the Diatom Test yielded positive
findings both in respect of the water collected from the well and
the tibia bone of the deceased, thereby supporting the
prosecution version that the deceased had died due to drowning
in the said well.
10. During investigation, the investigating officer also prepared the
spot map (Ex.P-3) and a detailed site plan (Ex.P-4), while the
Patwari prepared another spot map (Ex.P-5) depicting the location
of the appellant’s house, the well and the adjoining properties.
These documents were relied upon by the prosecution to
establish that the dead body was recovered from the well situated
immediately behind the appellant’s house and within his exclusive
premises.
11. On completion of investigation, the police concluded that the
appellant, on account of previous enmity with the parents of the
deceased, had enticed the seven-year-old child from near his
residence, taken him towards the well situated in his own
premises, pushed him into the well with the intention of causing
his death and thereby committed offences punishable under
Sections 363, 364 and 302 IPC. Charge-sheet was accordingly
filed before the jurisdictional Magistrate, who committed the case
to the Court of Session for trial.
7
12. The learned Sessions Judge framed charges against the
appellant under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal
Code. The appellant denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
His defence, as disclosed in his statement under Section 313 of
the CrPC, was one of complete denial and false implication. No
defence evidence was adduced.
13. Upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence available on
record, the learned trial Court by the impugned judgment dated
09.11.2022, convicted and sentenced the appellant-accused for
the offence punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of IPC
and sentenced him in the manner mentioned in the second
paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under
Section 374(2) of the CrPC has been preferred by him calling in
question the impugned judgment.
14. Learned counsel appearing for the appellant would submit that the
findings recorded by the learned trial Court are contrary to the
evidence available on record and suffer from serious legal as well
as factual infirmities. It is contended that the prosecution has
utterly failed to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond all
reasonable doubt and yet the learned trial Court has proceeded to
convict him merely on the basis of conjectures and surmises. He
would submit that admittedly there is no eyewitness to the alleged
occurrence and the entire prosecution case rests solely upon
circumstantial evidence. It is argued that where the prosecution
8
seeks conviction on circumstantial evidence, every circumstance
relied upon must be firmly established and all such circumstances
must form a complete and unbroken chain leading only to the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and excluding every
possible hypothesis consistent with his innocence. According to
learned counsel, the prosecution has miserably failed to satisfy
these well-settled principles.
15. It is further submitted that the learned trial Court has erred in
placing reliance upon the alleged motive sought to be attributed to
the appellant. The alleged previous relationship between the
appellant and Rekha (PW-2), wife of Rajesh Kurre (PW-1), and
the alleged enmity arising therefrom, even if assumed to be true,
cannot by itself constitute proof of guilt. It is argued that motive is
merely a corroborative circumstance and can never substitute
legal proof. The prosecution has failed to establish any cogent or
convincing evidence to demonstrate that such alleged previous
enmity was of such intensity as would impel the appellant to
commit the gruesome murder of a seven-year-old child. He
contend that the prosecution has itself failed to establish the “last
seen together” circumstance. Attention of this Court has been
invited to the evidence of Raja Kurre (PW-4) and Uttam Kurre
(PW-5), who have not supported the prosecution on the aspect
that the deceased was last seen in the company of the appellant.
Even according to the learned trial Court, the theory of last seen
has not been proved. Once one of the principal links in the chain
9
of circumstances has failed, the remaining circumstances,
according to learned counsel, become wholly insufficient to
sustain the conviction.
16. It is next argued that the mere fact that the dead body of the
deceased was recovered from a well belonging to the appellant
cannot ipso facto establish that it was the appellant who had
caused the death of the child. Learned counsel would submit that
there is no evidence whatsoever to show that the well remained in
the exclusive possession or control of the appellant to the
exclusion of every other person. In absence of any evidence
demonstrating exclusive access or exclusive possession, the
recovery of the dead body from the well cannot constitute an
incriminating circumstance of such conclusive nature as to
establish the guilt of the appellant. He would further submit that
the prosecution has also failed to establish the alleged recovery of
the silver locket beyond reasonable doubt. The memorandum
statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is not
corroborated by independent and reliable witnesses. One of the
memorandum witnesses has not supported the prosecution and
has been declared hostile. It is argued that the alleged recovery,
in these circumstances, becomes doubtful and unsafe to be relied
upon. Even otherwise, according to learned counsel, the alleged
recovery of a locket cannot by itself establish the commission of
murder unless the prosecution first establishes that the appellant
had caused the death of the deceased.
10
17. It is further argued that the medical evidence does not support the
prosecution case of homicidal murder. Referring to the testimony
of Dr. O.L. Barman (PW-12) and the post-mortem report (Ex.P-
18), learned counsel would submit that the doctor has
categorically opined that the cause of death was drowning
resulting in asphyxia and has further described the nature of
death as accidental. It is submitted that there is no external injury
upon the body of the deceased suggesting any struggle or forcible
assault. The medical evidence, therefore, according to learned
counsel, completely demolishes the prosecution theory that the
deceased was intentionally pushed into the well by the appellant.
He would also submit that the prosecution has failed to produce
any evidence showing that the appellant had taken the deceased
from his house or had kidnapped him from the lawful guardianship
of his parents. Consequently, the essential ingredients of Sections
363 and 364 of the Indian Penal Code remain wholly unproved. It
is further contended that the learned trial Court has approached
the matter with a preconceived notion arising out of the alleged
previous enmity and has ignored the settled principle that
suspicion, however grave, cannot take the place of legal proof.
Instead of requiring the prosecution to establish every
circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, the learned trial Court
has shifted the burden upon the appellant to explain
circumstances which the prosecution itself failed to prove. It is
thus prayed that the impugned judgment of conviction and order
11
of sentence be set aside and the appellant be acquitted of all the
charges.
18. Per contra, learned State counsel would vehemently oppose the
appeal and support the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence. It is submitted that the learned Sessions Judge
has meticulously appreciated both the oral and documentary
evidence and has returned findings which are based upon proper
appreciation of the material available on record. According to the
learned State counsel, the findings recorded by the trial Court
neither suffer from perversity nor from any illegality warranting
interference in appellate jurisdiction. It is submitted that although
there is no direct eyewitness to the occurrence, the prosecution
has successfully established a complete chain of incriminating
circumstances which unmistakably point towards the guilt of the
appellant and are wholly inconsistent with his innocence. Each
circumstance relied upon by the prosecution has been
independently proved by reliable evidence and, when considered
cumulatively, they constitute an unbroken chain leading only to
one conclusion, namely, that it was the appellant alone who
committed the offences in question.
19. Learned State counsel would submit that the prosecution has
successfully established the existence of a strong motive. The
evidence of PW-1 Rajesh Kurre and PW-2 Rekha clearly
demonstrates that prior to her marriage, Rekha had maintained a
12
relationship with the appellant, which subsequently became a
source of serious animosity. The evidence further establishes that
shortly before the occurrence, the appellant had threatened
Rekha with dire consequences. This previous enmity furnishes a
strong motive for the commission of the offence. It is further
argued that the dead body of the seven-year-old child was
recovered from the well belonging to the appellant immediately on
the following day of his disappearance. The recovery of the
deceased from the appellant’s well is an extremely significant
incriminating circumstance which has remained wholly
unexplained by the appellant throughout the trial.
20. Learned State counsel would further submit that the memorandum
statement recorded under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act
led to the recovery of the silver locket belonging to the deceased
from the possession of the appellant. The said recovery stands
duly corroborated by the testimony of the investigating officer and
the memorandum witness who supported the prosecution. The
recovered article was subsequently identified by PW-2 Rekha
during identification proceedings. Such recovery constitutes a
highly incriminating circumstance connecting the appellant with
the crime. It is also submitted that the scientific evidence lends
complete assurance to the prosecution case. The Diatom Test
Report (Ex.P-27), read with the post-mortem report (Ex.P-18),
conclusively establishes that the deceased had died due to
drowning in the very well from which his body was recovered. The
13
seizure of the slippers from the same well, the recovery of the
deceased’s body therefrom, and the recovery of his locket from
the appellant collectively complete the chain of circumstances.
21. Learned State counsel would further submit that the appellant has
failed to furnish any explanation whatsoever regarding the
recovery of the deceased’s body from his well or the recovery of
the deceased’s locket pursuant to his memorandum. Such silence
on the part of the appellant furnishes an additional link in the
chain of circumstances. According to the learned State counsel,
the learned trial Court has correctly appreciated every
circumstance individually and cumulatively, and the conclusion
recorded by it is the only possible conclusion emerging from the
evidence on record. It is, therefore, submitted that no case for
interference is made out and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
22. We have heard learned counsel for the parties at considerable
length. We have also carefully gone through the entire original
record of the trial Court, the impugned judgment of conviction and
order of sentence, the oral evidence adduced by the prosecution
witnesses, the documentary evidence exhibited during trial, and
the submissions advanced on behalf of both sides.
23. Since the present case rests entirely upon circumstantial
evidence, it becomes the duty of this Court, as the first appellate
Court, to independently re-appreciate the entire evidence
14
available on record and ascertain whether the prosecution has
succeeded in establishing each incriminating circumstance
beyond reasonable doubt and whether the chain of circumstances
is so complete as to exclude every hypothesis other than the guilt
of the appellant. Equally, this Court is required to examine
whether the findings recorded by the learned Sessions Judge
suffer from any perversity, misreading of evidence or legal infirmity
warranting interference in appeal.
24. In the light of the rival submissions advanced by the learned
counsel for the parties, the following questions arise for
determination:
(i) Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving,
beyond reasonable doubt, the complete chain of
incriminating circumstances connecting the appellant with
the offences punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of
the Indian Penal Code?
(ii) Whether the recoveries effected during investigation, the
medical and scientific evidence, and the other attendant
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution constitute
legally admissible and reliable evidence sufficient to sustain
the conviction of the appellant?
(iii) Whether the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned trial Court suffer from any
perversity, illegality or misappreciation of evidence so as to
15warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction?
Point No. (i) – Whether the prosecution has succeeded in proving,
beyond reasonable doubt, the complete chain of incriminating
circumstances connecting the appellant with the offences
punishable under Sections 363, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal
Code?
25. Since the entire prosecution case is founded upon circumstantial
evidence and there is admittedly no eyewitness to the actual
occurrence, it becomes incumbent upon this Court, while
exercising appellate jurisdiction against a judgment of conviction,
to undertake an independent and comprehensive re-appreciation
of the entire evidence available on record. Unlike a case based
upon direct ocular testimony, a case resting on circumstantial
evidence requires the Court to examine whether each
incriminating circumstance relied upon by the prosecution has
been independently established by cogent and reliable evidence
and whether all such proved circumstances, when considered
cumulatively, constitute a complete and unbroken chain leading
only to the irresistible conclusion that the crime was committed by
the accused and none else. If any one of the material links is
found to be missing or if the established circumstances are
capable of supporting any other reasonable hypothesis consistent
with the innocence of the accused, the benefit of doubt
16
necessarily enures to the accused.
26. The principles governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence
are no longer res integra. In Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v.
State of Madhya Pradesh, AIR 1952 SC 343, the Hon’ble
Supreme Court held that in cases depending entirely upon
circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should, in the first instance, be
fully established, and all the facts so established should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
The Court further observed that the circumstances should be of a
conclusive nature and tendency and should be such as to exclude
every possible hypothesis except the one sought to be proved.
27. The aforesaid principles were elaborately explained and
authoritatively restated by the Constitution Bench of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, wherein the Court laid down the
celebrated five golden principles, popularly known as the
Panchsheel of Circumstantial Evidence. The Constitution Bench
held that before recording a conviction based on circumstantial
evidence, the Court must be satisfied that:
(i) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to
be drawn are fully established;
(ii) the facts so established are consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused;
17
(iii) the circumstances are of a conclusive nature and
tendency;
(iv) they exclude every possible hypothesis except the one
sought to be proved; and
(v) there must be a complete chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused.
28. These principles have consistently been followed in Trimukh
Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681,
Bodhraj v. State of Jammu & Kashmir, (2002) 8 SCC 45, State
of U.P. v. Satish, (2005) 3 SCC 114, C. Chenga Reddy v. State
of Andhra Pradesh, (1996) 10 SCC 193, and a catena of
subsequent decisions.
29. Bearing the aforesaid settled legal principles in mind, this Court
has independently scrutinized the entire oral and documentary
evidence adduced by the prosecution. Upon such scrutiny, it
becomes apparent that the prosecution seeks to establish the
guilt of the appellant on the basis of the following incriminating
circumstances:
(i) the disappearance of the deceased, a seven-year-old
child, from near his residence on the evening of 08.12.2019;
(ii) the prompt lodging of the missing report by his father on
the very same night;
18
(iii) the recovery of the dead body of the deceased from the
well belonging to the appellant on the very next day;
(iv) recovery of the slippers of the deceased floating in the
well immediately prior to recovery of the dead body;
(v) the existence of previous animosity between the
appellant and the parents of the deceased;
(vi) the recovery of the silver locket belonging to the
deceased pursuant to the memorandum statement of the
appellant;
(vii) the medical evidence establishing death due to
drowning;
(viii) the scientific evidence in the nature of the Diatom Test
corroborating the place and manner of death; and
(ix) the failure of the appellant to furnish any plausible
explanation regarding the presence of the dead body in his
well or the recovery of the deceased’s locket from his
possession.
The question which now falls for determination is whether all
these circumstances stand proved beyond reasonable doubt and
whether they collectively form a complete chain consistent only
with the guilt of the appellant.
30. The first circumstance relates to the disappearance of the
19
deceased. Rajesh Kurre (PW-1), father of the deceased, has
categorically deposed that on 08.12.2019 he had gone to work in
the morning and returned home at about 5:40 p.m., whereupon he
learnt from his wife Rekha (PW-2), his elder son and other family
members that Shravan Kumar, who had been playing outside the
house, had gone missing since about 4:30 p.m. PW-1 has further
deposed that despite an extensive search by family members and
villagers throughout the evening, the child could not be traced.
Finding no clue regarding the whereabouts of the child, he
immediately approached the Police Assistance Centre, Nagpur,
during the same night and lodged the missing report.
31. The testimony of PW-1 on this aspect receives complete
corroboration from PW-2 Rekha, PW-3 Vijendra, PW-11 R.N.
Gupta, the Investigating Officer, and the documentary evidence in
the form of Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-15), Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1)
and the First Information Report (Ex.P-21). The promptness with
which the missing report came to be lodged assumes
considerable significance, for it effectively rules out any possibility
of afterthought, embellishment or false implication. There is
absolutely nothing in the cross-examination of these witnesses to
discredit their testimony on this aspect.
32. The second and perhaps the most significant circumstance is the
recovery of the dead body from the well belonging to the
appellant. The evidence of PW-1 Rajesh Kurre, PW-2 Rekha, PW-
20
3 Vijendra, PW-4 Raja Kurre, PW-11 R.N. Gupta and the
documentary evidence, namely, the recovery memo (Ex.P-10),
seizure memo (Ex.P-11), inquest proceedings (Ex.P-9 and Ex.P-
9A) unequivocally establish that on the following day, while the
search was continuing, a pair of pink slippers belonging to the
deceased was noticed floating on the surface of the water in the
appellant’s well. Acting upon this information, the police and
villagers lowered a grappling hook into the well, whereupon the
dead body of Shravan Kumar was recovered. The evidence of
these witnesses is natural, consistent and mutually corroborative.
Their testimony has remained substantially unshaken in cross-
examination. No suggestion has been put to these witnesses
disputing either the place of recovery or the factum of recovery
from the appellant’s well.
33. The prosecution has further succeeded in establishing through
PW-13 Patwari Sandeep Singh, the spot maps (Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4
and Ex.P-5), and the testimony of the Investigating Officer that the
well from which the body was recovered was situated immediately
behind the residential premises of the appellant and formed part
of his property. The defence has not been able to create any
serious doubt regarding either the identity of the well or its
ownership. This circumstance assumes considerable importance
because the recovery of the dead body from the appellant’s well
constitutes one of the strongest incriminating links in the chain of
circumstances.
21
34. Accordingly, Point No. (i) is answered in the affirmative and
against the appellant.
Point No. (ii) – Whether the recoveries effected during
investigation, the medical and scientific evidence, and the other
attendant circumstances relied upon by the prosecution constitute
legally admissible and reliable evidence sufficient to sustain the
conviction of the appellant?
35. Having held while answering Point No. (i) that the prosecution has
substantially succeeded in establishing the chain of incriminating
circumstances against the appellant, it now becomes necessary
to examine whether the recoveries effected during investigation,
the medical evidence, the scientific evidence and the
documentary evidence relied upon by the prosecution satisfy the
requirements of admissibility and reliability in law so as to
constitute a sound foundation for sustaining the conviction
recorded by the learned Sessions Judge. Since the appellant has
seriously questioned the evidentiary value of the memorandum
statement, the recovery of the silver locket, the medical opinion
and the scientific evidence, this Court is required to independently
scrutinize each of these circumstances.
36. The prosecution has first established, through the testimony of
Rajesh Kurre (PW-1), that immediately after his seven-year-old
son Shravan Kumar went missing on the evening of 08.12.2019,
an intensive search was conducted by the family members and
22
villagers, but the child could not be traced. PW-1 has categorically
deposed that he immediately approached the Police Assistance
Centre, Nagpur, and lodged the missing report during the very
same night. His testimony stands fully corroborated by the
Rojnamcha Sanha (Ex.P-15), the Dehati Nalishi (Ex.P-1), and the
First Information Report (Ex.P-21), all of which came into
existence without any delay. The prompt registration of the
missing report lends complete assurance to the prosecution case
and excludes any possibility of deliberation, embellishment or
false implication. The testimony of PW-1 on this aspect has
remained substantially unshaken in cross-examination.
37. The evidence of Rekha (PW-2), the mother of the deceased,
assumes considerable significance not merely because she
corroborates the testimony of PW-1 regarding the disappearance
of the child, but also because she has deposed regarding the
previous strained relationship between the appellant and herself,
the threats extended by the appellant shortly before the
occurrence, and the subsequent identification of the silver locket
recovered during investigation. PW-2 has stated that prior to her
marriage she had acquaintance with the appellant, but thereafter
she refused to continue any relationship with him, on account of
which the appellant had become hostile towards her family. She
further stated that one day prior to the occurrence, the appellant
had threatened her by stating that he would not permit her to live
peacefully. Though motive alone cannot be the basis of
23
conviction, the testimony of PW-2 furnishes a relevant
surrounding circumstance explaining the genesis of the crime and
the conduct of the appellant.
38. PW-2 Rekha has further categorically deposed that her son
Shravan Kumar used to wear two lockets around his neck, one of
which was a silver locket depicting Goddess Kali. According to her
evidence, when the dead body was recovered, the said silver
locket was missing from the neck of the deceased. She has
further identified the silver locket recovered by the investigating
agency pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant.
The identification proceedings have been proved by Identification
Memo (Ex.P-29). Nothing substantial has been elicited during her
cross-examination so as to cast any doubt upon her ability to
identify the locket belonging to her own minor son. The evidence
of PW-2, therefore, furnishes complete corroboration to the
recovery effected by the investigating agency.
39. Vijendra (PW-3) has supported the prosecution case to the extent
that the search for the missing child continued throughout the
evening and that on the following day the dead body was
recovered from the well belonging to the appellant. Although PW-
3 did not fully support the prosecution on the aspect of “last seen
together”, his testimony regarding the recovery of the dead body,
the location of the well and the presence of the appellant in the
vicinity immediately after the occurrence lends assurance to the
24
prosecution case. Merely because a witness does not support the
prosecution in its entirety does not render his entire testimony
liable to be discarded. It is well settled that the evidence of a
witness has to be appreciated as a whole and the Court is entitled
to rely upon that part of the testimony which inspires confidence.
40. The recovery of the dead body has been fully established through
the evidence of PW-1 Rajesh Kurre, PW-2 Rekha, PW-3 Vijendra,
PW-6 Ramprakash, PW-7 Shivdas, PW-8 Nagendra Kumar and
the Investigating Officer PW-11 R.N. Gupta. Their evidence clearly
establishes that after the slippers of the deceased were noticed
floating in the appellant’s well, a grappling hook was lowered into
the well and the dead body of the deceased was recovered
therefrom. The recovery memo (Ex.P-10), seizure memo (Ex.P-
11), notice issued to panch witnesses (Ex.P-9) and the inquest
report (Ex.P-9A) stand duly proved by the Investigating Officer.
The defence has not been able to impeach the authenticity of
these contemporaneous documents.
41. The prosecution has also proved the seizure of the deceased’s
slippers, water from the well and the plastic sack through the
seizure memo (Ex.P-11). PW-6 Ramprakash, one of the seizure
witnesses, has supported the prosecution regarding the seizure
proceedings. Although the other seizure witness could not be
examined owing to his demise, such circumstance does not in any
manner affect the admissibility or reliability of the seizure. The
25
evidence of the Investigating Officer regarding the seizure has
remained consistent throughout and is fully corroborated by the
documentary evidence.
42. The learned counsel for the appellant has laid considerable
emphasis upon the fact that one of the memorandum witnesses
did not support the prosecution. In the opinion of this Court, such
submission is devoid of merit. It is now well settled that merely
because one of the independent witnesses turns hostile, the
recovery effected pursuant to the memorandum statement does
not become inadmissible or unreliable if the testimony of the
Investigating Officer and the remaining witness inspires
confidence. In State (Govt. of NCT of Delhi) v. Sunil, (2001) 1
SCC 652, the Hon’ble Supreme Court has categorically held that
there is no rule of law that the evidence of a police officer
regarding recovery must invariably be corroborated by
independent witnesses before it can be acted upon. The Court
observed that police officials are as competent witnesses as any
other witness and their testimony cannot be discarded merely
because they belong to the police force.
43. In the present case, Kumar Sai Thakur (PW-15), the subsequent
Investigating Officer, has categorically deposed that after the
appellant was taken into custody, his memorandum statement
(Ex.P-13) was recorded in the presence of independent
witnesses. Pursuant to the information furnished by the appellant,
26
the silver locket belonging to the deceased was recovered from
the place disclosed by him. PW-10 Premlal Kurre, one of the
memorandum witnesses, has substantially supported the
prosecution and has admitted that the appellant disclosed that he
had removed the silver locket from the neck of the deceased and
had concealed it in his house. Such disclosure resulted in the
recovery of the silver locket, which was subsequently identified by
PW-2 Rekha through Identification Memo (Ex.P-29). The fact that
the appellant alone possessed knowledge regarding the
concealment of the said article constitutes a relevant fact
admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
44. The recovery of the silver locket assumes considerable
significance because it is not an ordinary article recovered from
an open place accessible to all. It is a personal article belonging
to the deceased and was recovered only after the appellant
disclosed the place of its concealment. Such recovery furnishes a
strong incriminating circumstance connecting the appellant with
the commission of the offence. The learned Sessions Judge has
rightly relied upon the said recovery.
45. Equally significant is the medical evidence adduced by the
prosecution through Dr. O.L. Barman (PW-12). The doctor has
proved the post-mortem report (Ex.P-18) and has deposed that on
external examination the clothes of the deceased were found wet
and that on internal examination froth was present in both lungs,
27
the left chamber of the heart was empty, and the internal organs
were congested. According to the doctor, death had occurred due
to drowning resulting in asphyxia. The post-mortem was
conducted within about twenty to twenty-five hours of death. The
doctor further preserved the tibia bone and clothing of the
deceased for forensic examination, which were duly seized under
Ex.P-12 and forwarded for chemical examination through Ex.P-
25.
46. Much emphasis has been laid by learned counsel for the appellant
upon the opinion of PW-12 that the nature of death was
“accidental”. This Court is unable to accept the submission that
such opinion by itself completely demolishes the prosecution
case. It is trite that the opinion of the medical expert is only
advisory in nature. The ultimate conclusion regarding the manner
in which the death occurred is required to be drawn by the Court
after evaluating the entire evidence on record. In Solanki
Chimanbhai Ukabhai v. State of Gujarat, (1983) 2 SCC 174, the
Hon’ble Supreme Court held that medical opinion is merely
corroborative and where the surrounding circumstances
unmistakably point towards homicidal death, the Court is not
bound by the descriptive expression employed by the doctor. In
the present case, the recovery of the dead body from the
appellant’s well, the recovery of the deceased’s silver locket from
the appellant, the established motive, and the absence of any
explanation from the appellant are circumstances which
28
unmistakably establish that the drowning was not a mere
accident.
47. The scientific evidence further lends complete assurance to the
prosecution case. The Diatom Test Report (Ex.P-27) clearly
indicates the presence of diatoms both in the water collected from
the appellant’s well and in the tibia bone of the deceased. This
scientific evidence corroborates the opinion of PW-12 that the
deceased died due to drowning in the same well from which the
body was recovered. The scientific evidence thus constitutes an
independent and objective circumstance lending assurance to the
prosecution case.
48. The evidence of PW-11 R.N. Gupta, the Investigating Officer,
deserves acceptance. He has proved the registration of the
offence, preparation of the spot map (Ex.P-3), seizure of the
articles (Ex.P-11), preparation of the inquest proceedings (Ex.P-9
and Ex.P-9A), forwarding of the body for post-mortem (Ex.P-16),
seizure of the articles preserved during post-mortem (Ex.P-12),
and other steps taken during investigation. Despite lengthy cross-
examination, no material contradiction or omission has been
brought to the notice of this Court which may render his evidence
unreliable.
49. Likewise, PW-13 Patwari Sandeep Singh has proved the detailed
site plan (Ex.P-5), clearly showing that the well from which the
body was recovered was situated behind the house of the
29
appellant. His evidence corroborates the testimony of the
Investigating Officer and other prosecution witnesses regarding
the location of the place of occurrence.
50. Thus, when the recoveries, the medical evidence, the scientific
evidence and the documentary evidence are appreciated
collectively, they form a mutually corroborative body of evidence.
None of these circumstances has been shown to be fabricated or
inherently unreliable. On the contrary, each circumstance lends
assurance to the other and together they establish the
prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.
51. The learned Sessions Judge has meticulously appreciated each
of the aforesaid pieces of evidence independently and thereafter
cumulatively. We do not find any perversity, misreading of
evidence or erroneous application of law in the appreciation
undertaken by the learned trial Court. The findings recorded are
fully supported by the evidence available on record.
52. Consequently, this Court holds that the recoveries effected during
investigation, the memorandum statement of the appellant, the
medical evidence of PW-12, the scientific evidence in the form of
the Diatom Test Report, the documentary exhibits and the oral
testimony of the material prosecution witnesses constitute legally
admissible, reliable and trustworthy evidence, which, when read
together, fully support the prosecution case and constitute a
strong foundation for sustaining the conviction of the appellant.
30
53. 54. Accordingly, Point No. (ii) is answered in the affirmative
and against the appellant.
Point No. (iii) Whether the judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned trial Court suffer from any
perversity, illegality or misappreciation of evidence so as to
warrant interference by this Court in exercise of its appellate
jurisdiction?
54. Having answered the preceding two points in favour of the
prosecution, the next question which falls for consideration is
whether the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed
by the learned Sessions Judge suffer from any perversity,
illegality, material irregularity or misappreciation of evidence
warranting interference by this Court.
55. At the outset, it is necessary to bear in mind the well-settled
principles governing the powers of the appellate Court while
dealing with an appeal against conviction. An appeal against
conviction is undoubtedly a continuation of the original
proceedings and the appellate Court is under a legal obligation to
independently assess, analyse and re-appreciate the entire
evidence available on record. Nevertheless, where the findings
recorded by the trial Court are based upon a proper appreciation
of oral and documentary evidence and are neither perverse nor
contrary to law, the appellate Court would be slow in substituting
its own view merely because another view may also be possible.
31
Interference is justified only where the findings are manifestly
erroneous, based on inadmissible evidence, ignore material
evidence, or are such that no reasonable judicial mind could have
arrived at the same conclusion.
56. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that although
the appellate Court possesses wide powers to review the
evidence, such powers are required to be exercised with judicial
restraint. Unless the appreciation of evidence by the trial Court is
found to be wholly unreasonable, perverse or contrary to settled
principles of criminal jurisprudence, the appellate Court ought not
to disturb a well-reasoned judgment of conviction. Equally settled
is the principle that if the conclusions recorded by the trial Court
are reasonably possible on the basis of the evidence available on
record, the same should ordinarily be affirmed. In the present
case, we have independently scrutinized the entire evidence led
by the prosecution, including the testimonies of PW-1 Rajesh
Kurre, PW-2 Rekha, PW-3 Vijendra, PW-6 Ramprakash, PW-7
Shivdas, PW-8 Nagendra Kumar, PW-11 R.N. Gupta, PW-12 Dr.
O.L. Barman, PW-13 Patwari Sandeep Singh and PW-15 Kumar
Sai Thakur, together with the documentary exhibits proved during
the course of trial. Upon such re-appreciation, we find that the
learned Sessions Judge has meticulously examined every
material circumstance appearing against the appellant. The
learned trial Court has not proceeded on mere suspicion or
surmises. Rather, it has carefully analysed the evidence of each
32
witness, tested the credibility of the prosecution witnesses on the
touchstone of cross-examination, considered the documentary
evidence contemporaneously prepared during investigation,
examined the medical and scientific evidence, and thereafter
reached the conclusion that the prosecution had successfully
established a complete chain of circumstances pointing
unmistakably towards the guilt of the appellant.
57. We further find that the learned Sessions Judge has not ignored
any material piece of evidence favourable to the defence. On the
contrary, the trial Court has expressly noticed that the prosecution
failed to establish the circumstance of “last seen together”
because PW-4 Raja Kurre and PW-5 Uttam Kurre did not fully
support the prosecution on that aspect. Instead of overlooking this
weakness, the learned Sessions Judge candidly recorded that the
last-seen circumstance had not been proved. However, after
excluding the said circumstance from consideration, the learned
trial Court proceeded to examine whether the remaining
circumstances independently constituted a complete chain. Such
an approach is wholly consistent with the settled principles
governing appreciation of circumstantial evidence and
demonstrates the fairness with which the learned Sessions Judge
evaluated the evidence.
58. The learned trial Court has rightly attached considerable
importance to the undisputed circumstance that the dead body of
33
the seven-year-old deceased was recovered from the well
belonging to the appellant on the very next day of his
disappearance. This circumstance has been consistently proved
by PW-1 Rajesh Kurre, PW-2 Rekha, PW-3 Vijendra, PW-6
Ramprakash, PW-11 R.N. Gupta and is duly corroborated by
Recovery Memo (Ex.P-10), Seizure Memo (Ex.P-11), Inquest
Report (Ex.P-9A) and the spot maps (Ex.P-3, Ex.P-4 and Ex.P-5).
The defence has not been able to point out any material
inconsistency or contradiction regarding this vital circumstance.
59. Equally, the learned Sessions Judge has rightly relied upon the
recovery of the silver locket belonging to the deceased pursuant
to the memorandum statement of the appellant. The
memorandum statement (Ex.P-13), the recovery proceedings, the
evidence of PW-10 Premlal Kurre and PW-15 Kumar Sai Thakur,
together with the identification proceedings (Ex.P-29) proved
through PW-2 Rekha, unmistakably establish that the appellant
alone possessed knowledge regarding the concealment of the
said article. The recovery is admissible under Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act and constitutes an important incriminating
circumstance connecting the appellant with the crime. The mere
fact that another witness to the memorandum did not fully support
the prosecution does not render the recovery unreliable,
particularly when the evidence of the Investigating Officer inspires
confidence and is corroborated by independent circumstances.
The learned Sessions Judge has also correctly appreciated the
34
medical evidence. PW-12 Dr. O.L. Barman has proved the post-
mortem report (Ex.P-18), which establishes that the deceased
died due to drowning resulting in asphyxia. The preservation of
the tibia bone and clothing, the forwarding of the same for forensic
examination under Ex.P-25, and the Forensic Science Laboratory
Report (Ex.P-27) confirming the presence of diatoms provide
valuable scientific corroboration to the prosecution case. The
learned trial Court rightly held that the scientific evidence
completely supports the prosecution version that the deceased
had drowned in the very well from which his body was recovered.
60. Much emphasis was laid before us on behalf of the appellant that
the doctor had described the nature of death as “accidental”. The
learned Sessions Judge has rightly declined to accept this opinion
as conclusive. The Court correctly appreciated that the expression
employed by the doctor while describing the nature of death
cannot override the cumulative effect of the surrounding
circumstances. Whether the drowning was accidental or homicidal
is essentially a question of fact to be determined by the Court
upon evaluation of the entire evidence. The learned trial Court
rightly considered not merely the medical opinion but also the
recovery of the dead body from the appellant’s well, the recovery
of the deceased’s silver locket from the appellant, the previous
enmity between the parties, and the complete absence of any
explanation from the appellant. Viewed cumulatively, these
circumstances unmistakably indicate that the drowning was not
35
accidental but was the result of a homicidal act. We also find that
the learned Sessions Judge has correctly appreciated the motive
attributed to the appellant. The evidence of PW-1 Rajesh Kurre
and PW-2 Rekha regarding the previous relationship between the
appellant and PW-2, the subsequent hostility between them and
the threats allegedly extended by the appellant shortly before the
occurrence has been discussed in detail. The trial Court has not
treated motive as the sole basis for conviction; rather, it has used
motive only as one of the corroborative links in the chain of
circumstances. Such an approach is fully in consonance with the
settled principles of criminal law.
61. We have carefully examined the cross-examination of the material
prosecution witnesses. Learned counsel for the appellant was
unable to point out any contradiction or omission of such
magnitude as would affect the substratum of the prosecution
case. The minor discrepancies brought on record are natural and
inevitable in the testimony of truthful witnesses narrating events
after a lapse of time. It is trite that minor inconsistencies,
variations or omissions, which do not touch the core of the
prosecution case, cannot be elevated to the status of material
contradictions so as to discredit otherwise reliable evidence.
62. We also find no substance in the contention that the investigation
suffered from such serious irregularities as to render the
prosecution case doubtful. The investigation appears to have
36
been conducted in a fair and systematic manner. The missing
report was promptly registered; the spot inspection was
immediately carried out; the inquest proceedings were conducted
in accordance with law; the post-mortem examination was
promptly undertaken; the articles recovered during investigation
were duly seized, sealed and forwarded for forensic examination;
and the reports obtained from the Forensic Science Laboratory
have been duly proved. No prejudice whatsoever has been
demonstrated to have been caused to the appellant on account of
any alleged irregularity during investigation.
63. The appellant, in his examination under Section 313 of the CrPC,
merely denied the prosecution allegations and pleaded false
implication. Significantly, he failed to offer any explanation
whatsoever regarding the recovery of the dead body of the
deceased from his well or the recovery of the silver locket
belonging to the deceased pursuant to his memorandum
statement. Although the burden of proving the prosecution case
always rests upon the prosecution, once these incriminating
circumstances stood established, the failure of the appellant to
furnish any explanation constitutes an additional link in the chain
of circumstances, as consistently held by the Hon’ble Supreme
Court.
64. Upon a cumulative assessment of the entire evidence, we are
satisfied that the learned Sessions Judge has correctly
37
appreciated the oral, documentary, medical and scientific
evidence in their proper perspective. The findings recorded by the
learned trial Court are neither based on conjectures nor on
surmises. They are founded upon legally admissible evidence and
are supported by sound reasoning. We do not find any perversity,
misreading of evidence, omission to consider any material
circumstance, or erroneous application of legal principles which
may justify interference by this Court.
65. It is well settled that where the view taken by the trial Court is a
possible and plausible view based upon the evidence available on
record, the appellate Court ought not to interfere merely because
another view may also be possible. In the present case, the
conclusion arrived at by the learned Sessions Judge is not merely
a possible view but, in our considered opinion, is the only
conclusion that legitimately emerges from the evidence adduced
by the prosecution. We are, therefore, of the considered opinion
that the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the guilt of the
appellant beyond all reasonable doubt. The conviction recorded
by the learned Sessions Judge for the offences punishable under
Sections 363, 364 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code is fully
justified on facts as well as in law. The sentence imposed is
proportionate to the gravity and heinous nature of the offences
proved against the appellant and does not call for any
interference.
38
66. Consequently, we hold that the impugned judgment of conviction
and order of sentence do not suffer from any perversity, illegality,
material irregularity or misappreciation of evidence warranting
interference in exercise of our appellate jurisdiction.
67. Accordingly, Point No. (iii) is answered in the negative, against
the appellant and in favour of the prosecution.
Conclusion
68. As a cumulative effect of the foregoing discussion and the findings
recorded while answering Points No. (i), (ii) and (iii), this Court is
of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully
established, by cogent, reliable and legally admissible evidence, a
complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which unerringly
points towards the guilt of the appellant and excludes every
reasonable hypothesis consistent with his innocence.
69. The prosecution has proved the motive, the disappearance of the
deceased, the recovery of the dead body from the well belonging
to the appellant, the recovery of the silver locket of the deceased
pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellant, the
medical evidence establishing death by drowning, the scientific
evidence in the form of the Diatom Test Report, and the attendant
circumstances which, when read cumulatively, leave no room for
any reasonable doubt regarding the complicity of the appellant in
the commission of the offences.
39
70. We have independently re-appreciated the entire oral,
documentary, medical and scientific evidence available on record,
as is required of an appellate Court dealing with an appeal against
conviction. Upon such re-appreciation, we find that the learned
Sessions Judge has meticulously analysed the testimony of each
material prosecution witness, duly considered the documentary
exhibits, correctly appreciated the medical and forensic evidence
and applied the settled principles governing conviction on
circumstantial evidence. The findings recorded by the learned trial
Court are based on proper appreciation of evidence and are
neither perverse nor contrary to law. Learned counsel for the
appellant has not been able to demonstrate any material illegality,
perversity, omission to consider any vital piece of evidence, or
misapplication of law so as to warrant interference by this Court in
exercise of its appellate jurisdiction.
71. It is a settled principle of criminal jurisprudence that where the
prosecution succeeds in establishing a complete chain of
incriminating circumstances consistent only with the guilt of the
accused and inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence, the
conviction can safely be sustained even in the absence of direct
ocular evidence. In the present case, the circumstances proved
by the prosecution are not isolated or independent facts, but are
so interlinked and interwoven that they form a complete chain
leading only to one irresistible conclusion, namely, that it was the
appellant and none else who committed the offences in question.
40
The sentence imposed by the learned Sessions Judge is
commensurate with the gravity and heinousness of the offences
proved against the appellant and does not call for any reduction or
modification.
72. Consequently, finding no merit in the present appeal, the same is
dismissed. The judgment of conviction and order of sentence
passed by the learned Sessions Judge is hereby affirmed. It is
stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. Consequently, he
shall remain in custody and serve out the sentence awarded to
him by the learned trial Court in accordance with law.
73. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is
undergoing his jail sentence 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 High Court Legal Services
Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.
74. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record
be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary
information and compliance.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Anu
