Chattisgarh High Court
Narsingh Yadav @ Shera vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 15 July, 2026
Author: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Bench: Sanjay K. Agrawal
Page No.1 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
CGHC010020842015 2026:CGHC:29866-DB
NAFR
Digitally HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
SAIFAN signed by
KHAN SAIFAN
KHAN
Criminal Appeal No. 1544 of 2015
[Arising out of judgment dated 18.11.2015, passed in Sessions Trial
No.66/2014 (State of Chhattisgarh v. Narsingh Yadav and another)
by the Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (CG)]
1 - Narsingh Yadav @ Shera, S/o Santru Yadav, aged about 27 years,
R/o Village Chherkapur, Police Station Palari, Civil and Rev. District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
2 - Topbai Aadil, W/o Sumer Singh Aadil, aged about 35 years, R/o
Village Chherkapur, Police Station Palari, Civil and Rev. District
Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
... Appellants
On Bail
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh, through S.H.O. Palari, Police Station Palari,
Civil and Rev. District Balodabazar-Bhatapara (Chhattisgarh)
... Respondent
[Cause-title taken from Case Information System (CIS)]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant : Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, Advocate on behalf
of Mr. Viabhav A. Goverdhan, Advocate
For Respondent : Mr. HAPS Bhatia, Panel Lawyer
———————————————————————————————–
Division Bench
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay K. Agrawal, and
Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal
Judgment on Board
(15.07.2026)
Sanjay K. Agrawal, J
(1) Invoking criminal appellate jurisdiction of this Court, two
Page No.2 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
appellants herein have preferred this criminal appeal under Section
374(2) of Cr.P.C., calling in question the legality, validity and
correctness of the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 18.11.2015, passed in Sessions Trial No.66/2014
(State of Chhattisgarh v. Narsingh Yadav and another) by the
Sessions Judge, Balodabazar (CG), whereby they has been convicted
and sentenced as under:
As regards appellant- Narsingh Yadav (A-1):
Conviction Sentence
U/s. 302 r/w 120-B of IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs.100/- and, in default of payment of
fine, additional simple imprisonment for
03 months.
U/s. 201 of IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 07 years with
fine of Rs.100/- and, in default of
payment of fine, additional simple
imprisonment for 03 months.
[Both the sentences are directed to run concurrently]
As regards appellant- Topbai Aadil (A-2):
Conviction Sentence U/s. 120-B of IPC Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.100/- and, in default of payment of
fine, additional simple imprisonment for
03 months.
(2) The case of the prosecution, in short, is that appellant- Topbai
(A-2) is wife of Sumer Singh Aadil and since appellant- Topbai (A-2)
was having illicit relationship with appellant- Narsingh Yadav (A-1),
they both conspired with each other and committed murder of
Sumer Singh Aadil (hereinafter referred to as the “deceased”), whose
Page No.3 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
dead-body was found on 27.07.2014 at about 07:30 AM lying in Korsi
Nala of Village Magarchaba and, thereby, the appellants are said to
have committed the aforesaid offences.
(3) It is further case of the prosecution that when Munindra Das
(PW-06) reported the matter to the police that a dead-body of
unknown person is found lying in the Korsi Nala, merg intimation
(Ex.P/04) was registered and wheels of investigation started
running, in which, summons under Section 175 of CrPC were sent
vide Ex.P/05 and inquest proceedings were conducted vide Ex.P/06.
Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P/08. Identification panchnama of
the dead-body of the deceased was also prepared vide Ex.P/07. The
dead-body of the deceased was sent for postmortem examination,
which was conducted by Dr. Abhijit Banerjee (not examined) and, as
per PM report (Ex.P/20), cause of death of the deceased is opined to
be strangulation leading to asphyxia and cardio-respiratory arrest.
The appellants-accused were arrested vide Ex.P/01 & Ex.P/14 and
their memorandum statements were recorded vide Ex.P/09 &
Ex.P/10. Pursuant to the memorandum statement of the appellants,
mobile phones were seized vide Ex.P/12 & Ex.P/13. After statements
of witnesses were recorded and due investigation, the police filed
charge-sheet against the appellant in the competent criminal court
having jurisdiction and, thereafter, the case was committed to the
Court of Sessions for hearing and trial in accordance with law, in
which the appellant/accused abjured his guilt and entered into
Page No.4 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
defence by stating that he is innocent and has been falsely
implicated.
(4) The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as
13 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents, whereas the appellant-
accused in support of their defence though not examined any witness
but exhibited 05 document.
(5) The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and
documentary evidence available on record, proceeded to convict
appellant- Narsingh Yadav for offence under Section 302 r/w 120-B
& 201 of IPC and appellant- Topbai for offence under Section 120-B
of IPC and sentenced them as mentioned herein-above, against
which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused
questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence.
(6) Mr. Kabeer Kalwani, learned counsel appearing for the
appellants submits that the learned trial Court is unjustified in
convicting the appellants for the aforesaid offences, as the
prosecution has failed to prove the same beyond reasonable doubt.
The appellants have been convicted on the basis of theory of last
seen together by Lokeshwar (PW-05), however, the same has not
been proved. Even, the motive of the offence is also not established
and same is also a weak piece of evidence. Hence, the present appeal
deserves to be allowed and the appellant is liable to be acquitted of
Page No.5 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
the said charges on the basis of benefit of doubt.
(7) Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the
prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by
leading evidence of clinching nature. In view of the statements of
prosecution witnesses coupled with other material available on
record, the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants
for offence in question. Thus, the present appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
(8) We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their
rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records
with utmost circumspection.
(9) The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of
the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court
has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the
postmortem report (Ex.P/20), wherein it has been opined that cause
of death of the deceased is strangulation leading to asphyxia and
cardio-respiratory arrest, which is duly proved by the statement of
Dr. Pramod Kuamr Tiwari (PW-13), who has been examined on
behalf of the doctor who has conducted postmortem of the dead-body
of the deceased, namely, Dr. Abhijit Banerjee. Accordingly, taking
into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P/20) and the
statement of Dr. Pramod Kuamr Tiwari (PW-13), we are of the
Page No.6 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
considered opinion that the death of the deceased is homicidal in
nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and
same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. We hereby
affirm the said finding.
(10) Now, the next question for consideration would be whether the
appellants herein are authors of the crime or not, which the learned
trial Court has answered in affirmative by relying upon following
two circumstances:
“(i) theory of last seen together on basis testimony of
Lokeshwar (PW-05); and
(ii) motive of the offence.”
(11) We shall now consider the above circumstances one by one in
light of the evidence available on record, in order to ascertain
whether the appellants herein have rightly been held guilty for
offence in question by the learned trial Court or not.
Theory of last seen together:
(12) In the case at hand, the date of offence is 25.07.2014 at about
07 PM and the dead-body of the deceased was found lying in Khorsi
Nala on 27.07.2014 at about 07:30 AM and it is the case of the
prosecution that appellant- Narsingh Yadav (A-1) was lastly seen
with the deceased by Lokeshwar (PW-05) on 25.07.2014 at about 8-
8:30 AM and thereafter the deceased went missing and his dead-
body was found on 27.07.2014 at about 07:30 AM.
Page No.7 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
(13) In the matter of Jaharlal Das v. State of Orissa1, the Supreme
Court has noted the fact that at the stage of inquest, the important
incriminating circumstance namely, the deceased was last seen in
the company of the accused, was not noted and that is not there in
the inquest report. Thereafter, in that view of the above fact and
other evidence on record, their Lordships have held that the
deceased was last seen in the company of the accused is not
established beyond reasonable doubt.
(14) In the matter of Arjun Marik v. State of Bihar2, it has been
held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court that conviction cannot
be made solely on the basis of theory of ‘last seen together’ and
observed in paragraph 31 as under :-
“31. Thus the evidence that the appellant had gone to
Sitaram in the evening of 19-7-1985 and had stayed in the
night at the house of deceased Sitaram is very shaky and
inconclusive. Even if it is accepted that they were there it
would at best amount tothough a number of witnesses
have been examined be the evidence of the appellants
having been seen last together with the deceased. But it is
settled law that the only circumstance of last seen will not
complete the chain of circumstances to record the finding
that it is consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused and, therefore, no conviction on that basis
alone can be founded.”
(15) Likewise, in the matter of State of Goa v. Sanjay Thakran3, the
Supreme Court has held that the circumstance of last seen together
1 (1991) 3 SCC 27
2 1994 Supp (2) SCC 372
3 (2007) 3 SCC 755
Page No.8 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
would be a relevant circumstance in a case where there was no
possibility of any other person meeting or approaching the deceased
at the place of incident or before the commission of crime in the
intervening period. It was observed in paragraph 34 as under :-
“34. From the principle laid down by this Court, the
circumstance of last-seen together would normally be
taken into consideration for finding the accused guilty of
the offence charged with when it is established by the
prosecution that the time gap between the point of time
when the accused and the deceased were found together
alive and when the deceased was found dead is so small
that possibility of any other person being with the deceased
could completely be ruled out. The time gap between the
accused persons seen in the company of the deceased and
the detection of the crime would be a material
consideration for appreciation of the evidence and placing
reliance on it as a circumstance against the accused. But,
in all cases, it cannot be said that the evidence of last seen
together is to be rejected merely because the time gap
between the accused persons and the deceased last seen
together and the crime coming to light is after a
considerable long duration. There can be no fixed or
straight jacket formula for the duration of time gap in this
regard and it would depend upon the evidence led by the
prosecution to remove the possibility of any other person
meeting the deceased in the intervening period, that is to
say, if the prosecution is able to lead such an evidence that
likelihood of any person other than the accused, being the
author the crime, becomes impossible, then the evidence of
circumstance of last seen together, although there is long
duration of time, can be considered as one of the
circumstances in the chain of circumstances to prove the
guilt against such accused persons. Hence, if the
prosecution proves that in the light of the facts and
circumstances of the case, there was no possibility of any
other person meeting or approaching the deceased at the
place of incident or before the commission of the crime, in
the intervening period, the proof of last seen together
Page No.9 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015would be relevant evidence. For instance, if it can be
demonstrated by showing that the accused persons were in
exclusive possession of the place where the incident
occurred or where they were last seen together with the
deceased, and there was no possibility of any intrusion to
that place by any third party, then a relatively wider time
gap would not affect the prosecution case. “
(16) Similarly, in the matter of Kanhaiya Lal v. State of Rajasthan 4,
their Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that the
circumstance of last seen together does not by itself and necessarily
lead to the inference that it was the accused who committed the
crime and there must be something more establishing connectivity
between the accused and the crime. Mere non-explanation on the
part of the appellant in our considered opinion, by itself cannot lead
to proof of guilt against the appellant. It has been held in
paragraphs 15 and 16 as under :-
“15. The theory of last seen – the appellant having gone
with the deceased in the manner noticed hereinbefore, is
the singular piece of circumstantial evidence available
against him. The conviction of the appellant cannot be
maintained merely on suspicion, however strong it may be,
or on his conduct. These facts assume further importance
on account of absence of proof of motive particularly when
it is proved that there was cordial relationship between the
accused and the deceased for a long time. The fact
situation bears great similarity to that in Madho Singh v.
State of Rajasthan1.
16. In view of the aforesaid circumstances, it is not
possible to sustain the impugned judgment and sentence.
This appeal is allowed and the conviction and sentence
imposed on the appellant-accused Kanhaiya Lal are set
4 (2014) 4 SCC 715
Page No.10 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
aside and he is acquitted of the charge by giving benefit of
doubt. He is directed to be released from the custody
forthwith unless required otherwise.”
(17) In the matter of Anjan Kumar Sarma v. State of Assam5, their
Lordships of the Supreme Court have clearly held that in a case
where other links have been satisfactorily made out and
circumstances point to guilt of accused, circumstance of last seen
together and absence of explanation would provide an additional
link which completes the chain. In absence of proof of other
circumstances the only circumstance of last seen together and
absence of satisfactory explanation, cannot be made basis of
conviction.
(18) In the matter of Navaneethakrishnan v. State by Inspector of
Police6, the Supreme Court has held that though the evidence of last
seen together could point to the guilt of the accused, but this
evidence alone cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt
of the accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires corroboration,
and observed in paragraph 22 as under: –
“22. PW 11 was able to identify all the three accused in
the court itself by recapitulating his memory as those
persons who came at the time when he was washing his
car along with John Bosco and further that he had last
seen all of them sitting in the Omni van on that day and
his testimony to that effect remains intact even during the
cross-examination in the light of the fact that the said
witness has no enmity whatsoever against the appellants
5 (2017) 14 SCC 359
6 (2018) 16 SCC 161
Page No.11 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
herein and he is an independent witness. Once the
testimony of PW 11 is established and inspires full
confidence, it is well established that it is the accused who
were last seen with the deceased specially in the
circumstances when there is nothing on record to show
that they parted from the accused and since then no
activity of the deceased can be traced and their dead bodies
were recovered later on. It is a settled legal position that
the law presumes that it is the person, who was last seen
with the deceased, would have killed the deceased and the
burden to rebut the same lies on the accused to prove that
they had departed. Undoubtedly, the last seen theory is an
important event in the chain of circumstances that would
completely establish and/or could point to the guilt of the
accused with some certainty. However, this evidence alone
cannot discharge the burden of establishing the guilt of
accused beyond reasonable doubt and requires
corroboration.”
(19) Recently, the Supreme Court in the matter of Padman Bibhar
v. State of Ordisha7 has held as under:
“22. In the case at hand also the only evidence against the
appellant is of ‘last seen together’. The evidence of motive
does not satisfy us to be an adverse circumstance against
the appellant inasmuch as if the appellant has any doubt
about his wife’s chastity, he would have caused injury or
harm to his wife rather than to wife’s cousin with whom
he had no animosity. Moreover, the so-called weapon of
the offence i.e. the stone has not been recovered at his
instance nor there is any memorandum statement of the
appellant.
23. On the basis of above discussion, we are of the opinion
that the nature of circumstantial evidence available
against the appellant though raises doubt that he may
have committed murder but the same is not so conclusive
that he can be convicted only on the basis of evidence on
‘last seen together’.”
7 2025 SCC Online SC 1190
Page No.12 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
(20) Reverting to the facts of the present case in light of the
aforesaid decisions rendered by the Supreme Court, it is quite vivid
that the prosecution has only established that appellant- Narsingh
(A-1) was lastly seen with the deceased and no other connecting
links have been satisfactorily made out and no other incriminating
circumstance which leads to the hypothesis of guilt against the
appellant has been proved. Witness to the story of last seen together
i.e. Lokeshwar (PW-05) has also not specifically stated that he has
seen appellant Narsingh (A-1) committing murder of the deceased,
indeed, in Para-01 he has only stated that at about 08-8:30 Am on
the date of incident, appellant- Narsingh and the deceased visited
his Pan Shop and thereafter where they have gone he has no
knowledge about it. Furthermore, according to the PM report
(Ex.P/20) of the deceased, though cause of death has been opined to
be strangulation but no bodily injuries were found on the dead-body
of the deceased and it is not clear whether appellant- Narsingh (A-1)
has strangulated the neck of the deceased or some other person has
committed the same and, consequently, it cannot be said that
appellant Narsingh (A-1) has committed murder of the deceased.
Accordingly, in view of aforementioned reasons, the theory of last
seen together is not found established in the present case and it
would be totally unsafe to rest the conviction of the appellants
herein on the basis of the theory of ‘last seen together’. We hereby
hold accordingly.
Page No.13 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
Motive:
(21) It is the case of the prosecution that appellant- Topbai (A-2) is
wife of the deceased and since appellant- Topbai (A-2) was having
illicit relationship with appellant- Narsingh Yadav (A-1), they both
conspired with each other and committed murder of the deceased
and, for which, the learned trial Court attributed motive of the
offence on the appellants. However, it is well settled law that motive
may be an important circumstance in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, but it cannot take place of conclusive proof. (See: Sampath
Kumar vs. Inspector of Police, Krishnagiri 8). Further, the decision
rendered in the matter of Mahendra Singh vs. State of M.P.9 their
Lordships of the Supreme Court reiterated the law on the point
stating that merely because motive is established, solely on that
basis accused cannot be convicted that too for offence under Section
302 of IPC. We hereby hold accordingly.
(22) In view of foregoing analysis, we are unable to hold that the
prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable
doubt, in absence of which, the learned trial Court is unjustified in
convicting appellant- Narsingh Yadav for offence under Section 302
r/w 120-B & 201 of IPC and appellant- Topbai for offence under
Section 120-B of IPC being the authors of the crime in question in
light of the findings recorded in the impugned judgment and same
8 (2012) 4 SCC 124
9 (2022) 7 SCC 157
Page No.14 of 14
IN
CRA-1544-2015
are liable to be set aside.
(23) Accordingly, we hereby set aside the conviction so recorded and
the sentence so awarded by the trial Court to the appellants vide the
impugned judgment dated 18.11.2015. Appellant- Narsingh Yadav is
acquitted for offence under Section 302 r/w 120-B & 201 of IPC and
appellant- Topbai Aadil is also acquitted for offence under Section
120-B of IPC on the basis of benefit of doubt. The appellants are
reported to be on bail, therefore, they need not to surrender.
However, their bail bonds shall remain in force for a further period
of six months in view of the provision contained in Section 437-A of
the CrPC.
(24) This criminal appeal is allowed.
(25) Let a certified copy of this judgment alongwith the original
record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned for necessary
information and action, if any.
Sd/- sd/-
(Sanjay K. Agrawal) (Sanjay Kumar Jaiswal)
Judge Judge
s@if
