Chattisgarh High Court
Ravi Sharma vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 31 July, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
CGHC010181282026 2026:CGHC:33149-DB
AFR
ROHIT
KUMAR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CHANDRA
Digitally signed
by ROHIT
KUMAR
CRREF No. 2 of 2026
CHANDRA
In Reference of State of Chhattisgarh Through Aarakshi Kendra Bhilai
Nagar District Durg Chhattisgarh
--- Petitioner
versus
Ravi Sharma S/o Rajaram Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o Gram
Aaima, Thana And Post Kheejsarai, District Gaya Bihar And Present
Address Parijat Colony, Quarter No. 20/N, Talpuri Bhilai, District Durg
Chhattisgarh
--- Respondent
CRA No. 1699 of 2026
Ravi Sharma S/o Rajaram Sharma Aged About 37 Years R/o Village-
Aayima, Police Station And Post - -Khijarsaray, Distt -Gaya (Bihar ), At
Present Parijat Colony, Quarter No. 20/ N, Talpuri, Bhilai, Distt -Durg
(C.G.)
---Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate, Durg, Distt -Durg
(C.G.)
--- Respondent
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
For Appellant in CRA 1699/2026 : Mr. Prafull N. Bharat,
and respondent in CRREF Senior Advocate assisted by
No. 2/2026 Mr. Keshav Dewangan, Advocate
and Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate
For State : Mr. Ashish Shukla,
Additional Advocate General
———————————————————————————————–
Hon’ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon’ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Judgment on Board
2
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
31.07.2026
1. The appellant in CRA No. 1699/2026 and respondent in CRREF
No. 2/2026 namely Ravi Sharma has been awarded death
sentence by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg,
District – Durg in Sessions Case No. 75/2021 vide judgment
dated 23.04.2026 after having found him guilty for offence
punishable under Sections 302 (three counts) of the Indian Penal
Code (for short, ‘the IPC‘) sentenced him to death by hanging
under sub-section (3) of Section 393 of the Bhartiya Nagarik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 along with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default
of payment of fine, additional R.I. for three years and further
under Section 201 of IPC sentenced him to undergo RI for 7
years and fine of Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine,
additional RI for one year.
2. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Durg, District – Durg
(C.G.) in exercise of power conferred under Section 366 (1) of the
CrPC (Section 407(1) of BNSS) after passing the sentence of
death submitted the proceedings to this Court for its confirmation
and this is how this death reference is before us for consideration
along with the appeal preferred by the accused / appellant herein
being CRA No.1699 of 2026.
3. The admitted facts and prosecution case are as follows :
3
A. The complainant, Rajesh Suryavanshi, lodged a report
at Police Station Bhilai Nagar stating that on 21.01.2020, at
about 5:30 a.m., an unknown person called the mobile
phone of his sister, Manju Sharma (Mobile No.
9893264081), from the mobile phone of their mother, Kala
Suryavanshi (Mobile No. 6263412823). The caller stated,
“Go to Talpuri and see that your daughter and son-in-law
are on fire,” and then disconnected the call without saying
anything further. Immediately thereafter, Rajesh
Suryavanshi and his family proceeded to Quarter No. 20-N,
Parijat Block-B, Talpuri, where Manju Sharma was residing
on rent with her husband, Ravi Sharma, and their infant
child. Upon reaching the premises, they found the outer
door locked and latched from outside. After opening the
door, they found Manju Sharma lying dead on the bed in the
bedroom. The room was filled with smoke. Her one-and-a-
half-month-old daughter was also lying dead on the bed. A
fire was burning beside the bed, and the body of an
unknown male was lying over the flames. From his physical
appearance, Rajesh suspected that the deceased was not
Ravi Sharma. The unknown male had severe burn injuries
on his legs and abdomen, and his face was wrapped with
adhesive tape. It appeared that an attempt had been made
to burn the dead bodies using wood, clothing, and a gas
stove. Rajesh suspected that an unknown person had
4murdered his sister Manju Sharma, her infant daughter, and
the unidentified male. On the basis of this information,
Police Station Bhilai Nagar registered Merg Intimation Nos.
6/2020, 7/2020, and 8/2020, marked as Exhibits P-2, P-3,
and P-4, respectively.
B. During the investigation, upon receipt of the merg
information, notices under Section 175 of the Code of
Criminal Procedure were issued to the panch witnesses for
conducting the inquest proceedings, vide Exhibits P-10, P-
11, and P-12. In the presence of witnesses, inquest
proceedings were conducted over the dead bodies of Smt.
Manju Sharma, Baby Nisha Sharma, and the unidentified
male, and inquest panchnamas were prepared as Exhibits
P-13, P-14, and P-15, respectively. Thereafter, the apparent
cause of death was recorded, and to ascertain the exact
cause of death, requisition forms for post-mortem
examination, Exhibits P-18 and P-19, were prepared and
forwarded, upon which post-mortem reports Exhibits P-65
and P-66 were received. An identification panchnama,
Exhibit P-20, was prepared in respect of the unidentified
deceased, who was subsequently identified as N. Raju.
After identification, a requisition for his post-mortem
examination, Exhibit P-29, was submitted, and the post-
mortem report Exhibit P-49 was received.
5C. Since the inquest revealed that the deaths were
homicidal in nature, Merg Enquiry No. 0/2020 was
converted into a case under Section 302 of the Indian Penal
Code, and a formal First Information Report, Crime No.
36/2020, was registered at Police Station Bhilai Nagar as
Exhibit P-64.
D. During the spot inspection, the investigating officer
seized one Indane gas cylinder, one gas stove, one frying
pan, one utensil stand with grill, the wooden door bearing
writings in chalk, two empty liquor bottles, a wide khaki-
coloured adhesive tape, partially burnt clothes, and partially
burnt wooden pieces, and prepared the seizure memo
Exhibit P-22. Thereafter, the statements of witnesses
Rajesh Suryavanshi, Kala Suryavanshi, and Isha Sharma
were recorded under Section 164 CrPC before the Judicial
Magistrate, marked as Exhibits P-7, P-8, and P-9,
respectively.
E. During the course of investigation, the accused Ravi
Sharma was taken into custody and interrogated. His
memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Indian
Evidence Act was recorded as Exhibit P-21. In his
memorandum, the accused disclosed that he had
concealed his wife’s mobile phone, his own two mobile
phones, and the tape roll used in the commission of the
offence in the storage compartment of his Suzuki Access
6125 scooter bearing Registration No. CG-07-LX-5189. He
further disclosed that he had hidden the wrappers of
sleeping tablets used in the incident beneath papers kept
over the cooler inside the Talpuri house, and that he had
retained the railway ticket used after the incident.
F. Pursuant to the memorandum, and at the instance of
the accused, the police recovered a black Samsung mobile
phone belonging to the deceased Manju Sharma bearing
SIM No. 9893264081 (IMEI Nos. 353415072167136 and
353415072167132); a white LYF mobile phone containing
SIM Nos. 7828086690 and 9937115641; a Nokia mobile
phone; the key of the Suzuki Access scooter; and a general
railway ticket dated 21.01.2020 from Durg to Tatanagar.
These articles were seized under Exhibit P-23.
G. Subsequently, from the storage compartment of the
Suzuki Access scooter, the remaining portion of the
adhesive tape allegedly used for tying the mouths, hands,
and legs of the deceased persons was recovered and
seized under Exhibit P-24. Likewise, at the instance of the
accused, two empty wrappers of sleeping tablets concealed
beneath papers kept over the cooler in Quarter No. 20-N,
Talpuri, were recovered and seized under Exhibit P-25.
H. During the investigation, after the post-mortem
examinations of Baby Nisha Sharma and N. Raju, the
sealed viscera samples were brought to the police station
7
by Constable Santosh Tiwari and seized under Exhibits P-
30 and P-31, respectively.
I. A notice under Section 91 CrPC, Exhibit P-39, was
issued to Sunil Kumar Kesari for production of CCTV
footage. In compliance, he produced 10.5 GB of CCTV
footage stored in a 16 GB Sandisk pen drive, covering the
period from 20.01.2020 to 21.01.2020. The same was
seized under Exhibit P-52. Similarly, Constable Vijendra
Singh, who had photographed and videographed the scene
of occurrence on 21.01.2020, was issued a notice (Exhibit
P-37). He produced one DVD containing two videos, seven
photographs, and photographs of the writing found on the
door of the room. These materials were seized under
Exhibit P-53.
J. Upon finding sufficient incriminating material against
Ravi Sharma, he was formally arrested. The arrest memo
Exhibit P-26 was prepared, and intimation regarding his
arrest was communicated to his family members through
Exhibit P-54. Thereafter, a letter dated 13.03.2020 (Exhibit
P-50) was addressed to the Chief Medical and Health
Officer/Civil Surgeon, District Hospital, Durg, seeking
examination of the medicines recovered during
investigation. The expert report was received as Exhibit P-
51.
8
K. Reports regarding analysis of the Call Detail Records
(CDRs) of the mobile numbers belonging to accused Ravi
Sharma, deceased Manju Sharma, and Kala Suryavanshi
were prepared as Exhibit P-55, while analysis of the CCTV
footage was recorded in Exhibit P-56. Photographs of the
deceased at the scene of occurrence, comprising six pages
(Exhibits P-30 to P-35), were also placed on record. The
seized articles were forwarded to the Forensic Science
Laboratory (FSL), Raipur, through the Superintendent of
Police, and the FSL reports were received as Exhibits P-57
to P-62. Further, the handwriting appearing on the wooden
door at the scene of occurrence was compared with
specimen handwriting of the accused by a handwriting
expert, whose report was received as Exhibit P-63.
L. During the investigation, the Superintendent of Police
addressed a memorandum (Exhibit P-41) to the Nodal
Officer of Reliance Jio Infocomm Ltd. seeking the customer
application forms and call detail records of Mobile No.
7828086690 for the period from 10.01.2020 to 21.01.2020,
and Mobile No. 6263412823 for the period from 19.01.2020
to 21.01.2020. The relevant CAFs and CDRs were received
as Exhibits P-42 to P-46. Similarly, another memorandum
(Exhibit P-69) was sent to the Nodal Officer of Bharti Airtel
Ltd. seeking the CDRs and CAFs relating to Mobile Nos.
9893264081 and 9937115641 for the period from
9
10.01.2020 to 21.01.2020. The requested records were
supplied and marked as Exhibit P-70.
M. Upon completion of the investigation, sufficient
evidence was found against the accused Ravi Sharma, and
accordingly, Charge-sheet No. 70/2020 was filed before the
Judicial Magistrate First Class, Durg, on 13.04.2020 for
offences punishable under Sections 302, 201, and 120-B of
the Indian Penal Code.
N. Since the offences were exclusively triable by the
Court of Session, the case was committed to the Sessions
Court on 25.01.2021. Thereafter, it was assigned to the
Court of the Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge,
Durg, on 05.03.2021. The learned Additional Sessions
Judge framed charges against the accused under Section
302 IPC (three counts) and Section 201 IPC. The charges
were read over and explained to the accused, who pleaded
not guilty and claimed to be tried.
O. Subsequently, the case was transferred to the Court of
3rd Additional Sessions Judge by order of the learned
Sessions Judge. During trial, the prosecution examined as
many as 23 witnesses and exhibited 70 documents.
P. When the accused was examined under Section 313
of the Code of Criminal Procedure, he denied all the
incriminating circumstances put to him, claimed that he had
10
been falsely implicated, and chose to lead defence
evidence. In support of his defence, the accused examined
himself as a defence witness.
Q. The learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge upon
appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record
convicted the appellant under Section 302 (three counts)
and 201 of IPC and sentenced as mentioned in the opening
paragraph of this judgment and further made the present
reference before this Court for confirmation of the same.
4. The learned trial Court in order to convict the appellant herein has
found proved the following incriminating circumstances : –
(1) The accused, Ravi Sharma, had solemnized a love
marriage with the deceased, Manju Sharma, in a temple
approximately 14-15 months prior to the incident dated
21.01.2020. Out of the said wedlock, they were blessed with
a daughter, Nisha Sharma, who was about one and a half
months old at the time of the incident. None of the accused’s
family members had participated in or approved of the
marriage. The accused is originally a resident of the State of
Bihar.
(2) After the marriage, the accused initially resided with
the deceased Manju Sharma in a rented house at HUDCO.
Thereafter, they shifted to another rented house at Parijat
Colony, Talpuri. It has come on record that, prior to the
11
incident, the accused had attempted to strangulate the
deceased by tying a scarf around her neck, indicating his
earlier intention to cause her death.
(3) On the day preceding the incident, the accused
allegedly brought an unknown person to his residence. The
deceased Manju Sharma informed her mother, Kala
Suryavanshi, that the said person might be the one who
would kill her. This circumstance indicates the accused’s
prior intention and premeditated plan to commit the murders.
(4) On 21.01.2020, the date of the incident, the accused
used the mobile phone of his wife, Manju Sharma (Mobile
No. 9893264081), to call Kala Suryavanshi on Mobile No.
6263412823, which was registered in the name of her
husband, Ganesh Suryavanshi. Calls were made at 5:46
a.m., 5:53 a.m., and 5:56 a.m., during which information
regarding the incident was conveyed.
(5) The seizure of the deceased Manju Sharma’s mobile
phone (Mobile No. 9893264081) from the accused has been
duly proved. Further, the evidence of Sanjeev Nema, Nodal
Officer (PW-16), along with the call detail records marked as
Exhibits P-42 to P-45, establishes that on 21.01.2020, calls
were made from the deceased’s mobile number
9893264081 to Kala Suryavanshi’s mobile number
6263412823 at 5:46 a.m., 5:53 a.m., and 5:56 a.m., thereby
12
informing her about the incident. These circumstances
indicate that the accused himself made the said calls.
(6) Immediately after the incident, on 22.01.2020, the
mobile phone belonging to the deceased Manju Sharma
(Mobile No. 9893264081) was recovered from the
possession of the accused. The accused has failed to offer
any explanation as to how the deceased’s mobile phone
came into his possession after the incident. This
circumstance further supports the prosecution’s case that
the accused himself informed his mother-in-law, Kala
Suryavanshi, about the incident by using the deceased’s
mobile phone.
(7) The accused has failed to offer any explanation under
Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, as
to how any person other than himself could have committed
the offence despite his knowledge of the incident. In such
circumstances, there is every basis to presume that the
accused committed the murders of the deceased, N. Raju,
Mrs. Manju Sharma, and Ms. Nisha Sharma.
(8) The seizure of the railway ticket, Exhibit P-65, for
travel from Durg to Tatanagar, dated 21.01.2020, from the
possession of the accused has also been duly proved. The
accused has failed to explain under Section 109 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023, how the said railway
ticket came into his possession. This circumstance supports
13
the prosecution’s case that, after committing the murders of
N. Raju, Manju Sharma, and Nisha Sharma on 21.01.2020,
the accused attempted to flee by train from Durg to
Tatanagar.
(9) In his defence evidence, the accused stated that he
had left for his native village in Bihar on 16.01.2020.
However, this claim is contradicted by the railway ticket
(Exhibit P-65) dated 21.01.2020, which was recovered from
his possession on 22.01.2020. This contradiction
demonstrates that the accused made a false statement in
his defence and further strengthens the prosecution’s case
that he was responsible for the murders of N. Raju, Manju
Sharma, and Nisha Sharma.
(10) The remaining portion of the adhesive tape allegedly
used by the accused to bind the hands, legs, and mouths of
the deceased and to suffocate N. Raju and Manju Sharma
was recovered from his possession. As per the Forensic
Science Laboratory Report (Exhibit P-62), the physical
characteristics of the recovered tape matched those of the
tape found tied around the mouths, hands, and legs of the
deceased. This forensic evidence strongly supports the
prosecution’s allegation that the accused used the said tape
in the commission of the murders.
(11) The recovery of the empty wrapper of sleeping tablets
from the accused has also been duly proved. The evidence
14
of Dr. Shravan Kumar Doneriya (PW-19) establishes that the
wrapper bore the inscription “Alprex 0.5,” a medicine
prescribed for insomnia, excessive consumption of which
may cause unconsciousness. From this, there is a strong
basis to presume that the accused used the said medicine to
make the deceased unconscious before killing them and
only after making them unconscious, they were killed by
suffocating them by tying their faces, mouths and hands and
feet.
(12) The handwriting appearing on the door at the scene of
occurrence and the specimen handwriting of the accused
were examined by a handwriting expert. As per Exhibit P-63,
both writings were found to be similar. The accused has
failed to offer any explanation regarding this incriminating
circumstance under Section 109 of the Bharatiya Sakshya
Adhiniyam, 2023. This circumstance further indicates that
the accused was present at the scene of occurrence on the
date of the incident and supports the prosecution’s
allegation that he committed the murders of all three
deceased persons.
(13) Similarly, it is also clear that the accused had tried to
kill an unknown person N. Raju and burn him with the
intention of destroying the evidence of the charge of murder
of the deceased so that it could be shown that the deceased
15
Manju Sharma, Ms. Nisha Sharma and the accused himself
were murdered by some other person.
5. Feeling dissatisfied and aggrieved with the judgment of conviction
recorded and sentences awarded, the appellant herein has
preferred CRA No. 1699 of 2026 under Section 415(2) of the
BNSS challenging his conviction for the aforesaid offence,
particularly against the capital punishment awarded to him.
However, the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in
accordance with the provisions contained in Section 366 (1) of
the CrPC (Section 407(1) of BNSS), submitted the sentence of
death to this Court for confirmation and this is how both the cases
have been clubbed together, heard together and are being
disposed of by this common judgment.
6. Mr. Prafull N. Bharat, learned Senior Advocate assisted by
Mr.Keshav Dewangan and Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, learned counsel,
appearing for the accused/appellant, has argued :-
(i) That the learned Trial Court has committed a grave
error of law and fact while convicting the appellant. The
impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence
are contrary to the evidence available on record and the
settled principles governing appreciation of circumstantial
evidence. The learned Trial Court has failed to appreciate
the evidence in its proper perspective and has drawn
adverse inferences against the appellant merely on the
basis of assumptions and presumptions.
16
(ii) That it is an admitted position that there are no
eyewitnesses to the alleged incident. The entire
prosecution case is based upon circumstantial evidence.
However, the learned Trial Court, without there being a
complete chain of circumstances pointing exclusively
towards the guilt of the appellant, proceeded to convict him
by relying upon presumptions under Section 109 of the
Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023.
(iii) That the learned Trial Court failed to appreciate the
statement of the appellant recorded under Section 313 of
the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein the appellant
specifically stated that on the date of the incident, he was
not present at the place of occurrence and had gone out of
station. The appellant further stated that after the incident,
he was falsely implicated and arrested by the police
without there being any cogent evidence against him. The
said defence taken by the appellant has not been properly
considered by the learned Trial Court.
(iv) That the learned Trial Court further failed to consider
that despite the prosecution case that the alleged crime
was committed inside the house of the appellant, no
independent witness from the neighbourhood was
examined by the prosecution. It is the prosecution’s own
case that several persons were residing in the nearby
locality; however, none of them were examined to establish
17
the involvement of the appellant in the alleged offence. The
non-examination of material independent witnesses
creates a serious doubt regarding the prosecution case.
(v) That the learned Trial Court has wrongly relied upon
the statements of the brother and daughter of deceased
Manju Sharma and has convicted the appellant merely on
the basis of suspicion and presumptions. A suspicion,
however strong, cannot take the place of legal proof. The
prosecution has failed to produce any direct evidence
connecting the appellant with the commission of the
alleged offence.
(vi) That in a case based upon circumstantial evidence,
the prosecution is required to establish a complete chain of
circumstances which unerringly points towards the guilt of
the accused and excludes every possibility of innocence.
The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that
each circumstance relied upon by the prosecution must be
fully established and all such circumstances must form a
complete chain leading only to the conclusion of the guilt of
the accused.
(vii) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116, held that the circumstances relied upon by the
prosecution must be fully established and should be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
18
accused and should exclude every possible hypothesis
except guilt. In the present case, the prosecution has failed
to establish such a complete chain of circumstances.
(viii) That the learned Trial Court has committed an error
in relying upon the memorandum statement of the
appellant and the alleged recoveries made pursuant
thereto. It is settled law that only that portion of a
disclosure statement which distinctly relates to the
discovery of a fact is admissible in evidence, and the
remaining portion containing confession or admission of
guilt is inadmissible. The learned Trial Court, however,
relied upon the inadmissible portion of the memorandum
statement and thereby committed an error of law.
(ix) That the alleged recovery made pursuant to the
memorandum statement does not establish the guilt of the
appellant. The prosecution has failed to prove that the
recovered articles were exclusively connected with the
commission of the offence or that the same were used by
the appellant. The learned Trial Court has wrongly treated
the recovery evidence as conclusive proof against the
appellant.
(x) That as per the alleged memorandum statement, the
appellant stated that he committed the offence due to the
alleged character of his wife. However, the entire
prosecution evidence does not contain any statement from
19
any witness regarding any such alleged circumstance. No
witness has stated that deceased Manju Sharma had any
such alleged conduct or that there existed any motive on
the part of the appellant. Therefore, the prosecution has
completely failed to prove any motive for commission of the
alleged offence.
(xi) That the seizure witnesses have not supported the
prosecution case and have turned hostile during trial. The
learned Trial Court failed to appreciate that the seizure
proceedings and recoveries relied upon by the prosecution
become doubtful when the independent witnesses do not
support the same.
(xii) That the learned Trial Court has convicted the
appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code
without properly establishing the essential ingredients of
Section 300 IPC. The prosecution was required to prove
that the act of the appellant was accompanied by the
intention or knowledge as contemplated under Section 300
IPC. However, the prosecution has failed to prove such
intention or knowledge beyond reasonable doubt.
(xiii) That the entire prosecution evidence does not
establish the motive, intention, or preparation of the
appellant to commit the alleged crime. In the absence of
proof of the essential ingredients of murder under Section
20
300 IPC, conviction under Section 302 IPC cannot be
sustained.
(xiv) That the medical evidence also creates serious
doubts regarding the prosecution case. Dr. B.N. Dewangan
(PW-22), who conducted the post-mortem examination of
deceased Manju Sharma, opined that the cause of death
was asphyxia and that the death was homicidal in nature.
However, he did not give any specific opinion regarding
strangulation. This creates a contradiction between the
medical evidence and the allegations made by the
prosecution witnesses.
(xv) That similarly, with regard to deceased Nisha
Sharma, PW-22 opined that death occurred due to
asphyxia and was homicidal in nature; however, no opinion
regarding strangulation was provided. Thus, the
prosecution failed to establish the manner in which the
alleged offence was committed.
(xvi) That Dr. Shravan Doneria (PW-19), who examined
deceased N. Raju and proved the post-mortem report
(Exhibit P-49), stated that the cause of death was
asphyxia. However, the prosecution witnesses claimed that
several injuries were present on the body of N. Raju. The
inconsistency between ocular evidence and medical
evidence creates a serious doubt regarding the
prosecution story.
21
(xvii) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that where there exists a contradiction between medical
evidence and ocular evidence, and such contradiction
creates doubt regarding the prosecution case, the benefit
of such doubt must go to the accused.
(xviii) That the learned Trial Court has committed a further
error by imposing the extreme punishment of death penalty
by holding that the case falls within the category of “rarest
of rare” cases. The evidence available on record does not
justify such a conclusion. The learned Trial Court has
awarded capital punishment merely on the basis of
assumptions and without proper consideration of the
mitigating circumstances available in favour of the
appellant.
(xix) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj @ Manu
& Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 9 SCC 81,
has reiterated that before awarding the death penalty, the
Court must conduct a proper evaluation of aggravating and
mitigating circumstances and must satisfy itself that the
alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably
foreclosed.
(xx) That in the present case, the learned Trial Court
failed to undertake such an exercise and mechanically
awarded the death penalty without considering the
22
background, circumstances, and possibility of reformation
of the appellant.
(xxi) That the prosecution has failed to establish the guilt
of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction
is based only on conjectures, assumptions, and
inadmissible evidence. The appellant is therefore entitled
to the benefit of doubt.
(xxii) That the age of the appellant was about 37 years at
the time of incident, there is every chance of his being
reformed and rehabilitated and he has no criminal
antecedents, therefore, his death sentence be commuted
to life sentence.
7. Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General,
appearing on behalf of the State has argued :-
(i) That the present appeal filed by the appellant is
devoid of merit and deserves to be dismissed. The learned
Trial Court, after appreciating the entire evidence available
on record, has rightly convicted the appellant for the
offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the
Indian Penal Code. The judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned Trial Court are based upon
proper appreciation of oral, documentary, scientific, and
circumstantial evidence available on record.
23
(ii) That it is an admitted position that there is no
eyewitness to the incident; however, the prosecution case
is based upon circumstantial evidence. It is settled law that
a conviction can be sustained solely on the basis of
circumstantial evidence if the circumstances relied upon by
the prosecution are fully proved and form a complete chain
pointing only towards the guilt of the accused.
(iii) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4
SCC 116, has laid down the principles governing cases
based on circumstantial evidence and held that the
circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must be fully
established, must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
guilt of the accused, and must exclude every possible
hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. In the present
case, the prosecution has successfully established a
complete chain of circumstances against the appellant.
(iv) That the appellant was the husband of deceased
Manju Sharma and was residing with her and their one-
and-a-half-month-old daughter Nisha Sharma at the place
of occurrence. The incident took place inside the
matrimonial house of the appellant. The appellant was the
person who had special knowledge regarding the
circumstances leading to the death of the deceased
24
persons, but he failed to provide any plausible explanation
regarding the incident.
(v) That the prosecution has successfully established
that on the date of incident i.e. 21.01.2020, information
regarding the occurrence was given from the mobile phone
of deceased Manju Sharma bearing Mobile No.
9893264081 to her mother Kala Suryavanshi on Mobile No.
6263412823. The call detail records produced by the
prosecution clearly establish that calls were made at 05:46
a.m., 05:53 a.m., and 05:56 a.m.
(vi) That the said mobile phone of deceased Manju
Sharma was recovered from the possession of the
appellant immediately after the incident. The appellant has
failed to explain how the mobile phone belonging to his
deceased wife came into his possession after her death.
This circumstance clearly establishes the presence and
involvement of the appellant in the commission of the
offence.
(vii) That the conduct of the appellant after the incident is
also highly incriminating. Instead of immediately informing
the police or giving a satisfactory explanation regarding the
death of his wife, daughter, and N. Raju, the appellant
attempted to conceal the true facts and destroy evidence.
25
(viii) That the prosecution has further proved that a railway
ticket dated 21.01.2020 from Durg to Tatanagar was
recovered from the possession of the appellant. The
appellant failed to explain the circumstances under which
the said ticket came into his possession. The recovery of
the railway ticket establishes that after committing the
offence, the appellant attempted to flee from the place of
occurrence.
(ix) That the defence taken by the appellant under
Section 313 CrPC that he had already left for Bihar on
16.01.2020 is false and contrary to the documentary
evidence available on record. The recovery of the railway
ticket dated 21.01.2020 clearly falsifies the defence version
and demonstrates that the appellant has taken a false plea
to avoid criminal liability.
(x) That the prosecution has also proved the recovery of
the adhesive tape from the possession of the appellant.
The tape recovered at the instance of the appellant was
found to be similar to the tape used for tying the mouths,
hands, and legs of the deceased persons. The FSL report,
Exhibit P-62, supports the prosecution case and
establishes the connection between the recovered article
and the commission of the offence.
(xi) That the recovery of sleeping pill wrappers from the
possession of the appellant is another important
26
circumstance against him. The evidence of Dr. Shravan
Kumar Doneriya (PW-19) establishes that the medicine
mentioned on the wrapper was capable of causing
unconsciousness when consumed in excess quantity. The
recovery of such medicine supports the prosecution case
that the deceased persons were rendered unconscious
before being killed.
(xii) That the prosecution has also proved that handwriting
found on the door of the place of occurrence matched the
handwriting sample of the appellant. The handwriting
expert’s report, Exhibit P-63, clearly connects the appellant
with the scene of occurrence. The appellant has failed to
offer any explanation regarding the said incriminating
circumstance.
(xiii) That the argument of the appellant that there is no
motive for committing the offence is without substance. It is
settled law that where the prosecution establishes a
complete chain of circumstances, absence of motive by
itself cannot be a ground for acquittal. Motive is relevant but
not an indispensable requirement where the evidence
otherwise conclusively establishes the guilt of the accused.
(xiv) That the defence contention regarding non-
examination of independent witnesses is also
misconceived. The prosecution is required to prove its case
through reliable evidence and not through a particular
27
number of witnesses. The testimony of related witnesses
cannot be discarded merely because they are relatives of
the deceased, particularly when their evidence is found
trustworthy and is supported by documentary and scientific
evidence.
(xv) That the hostility of some seizure witnesses does not
demolish the prosecution case. The evidentiary value of a
hostile witness is not completely wiped out, and the Court
can rely upon the portion of testimony which supports the
prosecution case if it is corroborated by other evidence.
(xvi) That the medical evidence fully supports the
prosecution case. The post-mortem reports of deceased
Manju Sharma, Nisha Sharma, and N. Raju establish that
the deaths were homicidal and occurred due to asphyxia.
The contention of the appellant regarding absence of
specific opinion of strangulation is of no consequence
because the medical evidence clearly establishes homicidal
death.
(xv) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court has repeatedly held
that medical evidence is primarily corroborative in nature
and cannot override reliable circumstantial evidence unless
it completely rules out the prosecution version. In the
present case, there is no inconsistency between the
medical evidence and the prosecution story.
28
(xvi) That the prosecution has successfully proved the
following chain of circumstances against the appellant:
(a) The appellant was residing with the deceased
persons at the place of occurrence;
(b) The incident occurred inside the matrimonial
home;
(c) The deceased Manju Sharma’s mobile phone was
recovered from the appellant;
(d) Calls regarding the incident were made from the
deceased’s mobile phone;
(e) The appellant failed to explain his possession of
incriminating articles;
(f) The tape used in the crime was recovered from
him;
(g) Sleeping pill wrappers were recovered at his
instance;
(h) The appellant possessed a railway ticket indicating
an attempt to flee;
(i) The handwriting at the place of occurrence
matched his handwriting.
(xvii) That all the aforesaid circumstances are consistent
only with the guilt of the appellant and exclude every
possibility of innocence. The learned Trial Court has rightly
29applied the principles governing circumstantial evidence
and has rightly convicted the appellant.
(xviii) That the contention of the appellant regarding the
death sentence is also without merit. The present case
involves the brutal and pre-planned murder of three
persons, including a one-and-a-half-month-old infant. The
manner of commission of the crime, the number of victims,
the attempt to destroy evidence, and the betrayal of the
trust within the matrimonial relationship clearly demonstrate
the exceptional gravity of the offence.
(xix) That the learned Trial Court, after considering the
aggravating circumstances and the manner in which the
offence was committed, rightly concluded that the present
case falls within the category of “rarest of rare” cases
warranting the extreme penalty.
(xx) That the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Manoj @ Manu &
Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2022) 9 SCC 81, has
emphasized the importance of considering aggravating and
mitigating circumstances before awarding the death
penalty. In the present case, the aggravating circumstances
overwhelmingly outweigh the mitigating circumstances.
(xxi) That the appellant has committed a heinous crime by
murdering his own wife, his infant daughter, and another
person and thereafter attempting to destroy evidence. Such
30conduct demonstrates extreme depravity and a complete
disregard for human life.
(xxii) That the prosecution has proved the guilt of the
appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial Court
has committed no error in recording conviction and
awarding sentence. Therefore, the appeal filed by the
appellant deserves to be dismissed and the judgment of
conviction and order of sentence deserve to be affirmed.
8. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered
their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through
the record of the trial Court thoroughly and extensively.
9. The first question for consideration would be whether the death of
deceased persons, namely Smt. Manju Sharma, Kumari Nisha
Sharma, and N. Raju, suffered homicidal death on 21.01.2020 ?
10. In this regard, the prosecution has examined Rajesh Suryavanshi
(PW-1), who is the brother of deceased Manju Sharma. He has
stated that on the date of the incident, at about 5:30 a.m., a call
was received on the mobile phone of his mother, Kala
Suryavanshi, from the accused Ravi Sharma. The accused
informed his mother that she should go to Talpuri and see what
had happened to her daughter and son-in-law. His mother
immediately recognized the voice of accused Ravi Sharma and
asked him what had happened. Thereafter, the accused
disconnected the call. After about five to six minutes, another call
31
was received from the same mobile number, which was being
used by deceased Manju Sharma and was saved in her name. At
that time, his mother had gone to the bathroom, and therefore,
his niece Isha received the call. When she asked, “What
happened, father?”, the accused asked her to hand over the
phone to an elder person. When Rajesh Suryavanshi spoke to
the accused, the accused again stated that they should go to
Talpuri and see what had happened. Thereafter, the call was
disconnected. Subsequently, his mother and younger brother
Vijay Suryavanshi proceeded towards Talpuri. After reaching
there, his brother Vijay informed him over the phone that a fire
had occurred in Manju’s house and that he was unable to enter
inside, and asked him to come there. Thereafter, Rajesh
Suryavanshi along with his father Ganesh Suryavanshi reached
the rented house of the accused at Talpuri, where deceased
Manju Sharma was residing with the accused. The said witness
further stated that when he reached Talpuri, he saw that his
mother and brother, along with other persons present there, were
extinguishing the fire by pouring water over the burning body.
Upon entering the house, he saw a dead body with both legs tied
and hands tied behind the back with cello tape. The head of the
deceased was placed near the gas stove, the abdominal portion
was burnt, and it appeared that the body had been burnt using a
plastic basket in which his sister used to keep clothes. Fire was
also found near the legs in a container (tagari). The said body
32
was of an unknown male, who was later identified as N. Raju,
resident of Risali, Ashish Nagar. The witness further stated that
the body of his sister Manju Sharma was also lying on the bed in
a dead condition, with both her hands tied behind her back with
cello tape. From the appearance of the body, it appeared that she
had been killed by strangulation. The dead body of the infant
daughter of the accused and deceased Manju Sharma was also
lying on the bed. When his father lifted and examined the child, it
appeared that the child had also died due to strangulation.
11. Similar statements have been made by Kala Suryavanshi (PW-2),
mother of deceased Manju Sharma, and Vijay Suryavanshi (PW-
4), brother of deceased Manju Sharma.
12. Similarly, N. Lalita (PW-5), wife of deceased N. Raju, has stated
that the incident occurred in January 2020. Her husband N. Raju
was working as a labourer in the BSP Plant. Due to a previous
accident, his health condition was not good and he used to
consume alcohol. On 20.01.2020, her husband had gone to
District Hospital, Durg, for treatment but did not return home.
After three days, police officials came to her house in search of
her husband and showed her a photograph. Upon seeing the
photograph, she identified it as that of her husband. Thereafter,
the police took her to District Hospital, Durg, where the body of
her husband was kept. She identified the body as that of her
husband, which was partially burnt. She further stated that she
33
came to know that her husband had been murdered and burnt at
Talpuri, Bhilai, Block-B.
13. Thus, from the evidence of the brothers and mother of deceased
Manju Sharma, it is evident that on the date of the incident, the
hands of deceased Manju Sharma were tied with cello tape and
her dead body was lying on the bed. The dead body of her infant
daughter was also found lying on the bed, which indicated that
the death was not natural but homicidal in nature. Similarly, the
dead body of another person, namely N. Raju, was also found in
a burnt condition.
14. Dr. B.N. Dewangan, Radiologist (PW-22), has stated that he was
posted at District Hospital, Durg, and on 21.01.2020, Constable
Santosh Tiwari No. 921 of Police Station Bhilai Nagar brought the
dead body of deceased Manju Sharma, aged about 29 years, for
post-mortem examination. The body was identified by her brother
Vijay Suryavanshi and neighbour Sheikh Altaf Hussain. During
examination, he found the following conditions:
• Eyes were closed, pupils were dilated, and redness was present
in the eyes.
• Red-coloured froth was coming out from the nose.
• Mouth was closed and tongue was inside.
• Bluish discoloration was present in the nails.
• The following injuries were found on the body:
34
1. A scratch injury measuring 2 x 1 cm on the forehead;
2. Swelling on the upper eyelid of the left eye;
Burn injuries on the anterior abdominal region, front and outer
portion of the right thigh, front portion of the left thigh, posterior
abdominal region on the right side, right thigh and waist area, and
right upper abdomen, covering approximately 20-25% of the
body.
15. The doctor further found that post-mortem lividity had developed
and become fixed. Rigor mortis was present in both hands and
legs. Putrefaction had not commenced. On internal examination,
the brain was found congested. Both lungs were congested and
froth came out on cutting. The left side of the heart was empty
while the right side contained blood. Undigested food was
present in the stomach. Liver, spleen, and kidneys were
congested. The doctor opined that the injuries were ante-mortem
in nature. The cause of death was asphyxia due to obstruction of
the respiratory passage caused by smothering before death. The
time since death was approximately 8-18 hours before the post-
mortem examination, and the nature of death was homicidal. The
post-mortem report was exhibited as Exhibit P-65.
16. The same witness further conducted the post-mortem
examination of deceased Kumari Nisha Sharma, aged about one
and a half months, and found similar symptoms, including closed
eyes, dilated pupils, froth from the nose, bluish nails, and
35
congestion of internal organs. The doctor opined that the cause
of death was asphyxia due to obstruction of the respiratory
passage caused by smothering, and the nature of death was
homicidal. The post-mortem report was exhibited as Exhibit P-66.
17. During cross-examination, the witness admitted that he had
mentioned the cause of death as asphyxia. He further admitted
that if a room catches fire and oxygen becomes insufficient, death
may occur due to suffocation. He also admitted that no struggle
marks were found on the body of deceased Manju Sharma and
that no injury marks were present on the body of deceased Nisha
Sharma. However, he denied the suggestion that he had opined
the cause of death as per the instructions of the police or that
deaths caused due to fire were wrongly described as homicidal.
18. From the cross-examination of this witness, it is apparent that
although no external injury marks were found on the bodies of
deceased Manju Sharma and Nisha Sharma, the evidence of
Rajesh Suryavanshi, Kala Suryavanshi, and Vijay Suryavanshi
establishes that the accused had informed them about the
incident at Talpuri. This circumstance supports the medical
opinion that the deceased persons died due to obstruction of
respiration. Therefore, the opinion of the doctor that the deaths
were homicidal in nature stands corroborated by the surrounding
circumstances.
19. Similarly, Dr. Shravan Doneria (PW-19) has stated that on
23.01.2020 at about 10:35 a.m., Constable Santosh Tiwari of
36
Police Station Bhilai Nagar brought the dead body of N. Raju for
post-mortem examination. The body was identified by Ganesh
and V. Vishwanath. During examination, the doctor found that the
body was burnt to more than 95%. Deep burns were present on
the left side of the face, including the eye and ear, neck, both
arms, chest, abdomen, legs, and feet. Some parts of the intestine
had protruded outside due to burning. The body was stiff and in a
pugilistic posture. Internal examination revealed congestion of the
brain, both lungs, respiratory tract, and other internal organs. The
doctor preserved samples of lungs, liver, kidney, and heart for
examination. The doctor opined that the cause of death was
asphyxia due to ante-mortem choking of the respiratory passage,
and the nature of death was homicidal. The post-mortem report
was exhibited as Exhibit P-49.
20. During cross-examination, the doctor admitted that suffocation
may occur due to smoke in a closed room, drowning, or other
causes. However, he denied the suggestion that he gave the
opinion of homicidal death at the instance of the police.
21. Thus, from the evidence of Dr. Shravan Doneria (PW-19), it is
established that deceased N. Raju died due to asphyxia and that
his death was homicidal in nature. The condition of the body,
including the burn injuries and the manner in which it was found,
clearly indicates that his death was not accidental or natural.
22. Therefore, from the evidence of Rajesh Suryavanshi (PW-1), Kala
Suryavanshi (PW-2), Vijay Suryavanshi (PW-4), Dr. Shravan
37
Doneria (PW-19), and Dr. B.N. Dewangan (PW-22), it is
established beyond reasonable doubt that deceased Manju
Sharma, Kumari Nisha Sharma, and N. Raju suffered homicidal
deaths on the date of the incident.
23. Accordingly, it is proved that the death of deceased persons,
namely Smt. Manju Sharma, Kumari Nisha Sharma, and N. Raju,
suffered homicidal death on 21.01.2020.
24. The next question for consideration is whether the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant/accused
committed the murder of deceased Smt. Manju Sharma, Kumari
Nisha Sharma, and N. Raju on 21.01.2020 at Quarter No. 20-N,
Parijat Colony, B Block, Talpuri, Bhilai, by administering sleeping
pills, tying their hands, legs, and mouths with tape, and causing
their death by asphyxia ? Further, whether the prosecution has
proved that after committing the said murders, the appellant
caused fire to the room and burnt the dead bodies with the
intention of destroying evidence and screening himself from legal
punishment ?
25. Since the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, the law
regarding circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances on
which the inference of guilt is to be drawn must first be fully
proved and the facts so proved must be relevant to the
interference of guilt of the accused. The circumstances must be
of a conclusive nature and they should be of such a nature as to
exclude the proposition but leave only the proposition which is
38
proposed to be proved. In other words there should be a chain of
evidence which is so complete as to not absolve the accused and
it should be such as to show that within all human probability the
accused did the act. i.e. :-
1. There must be a series of facts.
2. These facts must be of conclusive nature.
3. These facts must be well connected with each other.
4. Facts must be well proven.
5. Facts of indifferent nature must be removed from
consideration so that no conclusion can be drawn from
either side.
6. Facts which are not well proven will also have to be
removed from consideration.
7. It should only be possible to conclude that the crime is
true from these.
8. These facts do not prove that the accused is innocent.
9. However, the court must be morally convinced that the
accused
No other person other than has committed the crime.
26. It has been consistently laid down by the Supreme Court that
where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the
inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating
facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the
39
innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person. (See
Hukam Singh v. State of Rajasthan, AIR 1977 SC 1063; Eradu
and Ors. v. State of Hyderabad, AIR 1956 SC 316;
Earabhadrappa v. State of Karnataka, AIR 1983 SC 446; State
of U.P. v. Sukhbasi and Ors., AIR 1985 SC 1224; Balwinder
Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1987 SC 350; Ashok Kumar
Chatterjee v. State of M.P., AIR 1989 SC 1890. The
circumstances from which an inference as to the guilt of the
accused is drawn have to be proved beyond reasonable doubt
and have to be shown to be closely connected with the principal
fact sought to be inferred from those circumstances. In Bhagat
Ram v. State of Punjab, AIR 1954 SC 621, it was laid down by
the Supreme Court that where the case depends upon the
conclusion drawn from circumstances the cumulative effect of the
circumstances must be such as to negative the innocence of the
accused and bring the offences home beyond any reasonable
doubt.
27. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Hon’ble
Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P.,
(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
40of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must
be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of
the accused and totally inconsistent with his
innocence….”.
28. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC
79, it was laid down by the 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.
29. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, 1992 Crl.LJ 1104,
it was pointed out by the 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
41
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 and the cumulative effect of all the facts so
established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
30. 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”.
31. 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, (1984) 4 SCC 116, which state as
under:-
42
“(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 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.”
32. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of
Maharashtra, (2006) 1 SCC 681, the Supreme Court has held as
under:-
“12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the
occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on
circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a
case based on circumstantial evidence is that the
circumstances from which an inference of guilt is
sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly
established; that those circumstances should be of a
definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt
of the accused; that the circumstances taken
cumulatively should form a chain so complete that
there is no escape from the conclusion that within all
43human probability the crime was committed by the
accused and they should be incapable of explanation
on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the
accused and inconsistent with his innocence.”
33. The principles of circumstantial evidence is reiterated in Nizam
and another vs. State of Rajasthan, (2016) 1 SCC 550, wherein
the Supreme Court has held that:-
“8. Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the
circumstantial evidence. In a case based on
circumstantial evidence, 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, forming a chain
and there should be no gap left in the chain of
evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused totally inconsistent with his innocence.”
34. Keeping in view the principles relating to circumstantial evidence
laid down in the above judicial precedents, the circumstantial
evidence arising in the present case is now being evaluated.
35. It is noteworthy that the accused, Ravi Sharma, and the
deceased, Manju, had a love marriage, and a daughter, the
deceased Baby Nisha, was born out of their wedlock. At the time
of the incident, the child was approximately one and a half
months old. The accused, Ravi Sharma, was originally a resident
of the State of Bihar. He had come to Chhattisgarh, where he
worked as a carpenter, developed a romantic relationship with the
44
deceased Manju Sharma, and subsequently married her in a love
marriage.
36. In this regard, the prosecution has relied upon the evidence of
Rajesh Suryavanshi (PW-1), his mother Kala Suryavanshi (PW-2)
and his brother Vijay Suryavanshi (PW-4) and also evidence of
Isha Sharma (PW-3), , the daughter of deceased Manju Sharma
from her previous marriage with Mahesh Sahu.
37. From perusal of the examination-in-chief and cross-examination
of Rajesh Suryavanshi (PW-1), his mother Kala Suryavanshi
(PW-2) and his brother Vijay Suryavanshi (PW-4), it is
established that the deceased Manju had married Mahesh Sahu
six to seven years earlier, and they had a daughter named Isha. It
is further established that Manju lived with Mahesh Sahu for
about four years, during which time her younger sister Seema
married Mahesh Sahu. Manju remained unhappy over this
development. Thereafter, around 2014-2015, Manju became
acquainted with the accused Ravi. They fell in love and
subsequently married. A daughter, Baby Nisha, who was
approximately one and a half months old at the time of the
incident, was born from this marriage.
38. From the testimony of Rajesh Suryavanshi (PW-1), it also
appears that after the love marriage, the accused Ravi Sharma
had already been planning to kill his sister. This inference is
drawn from the fact that when his niece Isha Sharma (PW-3) had
gone to stay with her mother in Talpuri, she witnessed the
45
accused quarrelling with her mother and attempting to hang her
by tying a scarf around her neck.
39. The testimony of all the above witnesses remained unshaken
during cross-examination to the effect that, at about 5:30 a.m. on
the date of the incident, the accused Ravi Sharma called Kala
Suryavanshi on her mobile phone using the mobile phone
ordinarily used by his wife Manju. He told her to go to Talpuri and
see what had happened to her daughter and son-in-law. Kala
Suryavanshi immediately recognized the accused’s voice. When
he called again, Rajesh Suryavanshi (PW-1) spoke to him, and
the accused again said that they should go to Talpuri and see
what had happened. Railway station announcements could be
heard in the background during the call. Thereafter, Kala
Suryavanshi and her younger son Vijay went to Talpuri, from
where Vijay telephoned Rajesh and called him to the spot. Upon
arrival, they found Vijay, Kala Suryavanshi, and others
extinguishing a burning body inside the house. They observed
that the body’s hands and legs were tied with cellophane tape. Its
head and face were placed over the gas stove, and the abdomen
had been burned. The deceased was later identified as N. Raju.
Similarly, the body of Manju Sharma was found lying dead with
both hands tied with cellophane tape. Her infant daughter was
also lying dead on the bed, and both appeared to have died due
to strangulation. The testimony of Rajesh Suryavanshi further
establishes that a message written in chalk above the door stated
46
that the writer’s brother had committed suicide because of Manju,
and therefore he was killing Manju and her husband. The name
“Sanjay” was written beneath the message. The witnesses also
confirmed that the police arrived at the scene, recorded the
Dehati Nalishi (preliminary report), and subsequently registered
unnatural death reports at Bhilai Nagar Police Station concerning
the deaths of Manju Sharma, Kumari Tanishka Sharma, and the
unidentified male, marked as Exhibits P-2, P-3, and P-4,
respectively.
40. From perusal of the testimony of Isha Sharma (PW-3) clearly
establishes that Ravi Sharma was her stepfather. Her testimony
also remained unshaken during cross-examination that, on the
date of the incident, while she was sleeping at her grandmother’s
house, a call came on her grandmother’s mobile phone at around
5:30-6:00 a.m. Since her grandmother was in the bathroom, she
answered the call and immediately recognized the caller’s voice
as that of her stepfather, Ravi Sharma, who informed her that her
daughter and son-in-law were burning at Talpuri. She then
handed the phone over to her maternal uncle, Rajesh
Suryavanshi. Although she admitted in cross-examination that
her mother and the accused generally lived happily whenever she
stayed with them, her statement that remained unchallenged was
that about two to three months before the incident, when she had
gone to stay with them in Talpuri, she saw Ravi Sharma beating
her mother and tightening a scarf around her neck. This indicates
47
that the accused Ravi Sharma used to assault the deceased
Manju Sharma.
41. Upon an overall appreciation of the oral, documentary, medical,
scientific, and electronic evidence on record, this Court finds that
the prosecution has succeeded in establishing a complete and
unbroken chain of circumstances which points only towards the
guilt of the appellant Ravi Sharma and is wholly inconsistent with
any hypothesis of his innocence.
42. The medical evidence conclusively establishes that all three
deceased–Smt. Manju Sharma, Kumari Nisha Sharma, and N.
Raju–died a homicidal death due to asphyxia. The bodies of
Manju Sharma and N. Raju were found with their mouths, hands,
and, in certain cases, legs bound with adhesive tape, while Baby
Nisha was found dead alongside her mother. The evidence
further proves that the fire was set after the deaths had occurred
and was not the cause of death.
43. The evidence of Rajesh Suryavanshi (PW-1), Kala Suryavanshi
(PW-2), Vijay Suryavanshi (PW-4), and Isha Sharma (PW-3)
consistently establishes that between 5:30 a.m. and 6:00 a.m. on
21.01.2020, calls were received from the mobile phone of
deceased Manju Sharma informing the family that Manju and her
husband were burning. Their testimony is fully corroborated by
the Call Detail Records, which prove that calls were in fact made
from mobile number 9893264081 to mobile number 6263412823
at 5:46 a.m., 5:53 a.m., and 5:56 a.m. The recovery of Manju’s
48
mobile phone from the possession of the appellant immediately
after the incident conclusively establishes that it was the
appellant who made those calls after the commission of the
offences.
44. The prosecution has further proved that the appellant absconded
immediately after the incident and was apprehended at Rourkela
on the following day. His conduct in leaving the place of
occurrence without informing the authorities and his possession
of a railway ticket dated 21.01.2020 for travel from Durg to
Tatanagar constitute relevant incriminating circumstances
consistent with his attempt to flee after committing the offences.
45. The memorandum statement made by the appellant under
Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act led to the recovery of highly
incriminating articles, including the mobile phones, the remaining
roll of adhesive tape, the wrapper of Alprax 0.5 tablets, and the
railway ticket. The recovery of these articles pursuant to the
appellant’s disclosure lends substantial assurance to the
prosecution case.
46. The Forensic Science Laboratory report establishes that the
adhesive tape recovered from the appellant possessed identical
physical characteristics to the tape used for binding the
deceased. The recovery of the remaining tape roll from the
appellant, coupled with the FSL opinion, constitutes a strong
incriminating circumstance directly connecting him with the
commission of the crime.
49
47. The recovery of the Alprax 0.5 medicine wrapper at the instance
of the appellant, together with the medical opinion that excessive
consumption of the drug can render a person unconscious,
corroborates the prosecution case that the victims were first
incapacitated before being restrained and killed.
48. The prosecution has also successfully proved that the false
message written on the door of the house, purporting to implicate
an unknown person named “Sanjay,” was authored by the
appellant himself. The handwriting expert’s opinion, which
remained unrebutted, establishes that the questioned writing
matched the appellant’s specimen handwriting. This circumstance
clearly demonstrates a deliberate attempt by the appellant to
fabricate a false defence and divert suspicion.
49. The evidence further establishes that after committing the
murders, the appellant attempted to create an impression that he
himself had died in the incident by placing the body of N. Raju
inside the house, setting it on fire, and making telephone calls to
the deceased’s relatives stating that Manju and her husband were
burning. This conduct unmistakably reveals a calculated attempt
to destroy evidence and screen himself from criminal liability.
50. The appellant has failed to furnish any plausible explanation
regarding the recovery of Manju’s mobile phone from his
possession, the calls made from that phone immediately after the
murders, the recovery of the adhesive tape and Alprax wrapper at
his instance, the handwriting on the door, or his abscondence
50
immediately after the occurrence. These facts were especially
within his knowledge, and his failure to explain them provides an
additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
51. Although the alleged CCTV footage has rightly been discarded by
the Trial Court for want of proper proof, the remaining evidence is
independently sufficient to establish the prosecution case beyond
reasonable doubt. The exclusion of the CCTV evidence does not
weaken the otherwise complete chain of circumstances.
52. Accordingly, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that on 21.01.2020, at Quarter No. 20-
N, Parijat Colony, B-Block, Talpuri, Bhilai, the appellant Ravi
Sharma intentionally administered sleeping tablets to the
deceased, restrained them by tying their hands, legs, and mouths
with adhesive tape, and thereafter caused the deaths of Smt.
Manju Sharma, Kumari Nisha Sharma, and N. Raju by asphyxia.
53. Thus, upon a comprehensive re-appreciation of the entire oral,
documentary, medical, scientific, and electronic evidence
available on record, this Court is satisfied that the prosecution
has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant Ravi
Sharma committed the murders of Smt. Manju Sharma, Baby
Nisha Sharma, and N. Raju and thereafter attempted to destroy
the evidence of the offence by setting fire to the body of N. Raju
and creating false circumstances to portray himself as a victim.
The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete, cogent, and
consistent only with the guilt of the appellant, excluding every
51
reasonable hypothesis of innocence. The conviction of the
appellant under Section 302 IPC (three counts) and Section 201
IPC, as recorded by the Trial Court, therefore warrants no
interference.
54. The only question that remains for consideration is the
appropriate sentence. While the offences committed by the
appellant are undoubtedly grave, involving the brutal murder of
his wife, his one-and-a-half-month-old infant daughter, and an
innocent third person, sentencing jurisprudence requires the
Court to determine whether the case falls within the category of
the “rarest of rare” cases warranting the extreme penalty of
death. The death penalty is to be imposed only when the
alternative option of life imprisonment is unquestionably
foreclosed and the possibility of reformation or rehabilitation is
completely ruled out.
55. In Machi Singh vs. State of Punjab (1983) 3 SCC 470 , the Apex
Court has held that :
“1. When the murder is committed in an extremely
brutal, grotesque diabolical, revolting, or dastardly
manner so as to arouse intense and extreme
indignation of the community. For instance, (i) when
the house of the victim is set aflame with the end in
view to roast him alive in the house, (ii) when the
victim is subjected to inhuman acts of torture or
cruelty in order to bring about his or her death, (iii)
when the body of the victim is cut into pieces or his
body is dismembered in a fiendish manner.
52
2. When the murder is committed for a motive which
evince total depravity and meanness. For instance
when (a) a hired assassin commits murder for the
sake of money or reward (b) a cold blooded murder
is committed with a deliberate design in order to
inherit property or to gain control over property of a
ward or a person under the control of the murderer
or vis-Ã -vis whom the murderer is in a dominating
position or in a position of trust. (c) a murder is
committed in the course for betrayal of the
motherland.
3. When murder of a Scheduled Caste or minority
community etc., is committed not for personal
reasons but in circumstances which arouse social
wrath. For instance when such a crime is committed
in order to terrorize such persons and frighten them
into fleeing from a place or in order to deprive them
or, make them with a view to reverse past injustices
and in order to restore the social balance.
4. In cases of ”bride burning’ and what are known as
”dowry-deaths’ or when murder is committed in
order to remarry for the sake of extracting dowry
once again or to marry another woman on account
of infatuation.
5. When the crime is enormous in proportion. For
instance when multiple murders say of all or almost
all the members of a family or a large number of
persons of a particular caste, community, or locality,
are committed.
6. When the victim of murder is (a) an innocent child
who could not have or has not provided even an
excuse, much less a provocation, for murder, (b) a
53helpless woman or a person rendered helpless by
old age or infirmity, (c) a person vis-Ã -vis whom the
murderer is in a position of domination or trust, (d) a
public figure generally loved and respected by the
community for the services rendered by him and the
murder is committed for political or similarly reasons
other than personal reasons.”
56. In Ravji vs. State of Rajasthan : (1996) 2 SCC 175, where the
Apex Court held that it is only characteristics relating to crime,
and not to criminal, which are relevant for sentencing. The Apex
Court observed as follows :-
“The crimes had been committed with utmost cruelty
and brutality without any provocation, in a calculated
manner. It is the nature and gravity of the crime but
not the criminal, which are germane for consideration
of appropriate punishment in a criminal trial. The
Court will be failing in its duty if appropriate
punishment is not awarded for a crime which has
been committed not only against the individual victim
but also against the society to which the criminal and
victim belong. The punishment to be awarded for a
crime must not be irrelevant but it should conform to
and be consistent with the attrocity and brutality with
which the crime has been perpetrated, the enormity
of the crime warranting public abhorrence and it
should ”respond to the society’s cry to justice against
the criminal’.”
57. In Swamy Shraddananda (2) vs. State of Karnataka: (2008) 13
SCC 767, the Apex Court observed:
54
“The inability of the criminal justice system to deal
with all major crimes equally effectively and the want
of uniformity in the sentencing process by the Court
lead to a marked imbalance in the end results. On the
one hand there appears a small band of cases in
which the murder convict is sent to the gallows on
confirmation of his death penalty by this Court and on
the other hand there is a much wider area of cases in
which the offender committing murder of a similar or
a far more revolting kind is spared his life due to lack
of consistency by the Court is giving punishments or
worse the offender is allowed to slip away
unpunished on account of the deficiencies in the
criminal justice system.”
58. In Raj Kumar v. State of Madhya Pradesh, (2014) 5 SCC 353, a
case concerning the rape and murder of a 14 years old girl, the
Apex Court directed the appellant therein to serve a minimum of
35 years in jail without remission.
59. In Selvam v. State : (2014) 12 SCC 274, the Apex Court imposed
a sentence of 30 years in jail without remission in a case
concerning the rape of a 9 year old girl.
60. In Tattu Lodhi v. State of MP, (2016) 9 SCC 675, where the
accused was found guilty of committing the murder of a minor girl
aged 7 years, the Apex Court imposed the sentence of
imprisonment for life with a direction not to release the accused
from prison till he completes the period of 25 years of
imprisonment.
55
61. In Sachin Kumar Singhraha v State of MP : (2019) 8 SCC 371,
where the accused was sentenced capital punishment for the
offence of rape and murder of 5 year girl, the Apex Court
converted the sentence into life imprisonment for 25 years
without remission and has observed:
“Life imprisonment is the rule to which the death
penalty is the exception. The death sentence must
be imposed only when life imprisonment appears to
be an altogether inappropriate punishment, having
regard to the relevant facts and circumstances of the
crime.”
62. The Apex Court in the case of Mohd. Firoz vs. State of Madhya
Pradesh (Criminal Appeal No. 612 of 2019, decided on
19.04.2022) has commuted the death sentence imposed on man
for rape and murder of 4 year old girl to life imprisonment. Para-
43 of the aforesaid order dated 19.04.2022 reads as under :-
“43. Considering the above, we, while affirming the
view taken by the courts below with regard to the
conviction of the appellant for the offences charged
against him, deem it proper to commute, and
accordingly commute the sentence of death for the
sentence of imprisonment for life, for the offence
punishable under Section 302 IPC. Since, Section
376A IPC is also applicable to the facts of the case,
considering the gravity and seriousness of the
offence, the sentence of imprisonment for the
remainder of appellant’s natural life would have been
an appropriate sentence, however, we are reminded
of what Oscar Wilde has said – “The only difference
56between the saint and the sinner is that every
saint has a past and every sinner has a future”.
One of the basic principles of restorative justice as
developed by this Court over the years, also is to give
an opportunity to the offender to repair the damage
caused, and to become a socially useful individual,
when he is released from the jail. The maximum
punishment prescribed may not always be the
determinative factor for repairing the crippled psyche
of the offender. Hence, while balancing the scales of
retributive justice and restorative justice, we deem it
appropriate to impose upon the appellant-accused,
the sentence of imprisonment for a period of twenty
years instead of imprisonment for the remainder of his
natural life for the offence under section 376A, IPC.
The conviction and sentence recorded by the courts
below for the other offences under IPC and POCSO
Act are affirmed. It is needless to say that all the
punishments imposed shall run concurrently.”
63. Having considered the aggravating and mitigating circumstances
in their entirety, this Court is of the view that although the crime is
exceptionally heinous and displays considerable planning and
brutality, the circumstances do not justify the irreversible
punishment of death. At the same time, considering the nature of
the offences, the multiple murders, the attempt to fabricate
evidence, and the betrayal of the trust reposed by the deceased
wife, the ordinary sentence of imprisonment for life subject to
statutory remission would be grossly inadequate and would not
meet the ends of justice.
57
64. In the peculiar facts and circumstances of the present case, this
Court is satisfied that the interests of justice would be adequately
served by substituting the sentence of death with imprisonment
for life for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life, without
remission or premature release, subject only to any constitutional
powers exercisable under Articles 72 and 161 of the Constitution
of India. Such a sentence strikes an appropriate balance between
the gravity of the crime and the principles governing capital
sentencing.
65. Consequently, the conviction of the appellant Ravi Sharma under
Section 302 IPC (three counts) and Section 201 IPC is affirmed.
However, the sentence of death awarded under Section 302 IPC
on all three counts is modified and substituted with imprisonment
for life for the remainder of his natural life without remission,
meaning that the appellant shall remain in prison for the rest of
his natural life and shall not be entitled to statutory remission or
premature release. The sentence imposed under Section 201
IPC, along with the fine and default stipulation, is maintained. All
the substantive sentences shall run concurrently.
66. The reference (CRREF No. 2/2026) made by the learned Trial
Court for confirmation of the death sentence is, accordingly,
answered in the negative and stands rejected.
67. The CRA No. 1699/2026 is partly allowed only to the extent of
modification of the sentence. The conviction is affirmed, but
the sentence of death is commuted to imprisonment for life
58
for the remainder of the appellant’s natural life without
remission, subject to the constitutional powers of the President
of India and the Governor of the State under Articles 72 and 161
of the Constitution of India.
68. The Registrar (Judicial) is directed to send a duly attested copy of
this judgment to the concerned Court of Session as mandated
under Section 371 of the CrPC for needful. He is also 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 assistant of
High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court
Legal Services Committee.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Chandra
59
Head-Note
Capital punishment can only be awarded in very exceptional and
rarest of the rare cases, which is lacking in present case, accordingly,
death sentence awarded to the appellant is commuted to imprisonment
for life by directing that the life sentence must extend to the
imprisonment for remainder of the appellant’s natural life without
remission.
