The High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur Bench has emphasised that in a case resting entirely on circumstantial evidence, conviction can be sustained where the prosecution proves a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances, including last seen evidence, duly proved electronic evidence, recovery pursuant to disclosure, medical evidence of homicidal death, and failure of the accused to explain facts within his special knowledge, which excludes every hypothesis consistent with innocence.
The Court held that electronic evidence such as CCTV footage and call detail records is admissible and can form a substantive link in the chain of circumstances if the mandatory requirements of Section 65B of the Evidence Act are complied with through proper certification and proof of chain of custody. Further, recovery of the dead body at the instance of the accused pursuant to a memorandum statement is a strong incriminating circumstance under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, particularly where the location of the body was concealed and within the exclusive knowledge of the accused.
However, the Court clarified that for sentencing, death penalty cannot be upheld merely because the crime is brutal or heinous. The court said it must determine, on a proper balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, that life imprisonment is unquestionably foreclosed. In the absence of such a finding, the death sentence is unsustainable and liable to be commuted. Where the case does not meet the “rarest of rare” threshold, but the offence remains grave, the court may commute the death sentence to imprisonment for life for the remainder of the convict’s natural life.
The Division Bench comprising the Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal expressly noted that there was no direct ocular evidence and that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence. It therefore examined whether the circumstances were firmly established and formed a complete chain excluding innocence. The Bench accepted the testimony of PW-2 and PW-6 as reliable on the “last seen together” circumstance, holding that the deceased was seen with the accused shortly before her disappearance and that their evidence remained intact in cross-examination.
The Bench also held that the CCTV footage and CDRs were duly proved and admissible, supported by certificates under Section 65B of the Evidence Act. It rejected the defence argument that the electronic evidence was inadmissible for want of proper certification. Further, the Bench treated the recovery of the dead body pursuant to the accused’s memorandum statement as a highly incriminating circumstance admissible under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, especially because the place of concealment was a secluded area and knowledge of it was attributed to the accused.
The Bench observed that the medical evidence conclusively established homicidal death and was consistent with violent assault. It relied on the post-mortem and medical testimony as an important scientific link in the chain of circumstances. At the same time, the Bench drew an adverse inference from the accused’s failure, in his Section 313 statement, to explain how the deceased, who was last seen in his company, disappeared and was later found dead, or how he knew the place where the body was concealed.
On cumulative assessment, the Bench held that the prosecution had proved a complete and coherent chain of circumstances pointing only to the accused’s guilt and affirmed conviction under Sections 364, 376 and 302 IPC. It acknowledged that the post-mortem report did not record definitive forensic indicators such as semen detection or specific genital injuries expressly proving recent sexual intercourse. However, it held that absence of such findings was not by itself fatal, and that the totality of circumstances could sustain conviction under Section 376 IPC.
The Bench held that although the offence was grave, heinous and socially abhorrent, the trial court had not meaningfully undertaken the required balancing of aggravating and mitigating circumstances, nor recorded why life imprisonment was unquestionably foreclosed. Therefore, finding that the case did not satisfy the “rarest of rare” threshold, the Bench confirmed the conviction, but commuted the death sentence to imprisonment for life for the remainder of the natural life of the accused, without remission subject to constitutional clemency powers.
Briefly, the matter comprised of: (i) a death reference under Section 366 CrPC / corresponding Section 407 BNSS for confirmation of the death sentence awarded by the trial court; and (ii) the accused’s criminal appeal challenging conviction and sentence. The accused, Shankar Nishad, had been convicted by the Special Judge for offences under Sections 364, 376 and 302 IPC. The Trial court imposed the death sentence for the offences under Sections 376 and 302 IPC, and also awarded sentence under Section 364 IPC.
The prosecution case was that the deceased, aged about 25 years and employed as a peon in the Family Court at Bemetara, had come to her native village on leave. On Aug 14, 2022, she left home on her Scooty for Bemetara but did not reach there, whereupon her father lodged a missing report on the next day. During inquiry, suspicion arose against the accused, who was known to the deceased. Statements of family members and call detail records / customer application forms were relied upon to show that the accused had been in regular contact with the deceased.
The prosecution relied on electronic evidence, including CCTV footage supported by Section 65B certificates, to show that on Aug 14, 2022, the accused was seen taking the deceased as a pillion rider on her Scooty towards Palgada Valley area and was seen returning alone. The victim’s phone was also stated to have been switched off. The accused’s memorandum statement under Section 27 of the Evidence Act led to recovery of the dead body. The body was identified by relatives, and the spot map, inquest, and seizure memos were prepared. The Scooty and helmet were also seized.
Post-mortem and medical evidence established homicidal death. The prosecution also relied on forensic examination, DNA analysis, mobile phone analysis, CDRs, and other electronic evidence. The Trial court had framed the prosecution case under Sections 364, 376, 302 and 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the SC/ST Act, but eventually acquitted the accused under Section 201 IPC and Section 3(2)(v) of the Atrocities Act, while convicting him under Sections 364, 376 and 302 IPC.
Appearances:
Shashank Thakur, Additional Advocate General assisted by Anusha Naik, Deputy Government Advocate, for the Applicant/ State
Advocate Ankit Pandey, for the Non-applicant
