The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Chandrakant Nishad for the murder of three individuals, holding that a complete chain of circumstantial evidence, when unrebutted by the accused, is sufficient to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed the appeal (CRA No. 699 of 2023) filed under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure against the judgment of conviction dated 26.11.2020 passed by the 14th Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur in Sessions Trial No. 31 of 2020.
Background
The prosecution case arose from the brutal murders of Dulaurin Bai, Sonu Nishad, and Sanjay Nishad, residents of village Bana under Urla Police Station, Raipur. On October 10, 2019, police registered Rural Death Intimation No. 0/2019 based on information provided by the appellant. Subsequent FIRs were lodged under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code after it was discovered that the three deceased were killed by blunt force trauma to the head with a heavy object and their bodies were set ablaze in a room inside their residence.
During investigation, the appellant Chandrakant Nishad was taken into custody and interrogated in the presence of witnesses. He allegedly made a memorandum statement leading to the recovery of the murder weapon—a wooden stick—and clothes of deceased Sonu Nishad from the bank of the Kharun River. His blood-stained T-shirt and a TVS Jupiter scooter used during the incident were also seized.
Upon completion of investigation, the accused was charged under Sections 302 (three counts) and 201 IPC. He pleaded not guilty and claimed false implication. The trial court convicted him on all charges and sentenced him to life imprisonment on each count under Section 302 IPC and five years’ rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 IPC, with all sentences to run concurrently.
Appellant’s Arguments
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant contended that the conviction was based solely on circumstantial evidence, without any eyewitness testimony or clear motive. It was argued that the appellant was last seen with the deceased at a social gathering but there was no direct evidence linking him to the murders. The defence maintained that the accused was elsewhere at the time of the incident and had informed the police upon learning of the deaths. It was further contended that the trial court erred in relying on statements made to the police in violation of settled legal principles.
State’s Response
The State opposed the appeal, asserting that the prosecution had presented a consistent and complete chain of circumstantial evidence, including recoveries made at the instance of the accused and forensic evidence confirming the presence of human blood on the recovered items. It was argued that the appellant’s failure to explain these circumstances or provide an alternative hypothesis strongly supported the conviction.
Court’s Analysis
The High Court reaffirmed that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish each link in the chain beyond reasonable doubt. Citing the Supreme Court’s rulings in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] and C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. [(1996) 10 SCC 193], the Bench reiterated the “five golden principles” or panchsheel of circumstantial evidence. The Court observed:
“The circumstances concerned ‘must’ or ‘should’ and not ‘may be’ established… and they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.”
The Court held that the prosecution had proved the following incriminating circumstances:
- The homicidal nature of the deaths, as confirmed by post-mortem reports.
- The accused being last seen with the deceased.
- Recovery of the murder weapon and clothes based on the accused’s memorandum.
- Presence of human blood (blood group O) on the wooden stick and the accused’s T-shirt.
- Absence of any plausible explanation from the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Citing the Supreme Court’s decisions in Suresh v. State of Haryana [(2018) 18 SCC 654] and Boby v. State of Kerala [2023 SCC OnLine SC 50], the Bench emphasized that when recoveries are duly proved and the accused fails to offer a plausible explanation for being last seen with the deceased or for forensic findings, such silence is fatal to the defence.
The Court further held:
“The accused had special knowledge that the deceased were murdered and gave the above information to the police… There is no evidence which shows even the slightest possibility that the incident could have been caused by any other person.”
Conclusion
Holding that the circumstantial chain was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the appellant, the High Court concluded:
“This fact is proved beyond reasonable doubt that accused Chandrakant Nishad himself, with the intention of causing the death of the deceased, hit them on the head with a wooden stick and killed them, and with the intention of avoiding legal consequences, he poured kerosene on the bodies and set them on fire.”
Accordingly, the Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the trial court’s conviction and sentence. It directed that a copy of the judgment be sent to the trial court and to the concerned jail authority. The appellant was informed of his right to appeal to the Supreme Court with assistance from legal services authorities.
