The High Court of Chhattisgarh, while upholding the life sentence for a man convicted of a minor’s murder, has strongly observed that a trial court cannot ignore “overwhelming evidence” of sexual assault and convict an accused solely for the homicidal act.
A Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru stated that a judgment must “record the conviction for all offences established by evidence,” and found that the trial court’s failure to convict on rape and POCSO charges in this case “reflects a misappreciation of the evidence.”
The Court made these observations while dismissing a criminal appeal (CRA No. 143 of 2025), confirming the appellant’s conviction for the 2022 murder (Section 302, IPC) and destruction of evidence (Section 201, IPC) of a 12-year-old girl. The bench also noted it was “indeed unfortunate” that the State had not appealed the acquittals on the sexual assault charges.
Background of the Case
The appeal challenged the judgment dated 21.11.2024 from the Special Judge (F.T.S.C), Sakti, District Janjgir-Champa. The trial court had convicted the appellant for murder (302 IPC) and destroying evidence (201 IPC) but acquitted him of charges including Kidnapping (363 IPC), Kidnapping in order to murder (364 IPC), Rape on a minor (376(3) IPC), and Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.
The prosecution case was that on the intervening night of February 28 and March 1, 2022, the appellant (aged 21) lured the 12-year-old victim from her home, made her consume pesticide, and committed rape. To ensure her death, he allegedly “climbed onto her chest, slit her throat,” placed a suicide note in her pocket to mislead police, and threw her body in a pond. The victim’s body was found on March 3, 2022.
Submissions of the Parties
Appellant’s Arguments: Mr. Hari Agrawal, learned counsel for the appellant, argued the conviction rested on circumstantial evidence and the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain. The defence’s main point was a “fundamental contradiction” between the postmortem report (cause of death as “asphyxia due to strangulation”) and the FSL report (which found “presence of pesticide”). Mr. Agrawal also contended that the appellant’s memorandum statements were unreliable as seizure witnesses turned hostile.
State’s Arguments: Mr. Shashank Thakur, learned Deputy Advocate General, supported the conviction, stating the prosecution proved a “complete chain of circumstances.” He argued there was no contradiction in the medical evidence, as the “combined findings support the prosecution version that the deceased was not only administered poison but was also subjected to violence and strangulation.”
High Court’s Analysis and Decision
The High Court, in its judgment authored by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha, conducted a “meticulous re-appraisal of the entire evidence.”
1. High Court on “Misappreciation of Evidence” by Trial Court The High Court’s strongest observations were directed at the trial court’s acquittal on the POCSO and rape charges. The bench stated, “…we are constrained to note that the trial Court, despite the overwhelming medical and circumstantial evidence, has erred in acquitting the appellant of the grave charges under Sections 363, 364, 376(3) IPC as well as Sections 4 and 6 of the POCSO Act.”
The judgment found the medical evidence “unmistakably demonstrate” that the victim was subjected to “brutal and forcible sexual assault,” citing findings of “extensive vulval swelling, deep lacerations and tearing of the vaginal canal with clotted blood.” The Court ruled these injuries were “wholly inconsistent with accidental or postmortem changes and are medically characteristic of violent penetrative assault.”
The bench also lamented the State’s inaction, noting: “It is indeed unfortunate that, notwithstanding such grave findings, the State has not preferred any appeal challenging the appellant’s acquittal under the aforesaid provisions.”
2. On Homicidal Death The High Court affirmed the trial court’s finding that the death was homicidal. It addressed the defence’s “poison vs. strangulation” argument directly, holding: “It is neither necessary nor inevitable that the finding of poison in the body is mutually exclusive of the occurrence of antemortem mechanical asphyxia.”
The bench relied on medical testimony (PW-30, PW-32) and the postmortem report (Ex.P-4), which highlighted “fractures of the larynx and trachea” and “blood clots in the platysma” as “classical signs” of manual strangulation that “cannot be satisfactorily explained by… the presence of poison alone.”
3. On Appellant’s Culpability and Motive The Court found the prosecution had established a “strong and proximate motive.” It relied on the testimonies of the deceased’s sisters (PW-7, PW-21) and grandmother (PW-38). The judgment noted, “PW-21 has further deposed that the deceased had told her that the accused had categorically warned her that in the event she stopped talking to him or meeting him, he would kill her.”
Regarding the suicide note (Ex.D-1), which the handwriting expert confirmed was the victim’s, the Court held it “does not dilute the prosecution case.” The judgment found that relations had “significantly deteriorated” since the note was written and that the appellant “attempted to camouflage the offence as a suicide” by planting it.
Final Order Concluding that the prosecution proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the High Court found “no illegality or infirmity in the findings recorded by the trial Court warranting interference.”
The criminal appeal was “dismissed.” The appellant, in jail since March 5, 2022, “shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.”
