The case revolves around the murder of Prakash Sharma in Raipur, Chhattisgarh, on April 16, 2018. The prosecution’s case alleges that Amrit Sharma, the cousin of the deceased, conspired with three others—Bhojraj Nand, Anil Kumar Behra, and Chitrasen Behra—to kidnap Prakash for ransom but accidentally killed him in the process. They intended to extort ₹2 crores from Prakash’s father, Satyanarayan Sharma, but the plan went wrong when they chloroformed Prakash, leading to his death by asphyxia. All accused were convicted by the Sixth Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, under Sections 302 (murder), 120B (criminal conspiracy), and 34 (acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Key Legal Issues Involved:
1. Conspiracy to Commit Murder: Whether the appellants had premeditatedly conspired to kill Prakash Sharma as part of their ransom plan.
2. Admissibility of Circumstantial Evidence: The prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence, raising the question of whether the chain of circumstances was strong enough to convict the accused beyond a reasonable doubt.
3. Application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act: Whether the burden of proof for facts specifically within the knowledge of the accused, particularly regarding the presence of the dead body in Amrit Sharma’s rented room, shifted to the accused.
Court’s Observations and Decision:
A division bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed the appeals and upheld the trial court’s decision, holding that the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
1. Circumstantial Evidence:
The court reiterated the well-established principles regarding circumstantial evidence, quoting from several Supreme Court judgments. The key observation was that circumstantial evidence must form a chain so complete that it leaves no room for any hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. The Court observed:
“The circumstances must be fully established, and all the facts must be so consistent with the hypothesis of guilt that they negate any possibility of innocence.”
The court held that the prosecution had successfully established this chain, dismissing the appellants’ argument that the circumstantial evidence did not conclusively point to their guilt.
2. Role of the Accused:
The Court specifically noted that Amrit Sharma’s explanations about unknown assailants entering his house and tying him up, along with his cousin, were unconvincing. The fact that the body of the deceased was found in Amrit’s room placed the burden of proof upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The Court stated:
“Since the dead body of Prakash Sharma was found in the rented room of accused Amrit Sharma, the burden of proving facts within his exclusive knowledge rested on him, as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act.”
The court dismissed Amrit’s version of events as fabricated, pointing to inconsistencies and the absence of corroborative evidence.
3. Memorandum Statements and Recovery:
The Court also addressed the appellants’ arguments that the recoveries of incriminating articles, including the chloroform bottle and stolen mobile phones, were made on the basis of inadmissible memorandum statements. The Court rejected these claims, referring to the jurisprudence around Section 27 of the Evidence Act, stating that the discovery of facts leading to the recovery of physical evidence was admissible.
4. Motive and Conspiracy:
The Court found sufficient evidence to prove that the appellants had a motive to conspire against Prakash Sharma for financial gain. Witness testimonies established that Amrit Sharma had asked for money from the family before and had planned to kidnap Prakash for ransom. The court held that:
“The accused acted in furtherance of a well-laid conspiracy with a clear motive of extorting money from the deceased’s family.”
The Chhattisgarh High Court affirmed the life sentences handed down by the trial court, concluding that the prosecution had proven its case beyond a reasonable doubt through a strong chain of circumstantial evidence, establishing the conspiracy and murder of Prakash Sharma by the accused.
