The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Akash Kosare and Sanju Vaishnav for the abduction and murder of Hariprasad Dewangan, despite the absence of a recovered dead body. The Division Bench comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Arvind Kumar Verma dismissed the appeal filed under Section 374(2) CrPC against the judgment dated 24.02.2021 passed by the Fourth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg in Sessions Trial No. 87/2019.
Background of the Case:
The case originated from a missing person report filed by the deceased’s son Anand Dewangan at Nevai Police Station on January 18, 2019, after his father failed to return home. Investigations led to the arrest of the appellants, who confessed during interrogation to abducting and murdering Hariprasad Dewangan, subsequently burning his body in a field near village Khorpa using paddy straw.
Prosecution’s Case and Evidence:
The prosecution’s case was based entirely on circumstantial evidence. As per the prosecution, several items belonging to the deceased—including burnt bones, a tiffin box, jewelry, and personal belongings—were recovered at the instance of the accused. The remains were later subjected to forensic and DNA analysis. Though the DNA results were inconclusive due to lack of a readable DNA profile, a forensic expert testified that the bones were human and belonged to a person over 60 years of age, consistent with the age of the deceased.
The prosecution examined 20 witnesses, including the investigating officer Amit Kumar Beriya (PW-19) and forensic experts such as Dr. Snigdha Jain (PW-16) and Anupama Meshram (PW-15), to establish a chain of events pointing to the guilt of the accused.
Arguments by the Appellants:
Counsel for the appellants argued that the conviction was unsustainable due to the absence of direct evidence or eyewitnesses, and because the identification of the deceased was not conclusively established. It was further contended that the recoveries were made from open areas accessible to others, and that no reliable identification of the seized articles or the vehicle allegedly used in the crime was carried out in accordance with law.
Court’s Analysis:
The Court emphasized the well-established principles governing convictions based on circumstantial evidence, citing several precedents including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116, and Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., AIR 1990 SC 79. The Bench held that:
“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.”
The Court noted that the identification of the burnt remains was supported by consistent statements of family members who recognized the rings and other personal items of the deceased. It held that the failure to obtain a conclusive DNA match did not invalidate the circumstantial chain of evidence pointing toward the guilt of the appellants.
Relying on Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P. and Daily Administration v. Tribhuvan Nath, the Bench observed:
“In many cases it is difficult to establish ‘corpus delicti’. If the emphasis is always on recovery of the body then the accused will try very hard to destroy the body after the murder and completely escape from conviction.”
Conclusion:
The Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence proving the appellants’ involvement in the abduction, robbery, and murder of Hariprasad Dewangan. The appeal was accordingly dismissed, and the conviction and sentences imposed by the trial court—including life imprisonment under Section 302/34 IPC—were affirmed.
CITATION:
Akash Kosare & Sanju Vaishnav v. State of Chhattisgarh, CRA No. 335 of 2021
