The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed a criminal appeal filed by an appellant convicted of a double murder, affirming the life imprisonment sentence awarded by the trial court. The Division Bench, comprising Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, held that the prosecution successfully established an unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, including motive, extra-judicial confession, and forensic corroboration, linking the appellant to the brutal killing of a woman and her minor daughter.
Background of the Case
The appellant, Vicky @ Sukhiram Yadav, was convicted by the Special Judge under the Atrocities Act and Additional Sessions Judge, Raipur, on July 19, 2022. He was found guilty under Sections 302 (two counts) and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The incident occurred on the night of January 22, 2021, near Jora Maidan in Raipur.
The prosecution’s case was that the deceased, Roma Yadav, had previously lodged a rape case against the appellant, for which he had been jailed. After his release on bail, Roma began pressurizing him to marry her, threatening him with conviction in the pending case if he refused. On the night of the incident, the appellant met Roma and her minor daughter, Mahira. Following a dispute over the marriage and the withdrawal of the court case, the appellant slit Roma’s neck with a knife. He then placed the minor child, Mahira, on a nearby railway track in a semi-conscious state, where she was run over by a goods train.
Arguments of the Parties
Counsel for the Appellant: Mr. Sudeep Johri argued that the conviction was based purely on circumstantial evidence and an alleged extra-judicial confession, which he claimed lacked cogent corroboration. He contended that the witnesses were “interested and related village witnesses” and that the chain of circumstances was incomplete. Furthermore, he argued that if the incident did occur, it was under “grave emotional disturbance and loss of self-control,” suggesting the offence should be mitigated to culpable homicide not amounting to murder under Section 304 IPC.
Counsel for the State: Ms. Vaishali Mahilong, Deputy Government Advocate, submitted that the motive was clearly established through the testimony of the victim’s father (PW-01), who stated the appellant had explicitly threatened to kill the deceased. She emphasized the reliability of the extra-judicial confession made to the former Sarpanch (PW-02) and highlighted the forensic evidence, including the FSL report (Ex.P/58) confirming human blood on the seized knife and the appellant’s clothes, and the DNA report (Ex.P/59) establishing biological links between the parties.
The Court’s Analysis
The Court meticulously evaluated the evidence across five formulated questions. On the nature of the deaths, the Court relied on medical testimony from Dr. M. Nirala (PW-06). Regarding Roma Yadav, the Court noted:
“The death of Roma Yadav was homicidal in nature and the cause of death was haemorrhage and shock resulting from stab injuries caused by a sharp-edged weapon.”
Regarding the minor child, the medical evidence confirmed “severe crush injuries” consistent with being run over by a train.
On the validity of circumstantial evidence, the Court cited the “Panchsheel” principles established in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984). It found the motive well-established, noting that the appellant was frustrated by the pressure to marry Roma. The Court observed:
“The circumstances proved on record are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.”
The Bench also upheld the admissibility of the discovery of the blood-stained knife and clothes under Section 27 of the Evidence Act, stating that the Investigating Officer’s testimony was trustworthy. It dismissed the appellant’s pleas of sudden provocation and insanity, noting:
“The acts attributed to the appellant clearly reveal awareness, intention and conscious conduct. The appellant’s prior threats, the manner of assault, the subsequent abandonment of the child… are wholly inconsistent with the plea of legal insanity.”
Decision
The High Court concluded that the prosecution had proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. The Court remarked on the “extreme brutality and barbaric manner” of the crime, specifically the abandonment of a minor on a railway track.
Affirming the conviction, the Court stated:
“The failure of the appellant to furnish any plausible explanation in his statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. further lends additional assurance to the prosecution case.”
The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant’s life sentence was affirmed.
Case Details:
- Case Title: Vicky @ Sukhiram Yadav vs. State of Chhattisgarh
- Case No.: CRA No. 631 of 2023
- Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
- Date: May 11, 2026
