In a significant ruling, the Chhattisgarh High Court, led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Judge Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, upheld the convictions of several individuals involved in the murder of Durgesh Panika. The court’s decision, delivered on August 20, 2024, emphasized the importance of circumstantial evidence and the principle that “suspicion, however strong, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt.”
Background of the Case
The case revolves around the murder of Durgesh Panika, whose body was discovered on August 16, 2020, near a motor pump in Harratola. The prosecution alleged that the murder was a result of a conspiracy involving the victim’s wife, Kamta Panika, and her lover, Tirath Lal Kashipuri, among others. The motive was reportedly linked to Kamta’s extramarital affair with Tirath, which led to tensions with her husband, Durgesh.
Legal Issues Involved
The primary legal issue in this case was whether the death of Durgesh Panika was homicidal and if the accused were guilty of murder based on circumstantial evidence. The trial court had convicted the appellants under Sections 302/34, 201/34, and 120B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), leading to life imprisonment sentences.
Court’s Observations and Decision
The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence, including postmortem reports, call detail records, and witness statements. The court affirmed the trial court’s finding that Durgesh’s death was homicidal and that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of circumstantial evidence proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt.
Key observations from the judgment include:
– The court highlighted the “five golden principles” of circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the chain of evidence must be complete and consistent with the guilt of the accused.
– The court noted the importance of corroborating evidence, such as the recovery of the murder weapon (a jack rod) and bloodstained clothes, which linked the accused to the crime.
– The judgment underscored that an accused cannot be convicted solely on suspicion, reiterating that proof beyond reasonable doubt is essential for a conviction.
Parties and Representation
The appellants included Dilip Sariwan, Mahendra @ Girdhari Panika, Jai Prakash Yadav, Tirath Lal Kashipuri, Pawan Singh Marco, Kamta Panika, and Ritesh Verma. They were represented by advocates Mr. Ajay Ayachi, Mr. Aman Tamrakar, Mr. Avinash Chand Sahu, Mr. Yogendra Chaturvedi, Mr. Prahalad Panda, and Mr. Dheerendra Pandey. The state was represented by Mr. R.S. Marhas, the Additional Advocate General.
