The High Court of Chhattisgarh has dismissed an appeal filed by Jitendra Dhruw, upholding his conviction and life sentence for the brutal murder of three members of a family, the attempted murder of a child, and the rape of the deceased woman in 2017. A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru concluded that the prosecution had established an “unbroken chain of circumstances” proving the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, relying critically on the testimony of the sole surviving victim, an injured eyewitness, and corroborating forensic evidence.
The appellant was challenging the judgment dated February 24, 2023, by the Additional Sessions Judge (F.T.C.), Dhamtari, who had sentenced him to life imprisonment for three counts of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), life imprisonment for rape under Section 376 IPC, and concurrent sentences for attempt to murder (Section 307), house-trespass (Section 450), theft (Section 380), and destruction of evidence (Section 201).
Background of the Case
The prosecution’s case originated from a written report lodged on July 13, 2017, by Chandrahas Sinha. According to the report, an unknown assailant broke into the house of his younger brother, Mahendra Sinha, on the night of July 12, 2017. Inside, Mahendra Sinha, his wife Usha Sinha, and their younger son Mahesh Sinha were found dead in pools of blood with grievous head injuries. Their elder son, Trilok Sinha, was found alive but severely injured.
The investigation revealed that the assailant had gained entry by breaking the latch of the room and used a hammer to commit the murders. The investigation led to the arrest of the appellant, Jitendra Kumar Dhruv. In his memorandum statement (Ex.P-18), Dhruv disclosed that he was attracted to Usha Sinha. On the night of the incident, after consuming liquor, he went to her house, entered the room, and first attacked Mahendra Sinha with a hammer. When Usha and the children awoke, he assaulted them as well. The statement further detailed that he committed rape upon the “half-dead Usha Sinha” and then stole gold and silver ornaments and cash from a cupboard before fleeing the scene.
Pursuant to his disclosure, stolen ornaments and an iron rod were seized by the police. The investigation was supported by post-mortem reports, forensic analysis of seized articles, and witness statements, leading to the filing of a charge-sheet. The trial court found the evidence sufficient to convict the appellant on all charges.
Arguments of the Parties
Before the High Court, counsel for the appellant, Mr. Paras Mani Shriwas, argued that the conviction was based on “weak and incomplete circumstantial evidence.” He contended that there was no eyewitness to the occurrence, and the appellant was arrested merely to “fill in the lacuna” in the prosecution’s case. He further submitted that the delay in the appellant’s arrest and in recording witness statements cast serious doubt on the prosecution’s version, and that the appellant’s claim of false implication was ignored by the trial court.
In response, the Government Advocate, Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, argued that the trial court’s judgment was based on a proper appreciation of evidence. He submitted that although there was no direct eyewitness, the prosecution proved its case through a “complete chain of circumstantial evidence which undoubtedly points towards the guilt of the appellant.” The state’s counsel emphasized that the recovery of stolen articles and weapons based on the appellant’s disclosure statement, admissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, directly linked him to the crime. This was further corroborated by medical reports and FSL/DNA evidence.
High Court’s Analysis and Findings
The High Court meticulously analyzed the evidence on record, first addressing whether the deaths were homicidal. The bench found the testimony of the surviving child, Trilok Sinha (PW-50), to be the “most crucial.” Trilok deposed that he was awakened by cries and “saw a person inside the room striking his father Mahendra repeatedly on the head with a hammer-like object.” He testified that his mother was also attacked, and when he tried to intervene, he was struck on his head, eyes, and ears, causing him to lose consciousness.
The Court observed that Trilok’s testimony was corroborated by the medical evidence of Dr. U.L. Kaushik (PW-39), who documented his grievous injuries, including permanent damage to his left eye. Citing Supreme Court judgments in Jarnail Singh v. State of Punjab and State of U.P. v. Naresh, the bench held, “Being both a natural witness and an injured witness, his testimony carries a presumption of truthfulness… and therefore, his account inspires full confidence.”
The post-mortem reports of the three deceased persons, prepared by Dr. Kaushik, detailed multiple, severe injuries caused by a hard and blunt object, leading the court to agree with the trial court’s finding that the deaths were unequivocally homicidal.
On the question of the appellant’s culpability, the Court identified several key circumstances:
- Identification by Injured Eyewitness: The Court found Trilok Sinha’s identification of the appellant to be a vital circumstance. Trilok, who knew the accused beforehand, not only identified him in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) but also reaffirmed the identification in court. The bench stated, “we find that the identification of the appellant by injured eyewitness Trilok Sinha (PW-50) is wholly reliable and corroborates the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.”
- Recovery of Stolen Articles and Weapon: The Court gave significant weight to the recoveries made following the appellant’s memorandum statement (Ex.P-18). Gold and silver ornaments belonging to the deceased Usha Sinha were seized. These items were later identified by family members, including Deepmala Sinha (PW-24), in a formal identification proceeding. This recovery, the Court held, “directly connects the accused with the subsequent recoveries.”
- Forensic and DNA Evidence: The judgment highlighted that FSL report (Ex.P-131) confirmed the presence of human blood on the seized hammers. Furthermore, the DNA analysis (Ex.P-134) of vaginal swabs collected from deceased Usha Sinha confirmed the presence of biological material matching the appellant. The Court noted this evidence “leaves no room for doubt that the accused had physical sexual contact with the deceased,” thereby establishing the charge of rape under Section 376 IPC.
Final Decision
Concluding its analysis, the High Court held that the prosecution had successfully established a chain of evidence pointing exclusively to the appellant’s guilt. The Court summarized its findings: “The unbroken chain of eyewitness testimony, post-mortem findings, forensic reports, memorandum statement, and recoveries conclusively establishes the accused’s guilt.”
The bench affirmed that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 (3 counts), 376, 307, 450, 380, and 201 of the IPC. Finding “no illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court,” the High Court dismissed the criminal appeal. The appellant, who has been in jail since January 31, 2018, will continue to serve his sentence.
