LexTHE STATE OF CHATTISGARH versus ASHOK BHOI ETC.
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2025] 2 S.C.R. 1785 : 2025 INSC 256 The State of Chattisgarh v. Ashok Bhoi Etc. (Criminal Appeal No(s). 1258-1259 of 2015) 27 February 2025 [Bela M. Trivedi and Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.] Issue for Consideration Whether the High Court was justified in allowing the criminal appeal preferred by accused-respondent and dismissing acquittal appeal preferred by the State, thereby acquitting both the accused persons. Headnotes† Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – Whether the prosecution established entire chain of circumstances to prove the guilt of the accused persons as the case is based on Circumstantial Evidence – Correctness: Held: The entire case of the prosecution hinged on the circumstantial evidence, there was no eye-witness to the alleged incident – So far as accused-AB is concerned, prosecution relied on evidence of PW-18, who had seen the deceased alongwith the accused at the date of incident and reliance has also been placed on the recovery of the blade and nails & T-shirt with blood stains made at the instance of the accused-AB – The entire theory of “last seen together” is based on Section 106 of the Evidence Act – It is also true that if the prosecution proves by leading reliable evidence that the accused was last seen with the deceased, the burden would be shifted on the accused to explain the said incriminating evidence, said evidence alone would not be sufficient to hold him guilty of the alleged offence – The accused’s failure to present evidence on his behalf may be treated by the court as confirming the presumptions that may arise therefrom, nonetheless, that presumption alone, taking recourse to Section 106, would not be sufficient to convict an accused – Moreover, the recovery of blade, nails and T-shirt with blood stains after two days of the incident also does not inspire any confidence, thus, the prosecution failed to establish entire chain of circumstances that would lead to the guilt of the accused – There was no evidence whatsoever produced by the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused-V or to connect 1786 [2025] 2 S.C.R. Supreme Court Reports him with the alleged crime therefore, the High Court has rightly confirmed the judgment of acquittal for V – Thus, the High Court having rightly appreciated the evidence as well as the legal position, we do not find any illegality or infirmity in the judgment passed by High Court. [Paras 6, 8, 9, 10, 11] List of Acts Penal Code, 1860; Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. List of Keywords Circumstantial Evidence; Last seen theory; Prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. Case Arising From CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No(s). 1258-1259 of 2015 From the Judgment and Order dated 19.10.2012 of the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRA No. 601 of 2007 and AA No. 1 of 2009 Appearances for Parties Advs. for the Appellant: Ravi Sharma, D.A.G., Prashant Singh. Advs. for the Respondents: Rajeev Kumar Bansal, Arun Kumar Arunachal, Vikas Singh Jangra. Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court Judgment 1. The present set of two appeals have been filed by the State of Chhattisgarh challenging the impugned common judgment and order passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in Criminal Appeal No.601 of 2007 and Acquittal Appeal No.1 of 2009, whereby the High Court has allowed the Criminal Appeal No.601 of 2007 filed by the respondent – accused – Ashok Bhoi, and has acquitted him from the charges levelled against him, and dismissed the Acquittal Appeal No.1 of 2009 preferred by the State against the acquittal of the respondent – accused – Vikash Khubwani. [2025] 2 S.C.R. 1787 The State of Chattisgarh v. Ashok Bhoi Etc. 2. As per the case of the prosecution, the PW-1 – Uttamlal had two sons - Swapnil and Suhash (deceased). On 15.01.2006, Swapnil had gone somewhere out and had not returned, and therefore, the father- Uttamlal (PW-1) sent his second son - Suhash to find him out. After sometime, Swapnil came back home, however, Suhash did not return. At about 9.00 p.m., a telephone call was received on the mobile phone of Swapnil, demanding a ransom of Rs.2 lakhs for getting Suhash back. Since Suhash did not return home, an F.I.R. was lodged by the father – Uttamlal in the Police Station Bhilai at about 10.45 p.m. 3. It appears that there were two juvenile accused, i.e., Jivrakhan and Ukesh, who were taken into custody on the basis of suspicion and from their statemen
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.