The State Of Chhattisgarh vs Ashok Bhoi

2025 INSC 256 IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL APPEAL NOS.1258-1259 OF 2015

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH …APPELLANT(S)

VERSUS

ASHOK BHOI ETC. …RESPONDENT(S)

J U D G M E N T

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.

2. As per the case of the prosecution, the PW-1 – Signature Not Verified Digitally signed by RAVI ARORA Date: 2025.03.04 Uttamlal had two sons - Swapnil and Suhash (deceased). On 17:21:43 IST Reason:

15.01.2006, Swapnil had gone somewhere out and had not

1 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 statements, further

investigation was carried out. Thereafter at the instance

of the juvenile offender – Jivrakhan, the dead body of

the deceased was found in an abandoned house on

17.01.2006. On the further investigation carried out, the

respondent – accused – Ashok Bhoi was taken into custody

and recovery of blood-stained blade, nails & T-shirt were

made at his instance from the room of the house from

where the dead body was found. On the basis of

disclosure statement made by the co-accused, other

respondent – accused – Vikash Khubwani was also arrested.

4. It appears that the trial of the two juvenile

accused was separated. So far as the present respondents-

accused were concerned, the Sessions Court being the

Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Durg (C.G.), after

appreciating the evidence on record adduced by the

prosecution convicted the accused – Ashok Bhoi for the

2 offences under Sections 364-A and 302 of IPC, and

acquitted the accused – Vikash Khubwani, vide the

judgment and order dated 29.06.2007. The two appeals as

stated above were preferred by the accused – Ashok Bhoi

and the State of Chhattisgarh, which came to be disposed

of vide the impugned judgment and order.

5. Though, it is sought to be submitted by the learned

counsel appearing for the appellant – State that the High

Court had misappreciated the evidence on record and

committed gross error in acquitting both the accused, it

is difficult to accept his submission.

6. Admittedly, the entire case of the prosecution

hinged on the circumstantial evidence, because there was

no eye-witness to the alleged incident. Much reliance

has been placed on the evidence of PW-18, who had seen

the deceased alongwith the accused – Ashok Bhoi at about

6-7 p.m. on the date of the incident, i.e., 15.06.2006.

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 – Ashok Bhoi.

7. At the outset, it may be noted that there was no

evidence whatsoever produced by the prosecution to prove

the guilt of the accused - Vikash or to connect him with

the alleged crime and therefore, the High Court has

rightly confirmed the judgment and order of acquittal

passed by the Trial Court.

3

8. So far as the accused – Ashok Bhoi is concerned, it

is significant to note that except the theory of “last

seen together”, there was hardly any reliable evidence

adduced by the prosecution, to prove the charges levelled

against the accused. Though, it is true that the PW-18

had stated that he had seen the accused Ashok Bhoi with

the deceased in the evening on the day of incident, the

said evidence alone would not be sufficient to hold him

guilty of the alleged offence. As rightly held by the

High Court, even the concerned person from the STD-PCO

was not examined to substantiate the allegation that the

phone call was made by the respondent – accused – Ashok

Bhoi. The recovery of blade, nails and T-shirt with

blood stains after two days of the incident also does not

inspire any confidence.

9. Undoubtedly, as per Section 106 of the Evidence

Act, the burden of proof lies on the person who has

special knowledge of a specific fact. 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

either in his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. or

by leading evidence in his defence or even by bringing

out the facts during the course of cross examination of

the prosecution witnesses. The accused’s failure to

4 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. The prosecution has to discharge its

burden to prove the other circumstances in the case based

on circumstantial evidence, to prove the guilt of the

accused beyond reasonable doubt by leading cogent and

clinching evidence.

10. It is true that Justice cannot be made sterile on

the plea that it is better to let hundred guilty escape

than punish an innocent. Letting guilty escape on

fanciful doubts is not doing justice according to law.

However, it is also well settled that suspicion howsoever

strong cannot take place of proof. In the case based on

circumstantial evidence, the entire chain of

circumstances must be clearly established by the

prosecution by leading clinching and reliable evidence,

and the circumstances so proved must form a chain of

events from which only irresistible conclusion that could

be drawn, should be the guilt of the accused and no other

hypothesis against the guilt.

11. 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 and order

passed by the High Court.

5

12. In that view of the matter, both the appeals

deserve to be dismissed and are accordingly dismissed.

13. Pending application(s), if any, shall stand

disposed of.

......................J. (BELA M. TRIVEDI)

......................J. (PRASANNA B. VARALE)

NEW DELHI;

27TH FEBRUARY, 2025.

6