HANSRAJversusSTATE OF CHHATTISGARH

                  [2025] 2 S.C.R. 612 : 2025 INSC 178

                                  Hansraj
                                     v.
                           State of Chhattisgarh
                     (Criminal Appeal No. 1387 of 2012)
                               10 February 2025
           [Pankaj Mithal* and Ahsanuddin Amanullah, JJ.]


                            Issue for Consideration
       The appellant was convicted for offence u/s.302 IPC. Whether the
       appellant can be held guilty of the commission of offence beyond
       reasonable doubt.

                                   Headnotes†
       Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Appellant was residing with the
       victim-deceased and was assisting him in his work – On the
       fateful day, the appellant left in morning however, returned
       early claiming his cycle got punctured – He asked PW-5
       (wife of victim) for money to get puncture repaired – To give
       appellant money PW-5 went to market to sell paddy, leaving
       appellant and her victim-husband behind – When she returned,
       she saw her husband lying on floor dead, bleeding with his
       neck severed – FIR was registered – Trial Court convicted
       appellant for offence u/s.302 IPC and same was upheld by
       the High Court – Correctness:
       Held: It is settled that the chain of events leading to the prosecution
       of the convict must conclusively be established with certainty and
       there shall not be any room for any second opinion which may
       lead to the innocence of the accused – In the instant case, it is
       alleged that there was some discord between appellant and the
       deceased in connection with non-payment/untimely payment of
       wages – The issue of non-payment of wages is hardly material
       and is so trivial a matter so as to compel anyone to take an
       extreme step of committing a crime of such a grave nature –
       Moreover, there is no material evidence to prove any discord
       between the two – It is the consistent case of all the witnesses
       including PW-5 that the appellant had left in the morning for his


* Author
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                            613

                     Hansraj v. State of Chhattisgarh


     native place and that as told by PW-5 he returned as his cycle’s
     tyre got punctured – The fact that he actually returned as alleged
     does not stand established by any independent evidence except
     for the statement of PW-5 – However, her statement could not be
     corroborated by any piece of evidence – The cycle of the appellant
     was recovered by the police but no effort was made to find out
     if either of the tyres was actually punctured, which could have
     proved that the appellant may have returned as the cycle’s tyre
     got punctured – The weapon of crime i.e., farsi (Ex P/6) with blood
     stains was set to have been recovered after 20-25 days of the
     incident on the pointing out of the appellant – However, no forensic
     report was brought on record to prove that the blood stains on it
     matched with that of the blood of the deceased – Merely for the
     reason that the doctor opined that the injuries on the deceased
     may have been caused by a similar weapon would not conclude
     that the recovered farsi was the weapon of crime – That apart,
     JR, who lodged the complaint, in his cross-examination stated
     that the farsi was lying in an open place, referring to the place
     of the commission of the crime – The said statement completely
     belies the fact that the farsi was recovered subsequently from
     the field of one C – The recovery of the weapon of crime or
     the farsi, which was recovered, is doubtful and it is also not
     certain that it was actually the weapon of crime – Also, PW-5
     had not found and seen the appellant at the place of the crime
     after her return as he had already fled – However, in her cross
     examination she took a summersault and stated that when she
     came back, she saw the appellant running from the house with
     the farsi – Further, the evidence of none of the two witnesses
     (PW-1 and PW-3) could conclusively establish that they saw
     the appellant running or fleeing from the place of crime or from
     the village – The identity of the person running away had not
     been established by any evidence – The circumstances raising
     finger upon the appellant, are not of a conclusive nature to prove
     beyond the shadow of doubt that the appellant was the person
     responsible for the commission of the crime – Thus, in the facts
     and circumstances of the case, the benefit of doubt goes in his
     favour. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 17]

                              Case Law Cited
     Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [1985] 1
     SCR 88 : (1984) 4 SCC 116 – referred to.
614                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                         Digital Supreme Court Reports


                                  List of Acts
       Penal Code, 1860.

                               List of Keywords
       Section 302 of Penal Code, 1860; Circumstantial evidence;
       Conclusion of guilt; Hypothesis of guilt; Chain of evidence;
       Innocence of accused; Motive; Last seen theory; Recovery of
       weapon of crime; Benefit of doubt.

                              Case Arising From
       CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal No.
       1387 of 2012
       From the Judgment and Order dated 30.07.2010 of the High Court
       of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur in CRLA No. 291 of 2003

                            Appearances for Parties
       Ms. Rukhsana Choudhury, Adv. for the Appellant.
       Vikrant Bais, A.A.G., Abhishek Pandey, Prashant Kumar Umrao,
       Advs. for the Respondent.

                     Judgment / Order of the Supreme Court

                                  Judgment

       Pankaj Mithal, J.
1.     The appellant Hansraj is a convict for offence under Section 302 IPC1
       for murdering Ramlal of village Ghotha Sakulpara Bhanupratappur,
       District Kanker, Chhattisgarh and has been awarded life imprisonment
       and fine of Rs.1000/-.
2.     The order of conviction and sentence of the Trial Court dated
       19.12.2002 has been confirmed by the High Court in appeal by the
       impugned judgment and order dated 30.07.2010.
3.     The appellant preferred the Special Leave Petition with delay of 653
       days which was condoned and leave to appeal was granted. Since
       the appellant had remained in jail for over 10 years, he was directed
       to be released on bail by this Court.


1    Indian Penal Code
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                       615

                    Hansraj v. State of Chhattisgarh


4.   The case of the prosecution is based only on circumstantial evidence
     and there is no eyewitness to the incident.
5.   The argument of the learned counsel for the appellant is that it is
     a completely false case and that even the circumstances have not
     been proved conclusively to hold the appellant guilty and there are
     stark contradictions in the testimonies of the prosecution witnesses.
6.   The incident is of 28.03.2002. It is alleged that the appellant was
     residing with the deceased and was assisting him in his work for
     the last over two months. On the fateful day the appellant at 7:00
     am in the morning left for his native place on cycle with a bag but is
     set to have returned at around 9:00 am claiming that his cycle got
     punctured. He therefore asked for money from Budhiyarin Bai (PW-5)
     the wife of the deceased, to get the puncture repaired. Budhiyarin
     Bai told him that she had no money readily available at home and
     that he can take paddy and sell it in the market, but he refused. So,
     Budhiyarin Bai herself went to the market to sell the paddy, leaving
     the appellant and her husband at home. When she returned at
     about 9:30 am, she saw the appellant fleeing with a farsi (Ex P/6)
     in his hand and discovered that her husband is lying on the floor,
     profusely bleeding with his neck severed. She therefore raised an
     alarm and upon hearing her cries her neighbours Jogeshwar (PW-3)
     and Jhadu Ram (PW-4) came and they also saw her husband lying
     dead. The neighbours informed another villager namely Jogi Ram
     (PW-1) who also came on the spot and thereafter proceeded to the
     Police Station Bhanupratappur to lodge an FIR. He lodged the FIR
     at 11:15 am on the same day.
7.   It is alleged that the relationship of the appellant with the deceased
     was strained probably on account of non-payment/untimely payment
     of his wages. The appellant was the person last seen in the company
     of the deceased and that the weapon of recovery i.e., farsi was
     recovered at his pointing out. The injuries sustained by the deceased
     were opined to have been caused by the weapon recovered. In
     these circumstances, the prosecution asserts that the evidence on
     record proves beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant alone is
     the person who committed the offence and that he has been rightly
     convicted and sentenced by the two Courts below.
8.   Undisputedly, the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial
     evidence and there is no eyewitness to the commission of the offence
     in as much as the wife of the deceased, Budhiyarin Bai, was also
     not present at the time of the commission of the offence and had
616                                                           [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                        Digital Supreme Court Reports


       discovered that her husband was lying on the floor bleeding profusely
       with neck severed upon returning from the market. She probably
       saw the accused fleeing from the scene of crime.
9.     The law with regard to a case based purely on circumstantial
       evidence stands crystalised by the decision of this Court in the case
       of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs State of Maharashtra2 wherein
       five golden principles known as panchsheel proof of a case based on
       circumstantial evidence were enshrined namely (i) the circumstances
       from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully
       established crafting out a distinction between ‘may be’ established
       and ‘must or should’ be established; (ii) the facts established should
       be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused; (iii) the
       circumstances should be of a conclusive nature; (iv) the circumstance
       should exclude every other possible hypothesis except the one to be
       proved i.e., the guilt of the accused; and (v) there must be a chain
       of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for
       conclusion that the accused is innocent and must show that in all
       human probability the act must have been done by the accused.
10. In other words, the chain of events leading to the prosecution of the
    convict must conclusively be established with certainty and there
    shall not be any room for any second opinion which may lead to the
    innocence of the accused.
11. The appellant is said to have a motive to kill the deceased. The
    alleged motive being that he was living as a servant of the deceased
    for the last two months and there was some discord between him
    and the deceased in connection with non-payment/untimely payment
    of wages. However, such a discord is not of such a nature of extent
    which may lead to such a drastic action on part of the appellant to kill
    the deceased. The issue of non-payment of wages is hardly material
    and is so trivial a matter so as to compel anyone to take an extreme
    step of committing a crime of such a grave nature. Moreover, there
    is no material evidence to prove any discord between the two.
12. In so far as the last seen theory is concerned, that the appellant was
    in the company of the deceased at the time when Budhiyarin Bai
    (PW-5) the wife of the deceased went to the market to sell paddy
    also appears to be a little doubtful. It is the consistent case of all
    the witnesses including Budhiyarin Bai (PW-5) that the appellant
    had left in the morning at about 7:00 am for his native place and


2    (1984) 4 SCC 116
[2025] 2 S.C.R.                                                        617

                    Hansraj v. State of Chhattisgarh


     that as told by Budhiyarin Bai (PW-5) he returned around 9:00 am
     as his cycle’s tyre got punctured. The fact that he actually returned
     as alleged does not stand established by any independent evidence
     except for the statement of Budhiyarin Bai (PW-5). However, her
     statement could not be corroborated by any piece of evidence. It is
     hardly believable that a person whose relationship with the deceased
     was not cordial and has left for his native place in disgust would
     return soon thereafter. The cycle of the appellant was recovered by
     the police but no effort was made to find out if either of the tyres
     was actually punctured, which could have proved that the appellant
     may have returned as the cycle’s tyre got punctured.
13. The weapon of crime i.e., farsi (Ex P/6) was set to have been
    recovered after 20-25 days of the incident on the pointing out of the
    appellant. It has come in evidence that it had some blood stains.
    However, no forensic report was brought on record to prove that the
    blood stains on it matched with that of the blood of the deceased.
    Merely for the reason that the doctor opined that the injuries on the
    deceased may have been caused by a similar weapon would not
    conclude that the recovered farsi was the weapon of crime. Similar
    and identical instruments like farsi are found in almost every home
    in the village as it is one of the most used farming equipment. That
    apart, Jogi Ram, who lodged the complaint, in his cross examination
    stated that the farsi was lying in an open place, referring to the place
    of the commission of the crime. The said statement completely belies
    the fact that the farsi was recovered subsequently from the field of
    one Chamaru Ram. The recovery of the weapon of crime or the
    farsi, which was recovered, is doubtful and it is also not certain that
    it was actually the weapon of crime.
14. One important circumstance pointing to the involvement of the
    appellant is that he was seen running from the village both by
    Budhiyarin Bai (PW-5) and Jogi Ram (PW-1). Budhiyarin Bai in her
    statement in unequivocal terms stated that when she returned home
    after selling the paddy, the appellant had fled. It means that she had
    not found and seen the appellant at the place of the crime after her
    return as he had already fled. However, in her cross examination she
    took a summersault and stated that when she came back, she saw the
    appellant Hans Raj running from the house with the farsi. Jogi Ram
    (PW-1) who at the time of occurrence of the incident was working in
    his field, stated that he had seen the appellant running before he came
    to know about the incident through Jogeshwar (PW-3), whereupon
    he went to the house of the deceased. In his cross examination,
618                                                         [2025] 2 S.C.R.

                          Digital Supreme Court Reports


       he further stated that the wife of the deceased, Budhiyarin Bai, told
       him that when she came back after selling paddy, her husband was
       lying on the spot and the appellant had disappeared. PW-1 nowhere
       stated that Budhiyarin Bai saw the appellant fleeing from the spot
       rather, she only informed that the appellant had already disappeared
       when she returned from the market. Later, in the cross-examination,
       Jogi Ram stated that while working in the field collecting mahuva
       he only saw a man running from a distance of more than a furlong.
       But he never named the person who was running. Therefore, the
       evidence of none of the two witnesses could conclusively establish
       that they saw the appellant running or fleeing from the place of crime
       or from the village. The identity of the person running away had not
       been established by any evidence.
15. In addition to this, according to the prosecution, the clothes of the
    appellant which he was wearing at the time of the incident were
    produced by one Pritam Singh (PW-9) who was declared to be
    hostile. The said clothes again had the blood stains but no forensic
    report was produced to prove that the blood of those stains matched
    with the blood of the deceased.
16. In the aforesaid facts, the circumstances raising finger upon the
    appellant, are not of a conclusive nature to prove beyond the
    shadow of doubt that the appellant was the person responsible for
    the commission of the crime. The possibility of innocence of the
    appellant does not stand excluded as per the chain of events.
17. Thus, in the facts and circumstances of the case, the appellant cannot
    be held guilty of the commission of the offence beyond reasonable
    doubt and therefore, in such circumstances the benefit of doubt goes
    in his favour. Accordingly, we are of the opinion that the Courts below
    have manifestly erred in convicting him for the aforesaid offence.
18. The impugned judgment and orders dated 19.12.2002 and 30.07.2010
    are hereby set aside and the appellant is acquitted from the offence
    charged with. He has already suffered incarceration for over 10 years.
    He is already on bail. His sureties and bail bonds are discharged.
19. The appeal is allowed accordingly.

       Result of the case: Appeal allowed.



       †
           Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan