RAM PRAKASH KUJUR vs STATE OF CHHATTISGARH

1


2026:CGHC:21124-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 2403 of 2025
Ram Prakash Kujur S/o Moharlal Kujur Aged About 28 Years R/o
Siklima, Police Station Lundra, District- Surguja (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State of Chhattisgarh Through The Incharge Police Station
Bhanupratappur, District- North Bastar Kanker (C.G.)
...Respondent(s)
(Cause-titles taken from Case Information System)
For Appellant : Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, Senior
Advocate, assisted by Mr. Ram Vifal
Ram Rajwade and Mr. Gajendra Kumar
Sahu, Advocates.
For Respondent/State : Mr. Saumya Rai, Deputy Government
Advocate.
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge
Judgment on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice
.05.2026 06
1. Heard Mr. Ashok Kumar Verma, learned Senior Advocate,
assisted by Mr. Ram Vifal Ram Rajwade and Mr. Gajendra Kumar Sahu,
Digitally
signed by
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE
Date:
2026.05.13
19:02:43
+0530
learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Saumya Rai, learned
BRIJMOHAN
MORLE
Deputy Government Advocate, appearing for the State/respondent.

2
2. Though the matter is listed today for hearing on I.A. No. 1 of 2025,
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however,
considering that the appellant has been in custody since 25.05.2019,
and with the consent of learned counsel for the parties, the appeal is
taken up for final hearing.
3. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by the
appellant/accused under Section 415(2) of the Bhartiya Nagrik
Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, “BNSS”), assailing the impugned
judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 04.09.2025 passed
by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Bhanupratapupur, District
North Bastar Kanker (C.G.) (hereinafter referred to as “the learned trial
Court”) in Sessions Trial No. 25 of 2019, whereby the appellant has
been convicted and sentenced as under:
Conviction under Section Sentence
Section 364 of the Indian
: Rigorous imprisonment ( for short,
Penal Code ( for short, ‘IPC’ )
‘R.I .’) for 07 years and fine of
Rs.500/-, to default of payment of
fine, 01 month R.I. more.
Section 302 of the IPC : R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-,
to default of payment of fine, 02
months R.I. more.
Section 120(B) of the IPC : R.I. for life and fine of Rs.1000/-,
to default of payment of fine, 02
months R.I. more.
Section 201 of the IPC : R.I. for 07 years and fine of

3
Rs.500/-, to default of payment of
fine, 01 month R.I. more.
All the sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
4. Brief facts of the case are that, on the report lodged by the
complainant, Ramlal Koreti (PW-1), regarding the missing of his
daughter Kumari Kavita Koreti, Missing Person Report No. 09/2019 was
registered at Police Station Bhanupratappur. During the course of
investigation into the missing person case, Investigating Officer Sub-
Inspector Lalit Singh Negi (PW-16), on 20.05.2019, on the basis of call
detail records, went to Kirandul and interrogated the appellant Ram
th
Prakash Kujur, who was then posted as a constable in E-Company, 16
Battalion, Chhattisgarh Armed Force. As he failed to provide satisfactory
information, he was brought to Police Station Bhanupratappur, where
during interrogation he disclosed that he had a love affair with Kumari
Kavita Koreti and had left her at the house of his friend Sanju Tirkey at
Thakurpur, Ambikapur. On the basis of such disclosure, his
memorandum/confessional statement was recorded in the presence of
witnesses as Ex.P/14.
5. Thereafter, on the basis of the said disclosure statement, the
appellant was taken to Ambikapur, where upon further interrogation on
22.05.2019, appellant Ram Prakash Kujur disclosed that he had taken
his girlfriend Kumari Kavita Koreti to the bank of Tonahi Nala, assaulted
her, strangulated her to death, and after killing her, informed his friend
Sanju Tirkey and, along with him, buried the dead body.

4
6. The prosecution case further is that, upon such disclosure by the
appellant regarding the incident, Investigating Officer Sub-Inspector
Lalit Singh Negi (PW-16) prepared the inquest/excavation panchnama
(Ex.P/6) in the presence of villagers and Panch witnesses for
excavation at the place indicated by the appellant. Pursuant to the
written order of the Sub-Divisional Officer, Ambikapur, excavation
proceedings were carried out on 22.05.2019 in the presence of
villagers. Prior to the excavation, Tahsildar Bhushan Singh Mandavi
(PW-17) prepared the site panchnama (Ex.P/4) and the excavation
panchnama (Ex.P/6). Thereafter, in the presence of the deceased’s
father Ramlal Koreti and villagers, an order for excavation (Ex.P/5) was
prepared. Upon excavation, a dead body was recovered from a depth of
approximately two feet, whereupon a recovery panchnama (Ex.P/7) was
prepared. On the same day, notices were issued to witnesses for
identification proceedings (Ex.P/3), and a spot map/inquest map
(Ex.P/22) was prepared. The body was identified by the deceased’s
father, Ramlal Koreti, on the basis of the clothes worn by the deceased.
Thereafter, the opinion of Panch witnesses regarding postmortem
examination was obtained (Ex.P/9), and the body was handed over to
ASI Naval Kishore Dubey (PW-19) of Police Station Jaynagar, District
Surajpur, for postmortem examination under Supurdnama Ex.P/47.
7. The prosecution case further is that on 22.05.2019, upon the
report lodged by Ramlal Koreti at Village Thakurpur, Police Station
Jaynagar, Assistant Sub-Inspector and Investigating Officer Naval
Kishore Dubey (PW-19), posted at Police Station Jaynagar, District

5
Surajpur, registered an unnumbered merg intimation under Section 174
of the Cr.P.C. vide Ex.P/2, and thereafter registered an unnumbered
First Information Report (Ex.P/1). On the same day, from near the dead
body of Kumari Kavita Koreti found in the drain of the field of Kanwal
Sai Uraon, plain soil and soil found above the stomach area of the
deceased, each approximately 1 kilogram, were collected, sealed on
the spot in plastic containers, and after recovery of the body, soil from
beneath the body, approximately 1 kilogram, was also seized and
sealed in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/16.
Statements of witness Hiresh Singh were also recorded.
8. The prosecution case further is that on the same day, i.e.,
22.05.2019, Investigating Officer Lalit Singh Negi (PW-16), after
recovery of the body of missing girl Kumari Kavita Koreti through
excavation, got the body identified by her father Ramlal Koreti in the
presence of witnesses, in relation to which identification panchnama
Ex.P/11 was prepared, followed by preparation of recovery panchnama
Ex.P/13. Thereafter, the body was handed over to the relatives of the
deceased after postmortem for last rites, and burial/funeral panchnama
Ex.P/12 was prepared in the presence of witnesses. On the same day,
Constable Madan Lal Netam produced before the witnesses the sealed
packets preserved by the Doctor after postmortem, containing a light
green-white coloured dupatta, stomach, small and large intestine, parts
of the heart, liver, kidneys and lungs, right-side human femur bone,
molar teeth, femur, foetal bone, uterus material and sample formalin,
which were seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/28. One blue salwar and

6
one green suit stained with mud were also produced and seized vide
seizure memo Ex.P29. Thereafter, on 22.05.2019, Investigating Officer
(PW-16) interrogated complainant Ramlal Koreti regarding the incident
and recorded his statement. On his identification, the place of
occurrence was inspected and a spot map (Ex.P/42) was prepared. On
23.05.2019, appellant Ramprakash Kujur was interrogated regarding
the incident, and his memorandum statement (Ex.P/15) was recorded in
the presence of witnesses. On the same day, he was arrested vide
arrest memo Ex.P/18, and intimation of arrest (Ex.P/43) was given to
his relatives. On 24.05.2019, the appellant was produced before the
Court at Jaynagar, District Surajpur, and after obtaining transit remand,
was brought to Police Station Bhanupatpur. Thereafter, Merg
No.37/2019 under Section 174 of the CrPC was registered at Police
Station Bhanupatpur vide Ex.P/44 dated 24.05.2019, and on the basis
thereof, FIR No. 93/2019 under Sections 302, 201 and 120-B of the IPC
was registered against appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur and co-accused,
Sanju Tirkey vide Ex.P/45.
9. Subsequently, on 26.05.2019, another Investigating Officer, Sub-
Inspector Paras Singh Thakur (PW-18), pursuant to the memorandum
statement of appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur, recovered a black-coloured
Vivo Android touchscreen mobile phone belonging to the deceased from
beneath a fencing wire behind the mess of CAF “E”-Company at
Kirandul, District Dantewada, in the presence of witnesses. Recovery
panchnama Ex.P/20 and seizure memo Ex.P/19 were prepared
accordingly. Thereafter, when the case diary was handed over for

7
further investigation to Inspector Shashikala Uike (PW-15), she sent a
letter dated 03.07.2019 to the Tahsildar, Ambikapur, requesting a
Patwari map of the place of occurrence at Tonahi Nala, Thakurpur
(Ex.P/34). On 19.07.2019, she sent a requisition to the Superintendent
of Police, Kanker (Cyber Cell), for issuance of a certificate under
Section 65-B in respect of the call detail records (Ex.P/36). On
22.07.2019, she sent a query to the Medical Officer, Bishrampur, District
Surajpur, seeking a report regarding the light green coloured dupatta of
the deceased (Ex.P/37). Thereafter, on 03.08.2019, she sent a
requisition to the Chief Medical and Health Officer, Komaldev Hospital,
Kanker, for appointment of a Doctor to preserve blood samples of
appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur and deceased’s father Ramlal Koreti
(Ex.P/39).
10. The prosecution case further is that on 05.08.2019, Inspector
Shashikala Uike (PW-15) seized three EDTA vials containing 2 ml blood
sample of complainant Ramlal Koreti and three EDTA vials containing 2
ml blood sample of appellant Ram Prakash Kujur, preserved by the
Doctor and produced through Constable Rajendra Rawate from District
Hospital, Kanker, vide seizure memos Exs.P/26 and P/17. On the same
day, through the Superintendent of Police, Kanker, she forwarded the
seized articles to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Raipur, for
DNA examination vide memo Ex.P/38. On 07.08.2019, she sent another
requisition (Ex.P/35) to the Medical Officer, Bishrampur, regarding
preservation details of the seized foetal bones and uterus material of
the deceased. During investigation, statements of witnesses Shakun

8
Komra, Viran Bai, Ramkunwar, Suraj Samarth and Mohd. Rasul were
recorded. On 26.09.2019, PW-16 again visited Thakurpur, Police
Station Jaynagar, and recorded statements of witnesses Rahul Bada
and Amjeet Lakra. On the same day, upon tracing co-accused Sanju
Tirkey, he was interrogated in the presence of witnesses and his
memorandum statement Ex.P/23 was recorded. Pursuant thereto, co-
accused Sanju Tirkey produced one iron spade fitted with a wooden
handle from behind Barsana Residency, Village Thakurpur, which was
seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo Ex.P/24.
Thereafter, co-accused Sanju Tirkey was arrested vide arrest memo
Ex.P/25 and intimation of arrest (Ex.P/46) was given to his relatives.
The record further includes the DNA examination report dated
30.09.2019 (Ex.P/40) and the forensic examination report dated
23.09.2019 (Ex.P/41) issued by the State Forensic Science Laboratory,
Raipur.
11. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before
the Court of Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bhanupratappur, who
committed the case to the Court of Sessions for trial.
12. The learned trial Court framed charges against the appellant
under Sections 364, 120-B, 302, 201 and 34 of the IPC. The charges
were read over and explained to the appellant, who denied the same,
pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. During pendency of the trial,
co-accused Sanju Tirkey expired.
13. During trial, the appellant was examined under Section 351 of the

9
BNSS (which is the corresponding provision of the earlier Section 313
of the Cr.P.C.). Under this provision, he denied all the allegations and
stated that he had been falsely implicated in the case.
14. In order to bring home the charge against the appellant, the
prosecution examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 50
documents. No oral or documentary evidence was adduced on behalf of
the defence.
15. Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available
on record, the learned trial Court, by judgment dated 04.09.2025,
convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 364,
302, 120(B) and 201 of the IPC and sentenced him accordingly, as
mentioned in paragraph 03 of this judgment. Being aggrieved and
dissatisfied with the said judgment of conviction and order of sentence,
the present criminal appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
16. Learned Senior Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant
submitted that the prosecution case is entirely based on circumstantial
evidence and there is no direct eyewitness to the alleged incident. It
was contended that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete
chain of circumstances connecting the appellant with the commission of
the offence. He further submitted that the so-called disclosure
statements and memorandums alleged to have been made by the
appellant before the police are inadmissible in evidence except to the
limited extent permissible under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act,
and therefore, the learned trial Court erred in placing reliance upon the

10
same for recording conviction. It was argued that the recovery and
identification proceedings suffer from serious infirmities, particularly
when the dead body was recovered in a highly decomposed condition
after about two to three months.
17. Learned Senior Advocate also contended that the prosecution has
failed to prove any strong motive for commission of the offence and that
the entire case rests upon suspicion, conjectures and surmises, which
cannot take the place of legal proof. It was, therefore, argued that the
prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
reasonable doubt and the appellant is entitled to acquittal.
18. Per contra , learned State counsel supported the impugned
judgment and submitted that the conviction of the appellant is based
upon cogent, reliable and duly proved circumstantial evidence. It was
argued that the appellant himself disclosed his relationship with the
deceased and, pursuant to his memorandum statement, the dead body
of the deceased was recovered from the place pointed out by him. He
further submitted that the medical evidence clearly establishes that the
death was homicidal in nature and the postmortem findings, coupled
with the recovery proceedings, memorandum statements, seizure of
articles, call detail records and forensic evidence, form a complete chain
of circumstances pointing only towards the guilt of the appellant. It was
further contended that the prosecution witnesses have consistently
supported the case of the prosecution and there are no material
contradictions affecting the core of the prosecution story. According to
the learned State counsel, the learned trial Court has meticulously

11
appreciated the entire evidence on record and has rightly held the
appellant guilty of the offences charged. Therefore, no interference with
the impugned judgment is warranted and the appeal deserves to be
dismissed.
19. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their
rival submissions and carefully perused the entire record.
20. The first question for consideration is whether the learned trial
Court was justified in holding that the death of deceased Kavita Koreti
was homicidal in nature.
21. In this regard, the learned trial Court relied upon the testimony of
Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh (PW-12), one of the members of the three-
member medical board which conducted the postmortem examination
of the deceased on 22.05.2019. PW-12 deposed that the body was
identified by the deceased’s father and that during external examination
the body was found in a decomposed condition with mud stains, foul
smell, protruded tongue pressed between the teeth, and ligature-like
marks on the left side of the neck. During internal examination, partial
decomposition of organs and fracture of the tracheal bone were noticed.
Foetal bones were also found in the uterus.
22. PW-12 further stated that viscera, bones, foetal remains and the
light green coloured dupatta were preserved for chemical and DNA
examination. According to his medical opinion, the cause of death was
asphyxia due to strangulation and the death was homicidal in nature,
having occurred approximately two to three months prior to the

12
postmortem examination. He further opined vide query report Ex.P/33
that the seized dupatta could have been used for strangulation. The
findings recorded in the postmortem report Ex.P/31 were duly supported
by the other members of the medical board, namely Dr. Amit Bhagat
(PW-13) and Dr. Suchita Nirmala Kindo (PW-14).
23. During cross-examination, PW-12 admitted that the body was in a
decomposed condition and that putrefaction ordinarily commences
within 72 hours of death. However, he specifically denied the suggestion
that the fracture of the tracheal bone could have occurred due to
accidental fall and reiterated that strangulation by the seized dupatta
was possible. Even otherwise, the homicidal nature of death has not
been seriously disputed on behalf of the appellant. Accordingly, we
affirm the said finding recorded by the learned trial Court.
24. The present case is admittedly based on circumstantial evidence,
as there is no direct eyewitness account of the incident.
25. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme
Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P. , reported in
(1996) 10 SCC 193 , wherein it has been observed thus:
“In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the
settled law is that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved
and such circumstances must be conclusive in
nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be
complete and there should be no gap left in the
chain of evidence. Further the proved
circumstances must be consistent only with the

13
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally
inconsistent with his innocence....” .
26. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors. , reported in
AIR 1990 SC 79 , it was laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that
when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must
satisfy the following tests:
“(1) the circumstances from which an inference of
guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and
firmly established;
(2) those circumstances should be of a definite
tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the
accused;
(3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should
form a chain so complete that there is no escape
from the conclusion that within all human
probability the crime was committed by the
accused and none else; and
(4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain
conviction must be complete and incapable of
explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the
guilt of the accused and such evidence should not
only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but
should be inconsistent with his innocence.”
27. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104) ,
it was pointed out by the Hon’ble Supreme Court that great care must
be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied
on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the
accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the
circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established

14
and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be
consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt.
28. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial
Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be
observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as
the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond
reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden
of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact,
which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or
circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the
nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the
inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the
accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable
hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of
the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”.
29. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case
based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme
Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of
Maharashtra , reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :-
“(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion
of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.
The circumstances concerned “must” or “should”
and not “may be” established;
(2) the facts so established should be consistent
only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the
accused, that is to say, they should not be

15
explainable on any other hypothesis except that
the accused is guilty;
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency;
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved; and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete
as not to leave any reasonable ground for the
conclusion consistent with the innocence of the
accused and must show that in all human
probability the act must have been done by the
accused.”
30. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another
v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of
circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences
from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The
court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus:
“ 41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as
Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases
(refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The
expectation is that the prosecution case should
reflect careful portrayal of the factual
circumstances and inferences thereof and their
compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein
all the intermediate facts and the case itself are
proved beyond reasonable doubt.
42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts,
which the court may infer further. There is a stark
contrast between direct evidence and
circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial

16
evidence, the courts are called upon to make
inferences from the available evidence, which
may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of
cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by
establishing the case from its initiation to the point
of commission wherein each factual link is
ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an
inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to
identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the
case within the parameters of “chain link theory”
and then see whether the case is made out
beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a
long time followed the “chain link theory” since
Hanumant case, which of course needs to be
followed herein also.”
31. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev
Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc. , reported in AIR 2020
SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law
postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of
circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be
established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly,
all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the
guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to
other judgments as the above principles have been consistently
followed and approved by this Court time and again.
32. The present case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence as
there is no direct eyewitness account of the incident. The prosecution

17
has sought to establish a complete chain of circumstances which,
according to it, leads only to the conclusion of guilt of the appellant.
33. In the present case, the prosecution has established the following
circumstances against the appellant:
(i) The death of deceased Kavita Koreti is
homicidal in nature, as conclusively proved by
the medical evidence.
(ii) The investigation revealed that the appellant
was closely associated with the deceased and
was aware of her movements and whereabouts
prior to her disappearance.
(iii) During the course of investigation, the
appellant made voluntary disclosure statements
leading to discovery of crucial facts, including the
place where the body was concealed.
(iv) Pursuant to the memorandum statement of
the appellant, excavation was carried out at
Tonahi Nala, Thakurpur, and the dead body of the
deceased was recovered from a depth of about
two feet.
(v) The excavation and recovery proceedings
were conducted in the presence of independent
witnesses and duly recorded through seizure and
panchnama proceedings, thereby lending
authenticity to the recovery.
(vi) The dead body was identified by the father of
the deceased, Ramlal Koreti (PW-1), on the basis
of clothing and other identifiable features.
(vii) Various articles including clothes of the
deceased and other material objects were seized
from the spot and forwarded for forensic
examination.
(viii) The forensic and DNA reports corroborate
the prosecution case by scientifically linking the
seized materials and biological samples with the
deceased and the crime scene.

18
(ix) A mobile phone belonging to the deceased
was also recovered at the instance of the
appellant pursuant to his disclosure statement
under Section 27 of the Evidence Act.
(x) The cumulative effect of disclosure, recovery
of body and articles, forensic evidence, and
conduct of the appellant establishes a complete
chain of circumstances pointing only towards the
guilt of the appellant and excludes any
reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
34. The next question for consideration is whether the learned trial
Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty on the basis of the
following circumstances:
(i) The homicidal nature of death stands proved
beyond doubt on the basis of postmortem report
Ex.P/31 and the consistent testimony of PW-12
Dr. Prashant Kumar Singh, duly corroborated by
PW-13 and PW-14.
(ii) The medical evidence clearly establishes
death by asphyxia due to strangulation,
consistent with homicidal violence.
(iii) The most significant incriminating
circumstance is the discovery of the dead body
at the instance of the appellant pursuant to his
memorandum statement Ex.P/15, which falls
squarely within the ambit of Section 27 of the
Evidence Act.
(iv) The recovery of the mobile phone of the
deceased and other incriminating articles further
strengthens the prosecution case and
demonstrates the active knowledge and
participation of the appellant.

19
(v) The forensic evidence, including DNA and
FSL reports, provides scientific corroboration to
the oral and documentary evidence and
strengthens the chain of circumstances.
35. It can thus clearly be seen that in a case based on circumstantial
evidence, it is necessary that the circumstances from which the
conclusion of guilt is drawn must be fully established. The Court holds
that it is a settled principle that the accused “must be” and not merely
“may be” guilty before a conviction can be recorded. There is a clear
distinction between “may be proved” and “must be or should be proved”.
The facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
the guilt of the accused and not explainable on any other hypothesis.
The circumstances must be such as to exclude every possible
hypothesis except the one to be proved. There must be a complete
chain of evidence so as not to leave any reasonable doubt consistent
with the innocence of the accused, and it must show that in all human
probability the offence was committed by the accused.
36. It is equally well settled that suspicion, however strong it may be,
cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt. An accused is
presumed to be innocent unless proven guilty beyond reasonable
doubt, and conviction cannot be based on conjectures or surmises.
37. In the light of these well-settled principles, the present case is
required to be examined on the basis of the evidence led by the
prosecution.

20
38. On a perusal of the judgment of the learned trial Court, it would
reveal that the prosecution case primarily rests upon the disclosure
statement of the appellant and consequential recoveries, as well as
corroborative oral and documentary evidence. The complainant / father
of the deceased, Ramlal Koreti (PW-1), deposed regarding the missing
of his daughter and subsequent developments during investigation.
During interrogation, the appellant Ram Prakash Kujur is stated to have
disclosed that he had taken the deceased to Tonahi Nala and had
buried her body along with co-accused Sanju Tirkey. The said
disclosure led to recovery of the dead body from the place pointed out
by the appellant.
39. The memorandum statement of appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur is
Ex.P/15, on which his signatures appear, and the seizure memos
Exs.P/16 and P/17 also bear his signatures. Upon seeing the clothes of
the deceased, he identified them as belonging to the deceased, which
included a light blue salwar and a light green kurta with floral prints.
When the seized salwar and kurta of the deceased were shown to the
witness in the trial Court, he identified them as belonging to the
deceased; the same were marked as Article A-01. Apart from these, no
other clothes were found on the body of the deceased.
40. Further, Mukesh Kumar Salam (PW-7), a close relative of the
deceased, deposed that the deceased had disclosed her relationship
with the appellant and that the appellant’s photograph was found in her
belongings. He further stated that on being apprehended, the appellant
had made disclosures during interrogation regarding the whereabouts of

21
the deceased, pursuant to which police proceeded to the indicated
place and skeletal remains / body material were recovered. Though
PW-7 did not personally accompany the police, his testimony
corroborates the initial link between the deceased and the appellant and
the subsequent investigation process.
41. The prosecution has also relied upon recovery of the mobile
phone of the deceased at the instance of the appellant pursuant to his
memorandum statement, which was recovered from a concealed place
at Kirandul, thereby further strengthening the evidentiary chain. The
confessional memorandum of the appellant is Ex.P/14.
42. In this regard, Sub-Inspector Lalit Singh Negi (PW-16) also
conducted exhumation proceedings of the dead body and, after
postmortem proceedings, on 23.05.2019, he recorded the
memorandum statement of the appellant (Ex.P/15) in the presence of
witnesses, as per the appellant’s disclosure. Thereafter, the appellant
was arrested as per arrest memo Ex.P/18.
43. The defence has argued that the memorandum statement Ex.P/15
is suspicious as it was allegedly obtained in violation of legal procedure
and was not duly corroborated by witnesses. In this regard, it is clear
that initially the appellant, Ram Prakash Kujur misled the investigation.
However, the fact remains that the disclosure made by him led to
discovery of the dead body and other incriminating recoveries. The
sequence of events shows that the investigation proceeded on the basis

22
of information given by the appellant which ultimately resulted in
recovery of the dead body and associated material objects.
44. It may be noted that there is a variation in the sequence of
procedural steps taken by the Investigating Officer PW-16, as in
practice the exhumation proceedings were conducted first at the place
pointed out by the appellant, followed by recovery of the body, its
identification, and thereafter the memorandum statement Ex.P/15 was
recorded. Although this sequence shows some procedural irregularity, it
does not create any doubt in the case; rather, it supports the
truthfulness of the proceedings conducted. The said proceedings and
recording of the statement are also corroborated by prosecution
witnesses Ramlal Koreti (PW-1) and Kotwar Bhagwat Chauhan (PW-3)
in their respective testimonies before the learned trial Court.
45. At this stage, it would be appropriate to notice Section 27 of the
Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which states as under: -
“ 27. How much of information received from
accused may be proved .—Provided that,
when any fact is deposed to as discovered in
consequence of information received from a
person accused of any offence, in the custody
of a police officer, so much of such information,
whether it amounts to a confession or not, as
relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered,
may be proved.”
46. Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act is applicable only if the
confessional statement relates distinctly to the fact thereby discovered.

23
47. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Asar Mohammad
and others v. State of U.P. , reported in AIR 2018 SC 5264 with
reference to the word “fact” employed in Section 27 of the Evidence Act
has held that the facts need not be self-probatory and the word “fact” as
contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence Act is not limited to “actual
physical material object”. It has been further held that the discovery of
fact arises by reason of the fact that the information given by the
accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental awareness of the
informant as to its existence at a particular place and it includes a
discovery of an object, the place from which it is produced and the
knowledge of the accused as to its existence. Their Lordships relying
upon the decision of the Privy Council in the matter of Pulukuri
Kotayya v. King Emperor , AIR 1947 PC 67 observed as under: -
“13. It is a settled legal position that the facts
need not be self-probatory and the word “fact”
as contemplated in Section 27 of the Evidence
Act is not limited to “actual physical material
object”. The discovery of fact arises by reason
of the fact that the information given by the
accused exhibited the knowledge or the mental
awareness of the informant as to its existence
at a particular place. It includes a discovery of
an object, the place from which it is produced
and the knowledge of the accused as to its
existence. It will be useful to advert to the
exposition in the case of Vasanta Sampat
1
Dupare v. State of Maharashtra , in particular,
1 (2015) 1 SCC 253

24
paragraphs 23 to 29 thereof. The same read
thus:
“23. While accepting or rejecting the
factors of discovery, certain principles are
to be kept in mind. The Privy Council in
Pulukuri Kotayya v. King Emperor (supra)
has held thus: (IA p. 77)
“… it is fallacious to treat the ‘fact
discovered’ within the section as
equivalent to the object produced;
the fact discovered embraces the
place from which the object is
produced and the knowledge of
the accused as to this, and the
information given must relate
distinctly to this fact. Information
as to past user, or the past history,
of the object produced is not
related to its discovery in the
setting in which it is discovered.
Information supplied by a person
in custody that ‘I will produce a
knife concealed in the roof of my
house’ does not lead to the
discovery of a knife; knives were
discovered many years ago. It
leads to the discovery of the fact
that a knife is concealed in the
house of the informant to his
knowledge, and if the knife is
proved to have been used in the
commission of the offence, the fact
discovered is very relevant. But if

25
to the statement the words be
added ‘with which I stabbed A’,
these words are inadmissible
since they do not relate to the
discovery of the knife in the house
of the informant.
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx
xxx xxx xxx ”
48. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Perumal Raja alias
Perumal v. State, Rep. By Inspector of Police, 2024 SCC OnLine SC
12 has defined the ‘custody’. It held that the expression “custody” under
Section 27 of the Evidence Act does not mean formal custody. It
includes any kind of restriction, restraint or even surveillance by the
police. Even if the accused was not formally arrested at the time of
giving information, the accused ought to be deemed, for all practical
purposes, in the custody of the police.
49. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Boby v State of
Kerala , 2023 SCC OnLine SC 50 held that the basic idea embedded in
Section 27 of the Evidence Act is the doctrine of confirmation by
subsequent events. The doctrine is founded on the principle that if any
fact is discovered as a search made on the strength of any information
obtained from a prisoner, such a discovery is a guarantee that the
information supplied by the prisoner is true. The information might be
confessional or non-inculpatory in nature but if it results in discovery of
a fact, it becomes a reliable information. Section 27 puts a bar to use

26
the confessional statement, but the fact that discovery and information
which proved to reliable would be a circumstantial evidence.
50. In the present case, the prosecution has been able to establish a
strong and consistent chain of circumstantial evidence which includes
the disclosure statement of the appellant leading to discovery of the
dead body, recovery of the mobile phone of the deceased, and
corroborative forensic and scientific evidence. The recovery of the dead
body from a concealed place at the instance of the appellant is a highly
incriminating circumstance, which clearly establishes his knowledge of
the place where the body was concealed. Such discovery, being in
consequence of information furnished by the appellant while in police
custody, is a vital link in the chain of circumstances. The FSL and DNA
reports further corroborate the prosecution case by scientifically
connecting the seized articles and biological material with the
deceased. The appellant has failed to furnish any plausible explanation
for these incriminating circumstances, which were especially within his
knowledge.
51. From the cumulative appreciation of the entire evidence on
record, it is evident that the chain of circumstances is complete, cogent
and consistent, and it unerringly points towards the guilt of the
appellant. Each circumstance has been independently established by
reliable evidence and collectively they form a complete chain which
excludes every reasonable hypothesis except that of the guilt of the
appellant. The discovery of the dead body pursuant to the disclosure
statement of the appellant is a circumstance of significant probative

27
value, which cannot be ignored in a case resting on circumstantial
evidence.
52. The medical evidence on record clearly establishes that the death
of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The postmortem report, duly
proved by the medical witnesses, rules out any possibility of accidental
or natural death. The forensic evidence, including DNA examination and
FSL reports, further strengthens the prosecution case by establishing a
scientific link between the deceased, the accused, and the recovered
articles. The scientific evidence being objective in nature provides
strong corroboration to the ocular and circumstantial evidence on
record.
53. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence,
the prosecution is required to establish a complete chain of
circumstances which must be consistent only with the hypothesis of
guilt of the accused and inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence.
In the present case, all such circumstances stand duly proved beyond
reasonable doubt. The defence has failed to offer any satisfactory
explanation for the incriminating circumstances appearing against the
appellant, particularly the recovery of the dead body and mobile phone
at his instance.
54. The contention raised on behalf of the appellant that the evidence
is insufficient or doubtful does not inspire confidence. Minor
inconsistencies or procedural variations in investigation, if any, do not
affect the core of the prosecution case. It is a settled principle of law

28
that defective investigation cannot be a ground to discard otherwise
reliable and trustworthy evidence, especially when the prosecution case
is otherwise fully established through cogent material.
55. The learned trial Court has meticulously appreciated the entire
evidence in its proper perspective and has recorded well-reasoned
findings based on correct appreciation of facts and law. The conclusions
drawn by the trial Court are fully supported by the material on record
and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference
by this Court in exercise of appellate jurisdiction.
56. This Court is of the considered view that the prosecution has
successfully proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
The chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and leaves no room
for any other inference except the involvement of the appellant in the
commission of the offence.
57. In view of the foregoing discussion, this Court finds no merit in the
present appeal. The impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence passed by the learned trial Court is just, proper and based on
sound appreciation of evidence and settled principles of law. The same
does not warrant any interference.
58. Accordingly, the appeal is hereby dismissed .
59. In view of the final disposal of the appeal, I.A. No. 1 of 2025,
application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail does not
survive for consideration and is accordingly disposed of .

29
60. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out
the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court.
61. The learned trial court record along with a copy of this judgment
be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance
and necessary action.
62. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his
jail term, to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at
liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring
an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of the
High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal
Services Committee.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Brijmohan