A Division Bench led by Justices W.A. Shishak and R.S. Garg upheld the conviction of three men for murder under Section 302 IPC, ruling that discovery of bloodstained articles and the murder weapon was sufficient to sustain guilt despite failure to prove “last seen” evidence.
The Chhattisgarh High Court has affirmed the conviction of three men for the murder of a government employee, relying on the recovery of bloodstained clothes, a knife, and personal belongings of the deceased at their instance. However, the Court set aside the confiscation of a motorcycle, holding that there was no proof it was used in the crime.
Delivering a Division Bench judgment in Laldas alias Lilardas Sahu vs State of Madhya Pradesh (2001 Local Law (CG) 41), the Court on April 19, 2001, upheld the life imprisonment awarded by the trial court to appellants Laldas, Kamal Mahar, and Sukhdeo under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, while granting partial relief regarding confiscated property.
The case involved the murder of Hukum Singh, who went missing on November 11, 1987. His body was found two days later in a village tank. The prosecution alleged that the three accused had murdered him and later concealed his belongings. The investigation led to multiple discoveries under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, including a bloodstained knife, the deceased’s wristwatch, cycle, shirt, trousers, and slippers—all identified by his widow, Meena Kumari (P.W. 13).
The trial court at Khairagarh convicted all three accused and ordered the confiscation of a Jawa motorcycle allegedly used in the crime.
On appeal, the defense argued that there was no direct evidence linking the accused to the murder, and that the deceased was never “last seen” with them. Counsel B.N. Pandey contended that the recoveries were doubtful, as the witnesses were village Kotwars (local watchmen), whose reliability was questionable.
Rejecting this argument, the High Court observed that the credibility of a witness does not depend on his social standing but on the truthfulness of his testimony. Both Ramvilash (P.W. 4) and Kanhaiya (P.W. 8), who witnessed the recoveries, “stood the test of cross-examination,” Justice Garg noted. Their statements, supported by Investigating Officer L.N. Shukla (P.W. 14), confirmed that the seized articles were recovered from places known only to the accused.
The forensic report (Ex. P-23) established the presence of human blood on clothes belonging to the accused and on the knife used in the murder. The Court emphasized that the appellants failed to offer any explanation for the bloodstains.
“The discovery of incriminating materials and identification of items belonging to the deceased from possession of the accused would clinch the issue against them,” the bench held, affirming their conviction.
However, on the issue of property, the Court found merit in the appellant’s plea. It ruled that since there was no positive proof that the confiscated motorcycle had been used in the commission of the murder, the trial court’s confiscation order was unjustified. The High Court directed that the motorcycle be returned to appellant Laldas alias Lilardas Sahu or any person authorized by him.
The bench concluded that while circumstantial evidence based solely on “last seen” was weak, the recovery of articles, corroborated by forensic analysis and witness testimony, constituted strong incriminating proof sufficient to sustain the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
Case Details
- Case Title: Laldas alias Lilardas Sahu vs State of Madhya Pradesh
- Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh (Division Bench)
- Judges: Justice W.A. Shishak and Justice R.S. Garg
- Date of Decision: April 19, 2001
- Citation: 2001 Local Law (CG) 41
- Equivalent Citations: 2001 1 CgLJ 254, 2001 3 MPHT (Chh) 49, 2001 2 BilasLJ 60
- Case Type: Criminal Appeal Nos. 9, 208, and 209 of 1989
- Subject: Criminal / Murder Trial / Evidence Law
- Acts Referred:
- Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Sections 302, 34
- Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Sections 3, 9, 27, 45
- Advocates: B.N. Pandey (for appellants), Ranbir Singh (for State)
- Final Decision: Conviction and life sentence upheld; confiscation of motorcycle set aside
