The Chhattisgarh High Court upheld conviction in a brutal rape-murder case, ruling that testimony of an injured eyewitness, supported by forensic evidence, proved guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Thank you for reading this post, don't forget to subscribe!
Chhattisgarh: The Chhattisgarh High Court, in a recent judgment, reaffirmed that the testimony of an injured eyewitness, when corroborated by forensic and medical evidence, carries the highest evidentiary value and can form the sole basis for conviction in heinous crimes.
A Division Bench of Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru dismissed the appeal of Jitendra Dhruw, upholding his conviction and life sentence for the brutal murder of three family members, attempted murder of a child survivor, and rape of the deceased woman.
ALSO READ: Bengaluru Court Reserves Verdict on Actor Darshan’s Jail Transfer and Facility Pleas
The Case Background
On the night of July 12, 2017, Mahendra Sinha, his wife Usha Sinha, and their younger son Mahesh were brutally killed inside their home. Their elder son, Trilok Sinha, was found grievously injured but alive, bearing permanent damage to his eye.
The investigation revealed that the accused, Jitendra Dhruw, motivated by lust and after consuming liquor, trespassed into the house, attacked the victims with a hammer, raped the half-dead Usha Sinha, and fled with ornaments and cash.
He was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge (FTC), Dhamtari, on February 24, 2023, and sentenced to life imprisonment under Sections 302, 376, 307, 450, 380, and 201 of the IPC.
ALSO READ: Dharmasthala Case Twist: Court Extends SIT Custody of Complainant Chinnaiah till Sept 6
The Appeal
On appeal, Dhruw argued that:
- There was no direct eyewitness.
- His conviction rested on weak circumstantial evidence.
- His arrest and witness statements were delayed, raising doubts about the prosecution case.
- He was falsely implicated.
The State countered that:
- The case rested on a complete chain of circumstantial and forensic evidence.
- Recoveries of stolen property and weapons pursuant to his disclosure statement under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act directly connected him to the crime.
- DNA and medical reports corroborated the prosecution’s case.
ALSO READ: Kerala High Court Admits Plea Against Global Ayyappa Sangamam at Sabarimala’s Pamba
High Court’s Findings
The Court highlighted the following crucial aspects:
1. Testimony of Injured Eyewitness
The surviving child, Trilok Sinha (PW-50), categorically identified the accused both in a Test Identification Parade (TIP) and before the Court. He described how the accused repeatedly struck his father with a hammer and attacked his mother and brother. His testimony, supported by medical reports of grievous injuries, was held to be natural, reliable, and truthful.
The Bench observed:
“Being both a natural witness and an injured witness, his testimony carries a presumption of truthfulness and inspires full confidence.”
2. Medical & Forensic Evidence
- Post-mortem reports confirmed homicidal deaths due to multiple cranio-cerebral injuries.
- DNA analysis (Ex.P-134) confirmed the presence of the appellant’s biological material in the vaginal swabs of deceased Usha Sinha, establishing rape.
- FSL report (Ex.P-131) matched blood on seized hammers with that of the deceased.
3. Recovery of Stolen Property
Pursuant to the accused’s disclosure (Ex.P-18), ornaments and weapons were recovered, later identified by family members in proper proceedings.
4. Complete Chain of Circumstances
The Court held that eyewitness testimony, medical findings, forensic reports, disclosure statement, and recoveries created an unbroken chain of circumstances, pointing solely to the guilt of the accused.
The Verdict:
The Court concluded that the trial court had rightly convicted the appellant, observing:
“The unbroken chain of eyewitness testimony, post-mortem findings, forensic reports, memorandum statement, and recoveries conclusively establishes the accused’s guilt.”
The appeal was dismissed, and Dhruw, in custody since January 31, 2018, will continue to serve his sentence.
Case Title:
Jitendra Dhruw versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through – The Station House Officer
CRA No. 1064 of 2023
Read Judgment:
Click Here To Read More Reports On Darshan Case