Case Summary: Suresh Sarkar @ Chhotu v. State of Chhattisgarh (2025) | Forensic Proof Completes the Chain of Circumstantial Evidence

This criminal appeal was filed against the judgment dated 16 September 2022 of the Special Judge under Section 14 of the Scheduled Castes and Scheduled Tribes (Prevention of Atrocities) Act, 1989, South Bastar, Dantewada. The trial court convicted Suresh Sarkar of murder under Section 302 IPC and causing the disappearance of evidence under Section 201 IPC. He was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of ₹1,000 for murder, and to rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of ₹1,000 for the offence under Section 201.

The conviction arose from the murder of Constable Ram Niwas Markam of the District Reserve Guard (DRG), Burkapal, Sukma district.

Title of the Case: Suresh Sarkar @ Chhotu v. State of Chhattisgarh 

Citation: 2025:CGHC:52156-DB

Court: High Court of Chhattisgarh at Bilaspur

Bench: Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Bibhu Datta Guru

Date of Judgment: 27 October 2025

Facts of the Case

1. Discovery of the Crime

On 11 July 2019, Constable Ram Niwas Markam was present at the Sukma Police Line during the evening roll call. After 7 p.m., he left in his Bolero (vehicle No. CG 18 L 4544). The next morning, around 8 a.m., his brother Shrinivas received a call informing him that Ram Niwas had been murdered. The body was found near the village Supnar, in front of a banana plantation. The Bolero was parked on the roadside, and the deceased lay nearby with deep wounds on his neck and head, soaked in blood.

Shrinivas lodged a merg intimation at 9:05 a.m. and an FIR (Crime No. 86/2019) under Section 302 IPC was registered against unknown persons at 9:15 a.m.

2. Investigation and Evidence Collection

Police prepared an inquest report noting a sharp-weapon injury above the left ear, neck cuts on both sides, and scratches on the shoulder. The deceased held twenty strands of hair in his right hand. Blood stains were found inside the Bolero. The following items were seized:

• Bolero vehicle
• Rearview mirror with fingerprint
• Two Kinley bottles with fingerprints
• Blood-stained mat and swabs
• Soil samples and the hair from the deceased’s fist

Post-mortem by Dr. Anjanyewlu found deep chop injuries to the neck and lacerations below the ear; cause of death was cardiorespiratory failure due to hemorrhagic shock.

3. Memorandum and Confession Statements

Police recorded memorandum statements of Suresh Sarkar and co-accused Chanchal Mandal. According to Suresh, the deceased had married Minoti, the daughter of Geeta Mandal, who was related to him. Marital discord was frequent. When Suresh tried to mediate, Ram Niwas suspected an affair between Suresh and Minoti.

Later, Suresh developed feelings for Minoti and threatened Ram Niwas after being insulted. He then planned to murder him with Chanchal Mandal and Suraj (from Kolkata), offering ₹1 lakh as payment, with ₹28,000 advanced to Chanchal.

On 11 July 2019, Suresh called Ram Niwas to Odisha under the pretext of a party. After drinking together, they went toward Korkunda forest, where, when Ram Niwas was heavily intoxicated, Suresh struck his neck with a steel pipe and Suraj attacked with a cleaver (bohti). Ram Niwas grabbed Suresh’s hair before dying. The accused dumped the body near Supnar and disposed of his mobile phone in the Shabari River.

4. Seizures Based on Memorandum

From Suresh’s rented house:

• Passion Pro motorcycle, steel shock-absorber pipe, blood-stained jeans, and a Samsung mobile phone.

From Chanchal Mandal:

• Blood-stained cleaver recovered from the Belipati forest.
• Suresh was arrested on 14 July 2019. Blood samples, fingerprints, and DNA specimens were collected; mobile CDRs of the deceased, his wife, and Suresh were analysed, showing 29 calls before the incident.

Proceedings Before the Trial Court

After the investigation, a charge sheet was filed against Suresh and Chanchal Mandal; Suraj was absconding. The trial court examined 20 prosecution witnesses and 64 documents. The defence examined two witnesses—Haripad Goldar and Tapan Kumar Mandal.

The trial court acquitted Chanchal Mandal but convicted Suresh Sarkar under Sections 302 and 201 IPC, holding that the chain of circumstances proved his involvement beyond a reasonable doubt.

Arguments in Appeal

A. Appellant’s Contentions

Counsel for the appellant argued that:

• The case rested solely on circumstantial evidence, and the chain was incomplete.
• Co-accused Chanchal Mandal was acquitted on the same evidence; hence, the appellant should receive the same benefit.
• There were contradictions and omissions in witness statements.
• No direct evidence connected Suresh to the murder; scientific and forensic reports were allegedly fabricated.

B. Respondent’s Submissions

The State contended that the trial court rightly convicted the appellant on the basis of strong circumstantial and scientific evidence. DNA and fingerprint reports, together with motive and last-seen circumstances, formed a complete chain linking the accused to the crime.

Issues Before the High Court

• Whether the death of Ram Niwas Markam homicidal?
• Whether the trial court justified in convicting Suresh Sarkar on circumstantial evidence?
• Whether the chain of circumstances complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant?

Findings of the High Court

Homicidal Death

The Court affirmed the finding of the trial court that the death was homicidal, based on Dr. Anjanyewlu’s post-mortem report showing deep incised neck wounds and massive blood loss

Circumstantial Evidence – Principles Reiterated

The Bench elaborated on the law governing circumstantial evidence, citing:

• C. Chenga Reddy v. State of A.P. (1996) 10 SCC 193;
• Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. AIR 1990 SC 79;
• State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava (1992 Crl LJ 1104);
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 – the five “Panchsheel” principles;
• Suresh v. State of Haryana (2018) 18 SCC 654.

The Court restated that the circumstances must be fully proved, consistent with guilt alone, and form a complete chain excluding all other hypotheses.

Circumstances Established by the Prosecution

The High Court listed seven key circumstances proved beyond doubt

• Discovery of the Body and Vehicle: The Bolero and the body were found together at Supnar.
• Blood and Injuries: Blood was inside the vehicle and on the body with sharp-weapon wounds.
• Fingerprint Evidence: Fingerprint on a water bottle in the Bolero matched Suresh Sarkar.
• DNA Evidence: Hair clutched in the deceased’s fist matched Suresh Sarkar’s DNA profile.
• Blood Stains: Human blood was detected on the pipe and jeans seized from Suresh.
• Telephonic Links: There were 29 calls between Suresh and the deceased before the incident.
• Medical Opinion: Death was due to incised neck injuries – clearly homicidal.

Together, these proved a complete chain connecting the appellant to the crime.

DNA and Fingerprint Expert Evidence

DNA Analysis (PW-17 Dr. Anju Verma): DNA profile of hair sample from the deceased’s hand matched the blood sample of Suresh Sarkar (Ex.P-58).

Fingerprint Examination (PW-18 Dharmendra Kumar Bharti): Fingerprint on Kinley bottle matched Suresh’s right hand index finger, with eight corresponding points of similarity (Ex.P-63). This confirmed his presence in the Bolero with the deceased.

Evaluation of Defence Evidence

Two defence witnesses claimed police manipulation of evidence—pulling hair and forcing fingerprints on bottles. The Court found these claims unsupported. Seizure memos and testimonies of the investigating officer were consistent and credible. Non-support by some panch witnesses did not invalidate the investigation.

Court’s Analysis

The Division Bench held that:

• The scientific evidence (DNA and fingerprints) conclusively connected Suresh to the crime scene.
• Motive was established through strained relations over Minoti and past threats.
• The chain of circumstances was complete, ruling out any hypothesis of innocence.
• The defence story was improbable and unsupported by any independent proof.

The Court also reiterated that though suspicion cannot replace proof, here the evidence was scientific, reliable, and corroborated by circumstances. It therefore upheld the trial court’s conclusion.

Judgment

The High Court dismissed the appeal, confirming the conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC. The Court observed that:

• All links in the chain of evidence were proved beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The prosecution established motive, opportunity, and scientific corroboration.
• No interference was warranted with the trial court’s judgment.

The appellant, already in custody, was directed to serve out the sentence, and the trial court record was returned for compliance. The Registry was directed to send a copy to the Superintendent of Jail to inform the appellant of his right to appeal to the Supreme Court.

Ratio Decidendi

The Court held that scientific evidence, such as DNA profiling and fingerprint analysis, when corroborated with other circumstantial facts, forms a complete chain of evidence proving guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. The decision reinforced that scientific techniques can play a decisive role in circumstantial cases.

Conclusion

The judgment in Suresh Sarkar @ Chhotu v. State of Chhattisgarh underscores the transformative role of forensic science in criminal adjudication. The High Court meticulously assessed the interplay between motive, conduct, and scientific proof, concluding that the evidence established guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Ultimately, the Court’s affirmation of life imprisonment signifies the legal position that scientific certainty, when properly obtained and corroborated, is as conclusive as direct testimony.

Click Here to Read the Official Judgment

Important Link

Law Library: Notes and Study Material for LLB, LLM, Judiciary, and Entrance Exams