Bilaspur : The Chhattisgarh High Court is currently examining whether a death sentence awarded to a 25-year-old man for rape and murder meets the strict legal standards governing capital punishment. The case arises from a reference made under criminal procedure law, alongside an appeal filed by the convict challenging both his conviction and the sentence.
The accused, Shankar Nishad, was sentenced to death by a Special Court in December 2025 after being found guilty under Sections 364, 376 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial court concluded that he had kidnapped, sexually assaulted and murdered a young woman, relying on a chain of circumstantial evidence including CCTV footage, call records, forensic reports and recovery of the victim’s body.
As required by law, the death penalty cannot take effect unless confirmed by the High Court. The matter has therefore come before a division bench led by Chief Justice Ramesh Sinha and Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal for independent scrutiny of both conviction and sentence.
According to the prosecution, the victim, a 25-year-old woman working at a family court, went missing on August 14, 2022, after leaving her village for work. CCTV footage allegedly showed the accused taking her on her scooter toward a secluded area and returning alone shortly afterward. Investigators later recovered her body from a forest location, following a disclosure statement made by the accused. Medical evidence confirmed that the death was homicidal and involved sexual assault.
The trial court held that these circumstances formed a complete and consistent chain pointing only to the accused’s guilt. It described the crime as brutal and falling within the “rarest of rare” category, warranting capital punishment.
Before the High Court, the defence has mounted a detailed challenge. Counsel for the accused argued that the conviction rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, which allegedly contains gaps and inconsistencies. It was also contended that the trial court mechanically applied the “rarest of rare” doctrine without properly weighing mitigating factors such as the accused’s age, lack of criminal history and potential for reform.
A key plank of the defence argument concerns electronic evidence. Relying on precedents such as Anvar P.V. v. P.K. Basheer and Arjun Panditrao Khotkar v. Kailash Kushanrao Gorantyal, the defence claims that the prosecution failed to strictly comply with certification requirements under Section 65B of the Evidence Act, rendering CCTV footage and call records inadmissible.
The State, however, has defended the conviction, arguing that the evidence forms a complete and reliable chain. Prosecutors maintain that the CCTV footage, call detail records and forensic findings were properly proved and collectively establish the accused’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt. They also contend that the nature of the crime justifies the death penalty, citing its brutality and the breach of trust involved.
After reviewing the record, the High Court has already indicated that the prosecution successfully established key circumstances, including the “last seen” theory, recovery of the body at the accused’s instance, and medical evidence confirming homicidal death. The bench also noted that the accused failed to explain crucial facts within his knowledge, which strengthens the inference of guilt in a circumstantial case.
The court is now tasked with answering broader legal questions, including whether the electronic evidence meets statutory requirements, whether the conviction is sustainable in a purely circumstantial case, and most critically, whether the death sentence satisfies constitutional standards governing capital punishment. A final ruling on confirmation of the death penalty and the appeal is awaited.
Case Title : In Reference of State of Chhattisgarh vs Shankar Nishad