The appeal originated from the judgment and order dated July 4, 2019, by the High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 1867 of 2007. The High Court had previously affirmed a conviction made on August 16, 2007, by the 3rd Additional Sessions Judge in Bhopal. Sahu and his co-accused, Raju Sharma, were found guilty under Section 302, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), and were sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine.

The prosecution's case highlighted a long-standing enmity between Vinod Sai, who operated a tea stall, and Raju Sharma. Tensions escalated into violence on November 11, 2006, when Sharma, armed with a sword, and Sahu, with a khukri, attacked Sai at his stall, resulting in his death.

Throughout the trial, the prosecution presented seventeen witnesses, including Kamal Sanwale, who initially reported the crime. However, many of the witnesses later turned hostile, complicating the prosecution's efforts. Despite this, the key testimonies, especially from the deceased's mother, Shashi Bai, and Pratap Singh, who attested to the recovery of the murder weapon, remained intact.

Sahu's defense contended that the evidence was insufficient, especially given the hostile turn of many witnesses. They argued that the absence of consistent testimonies from critical witnesses raised doubts about the prosecution's case. However, the courts noted that the mere hostility of witnesses does not negate the validity of their initial statements.

Crucial to the prosecution's case was the testimony of Dr. C.S. Jain, who performed the post-mortem on Vinod Sai. Dr. Jain confirmed that the injuries sustained were consistent with those that could be inflicted by the khukri found at Sahu’s residence. Further forensic analysis revealed traces of blood on the weapon that matched the deceased's blood group.

In delivering the verdict, the Supreme Court emphasized the rigorous examination of evidence by both lower courts. The consistency of the medical evidence and the forensic findings played a pivotal role in affirming the prosecution’s case. The justices remarked that the evidence convincingly established Sahu's guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

The Court also addressed the arguments made by Sahu’s defense regarding the credibility of witnesses, affirming that the testimony, even from those who had turned hostile, could still hold weight if supported by solid evidence.

Ultimately, the Supreme Court dismissed Sahu's appeal, reinforcing the convictions handed down by the lower courts. The case illustrates the complexities of the legal system, where witness credibility, forensic evidence, and the interplay of past grievances all coalesce to impact the pursuit of justice. The decision not only serves as a reminder of the judicial system's commitment to upholding the rule of law but also highlights the challenges faced by defendants in criminal proceedings.