Champa, Chhattisgarh v. State Of Chhattisgarh Through P S
Case Details
1 MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2025.09.03 10:48:19 +0530 2025:CGHC:44262-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 246 of 2024 Gangaram Shrivas S/o Santosh Shrivas Aged About 32 Years R/o Ward No. - 19 Avarid, P.S. - Navagarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P S - Arakshi Kendra Navagarh, District : Janjgir-Champa, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Syed Majid Ali, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice Judgment on Board 01.09.2025 1. Heard Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Soumya Rai, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 2 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 14.12.2023 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Janjgir, District- Janjgir-Champa (C.G.) in Session Trial No. 63/2022 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine amount of Rs. 5,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 01 month. 3. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused Gangaram Shrivas used to always abuse and beat his wife Sangeeta Shrivas due to doubting her character. On 11/03/2021 at about 10:00 am, in his house in village Avarid, the accused beat his wife Sangeeta Shrivas with a bamboo stick kept in the house and caused serious injury to her due to which she fainted at the spot. When Janiram (CW-1) reached the house of the accused to cut wood, the accused, with the help of Janiram (CW-1), brought the deceased to the District Hospital Janjgir for treatment, where she died on the date of the incident during treatment. In relation to the said incident, when Ramesh Azad, Ward Boy, District Hospital Janjgir, gave information (Ex.P-8) of the untimely and sudden death of the deceased
Legal Reasoning
20.06.2022. Prima facie such delay may appear inordinate, but a close scrutiny of the record reveals that the delay was occasioned solely on account of the lapse of the Medical OfÏcer (PW-11), who had conducted the postmortem examination of the deceased. In the postmortem report (Ex.P-16), the Medical OfÏcer did not specify either the cause of death or the nature of death, thereby creating ambiguity and leaving the investigation in a state of uncertainty. 47. The Investigating OfÏcer, in order to dispel this ambiguity, was constrained to seek multiple clarifications and query reports from the Medical OfÏcer regarding the cause and nature of death. It was only after repeated queries that the Medical OfÏcer, vide memo in response to the query / letter dated 08.04.2022 of the Station House OfÏcer, Nawagarh, District Janjgir-Champa (C.G.), categorically opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by hitting with a hard and blunt object and further afÏrmed that the nature of death was homicidal. This decisive opinion removed the cloud of doubt and gave the Investigating OfÏcer a clear basis to register the FIR. 48. It is thus apparent that the delay in lodging the FIR was sufÏciently and satisfactorily explained by the circumstances arising from the medical evidence, and the prosecution cannot be faulted for such delay. The Hon’ble Supreme Court has consistently held that delay in registration of FIR is not necessarily fatal to the prosecution if such delay is reasonably 21 explained. In Pala Singh v. State of Punjab, (1972) 2 SCC 640, it was observed that “mere delay in lodging the FIR cannot, in itself, be a ground to doubt the prosecution case, if the same is satisfactorily explained.” Similarly, in State of H.P. v. Gian Chand, (2001) 6 SCC 71, the Court reiterated that “delay in lodging the FIR, if explained to the satisfaction of the Court, cannot by itself be a ground for throwing out the prosecution case.” Again, in State of A.P. v. M. Madhusudhan Rao, (2008) 15 SCC 582, the Hon’ble Court emphasized that “it is not the delay in lodging the FIR but the acceptability of the explanation offered for the delay which is material.” 49. In the present case, therefore, the explanation for delay is cogent, adequately explained by the sequence of events and the medical evidence placed on record. The delay is neither deliberate nor suggestive of any afterthought on the part of the prosecution. Rather, it is a consequence of the inadvertent omission of the Medical OfÏcer and the consequent need for clarification sought by the Investigating OfÏcer. Accordingly, the submission of the appellant in this respect is rejected. 50. Considering the aforesaid evidence of the witnesses as well as the circumstances, a consistent and unbroken chain of circumstances emerges which points only towards the guilt of the accused. The postmortem findings, as proved by Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW-11), establish that the deceased sustained multiple injuries which could not have been caused by a mere fall, but were consistent with assault by a hard and blunt object. The recovery of the bamboo stick (Article-A) from the house of the accused at his instance, duly proved by the investigating ofÏcer Rajesh Patel (PW-16) and attested by independent witnesses, stands 22 corroborated by the medical opinion. The subsequent FSL report (Ex.P- 30) further strengthen this link by confirming the presence of human blood on the seized bamboo stick. The accused has offered no explanation whatsoever regarding how human blood came to be present on the said article recovered from his possession. In addition to this, the prosecution has also successfully proved the motive of the appellant. The evidence on record reveals that the relationship between the accused and the deceased was strained, and frequent quarrels used to take place between them as the accused used the doubt the character of the deceased. Thus, there is unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidences against the accused appellant, which clearly indicate the guilt of accused/appellant and the circumstances clearly indicate that it was the appellant alone who had committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 51.
Arguments
Sangeeta Shrivas to the police station Janjgir, a death intimation (Ex.P- 12) was registered by the police station Janjgir. 4. After investigation, a crime under section 302 IPC (Ex.P-27) was registered against accused Gangaram Shrivas under Crime No. 165/2022 and the case was investigated. During investigation, the body was inspected and a map panchayatnama (Ex.P-02) was prepared and a map of the incident site (Ex.P-10) was prepared. When the accused presented 3 the stick from the door of his house as per memorandum statement (Ex.P- 04), one bamboo stick was seized from his possession as per seizure sheet (Ex.P.-05). Accused Gangaram Shrivas was duly arrested on 21/06/2022 (Ex.P-6) and sent on judicial remand. After other necessary investigation in the case, the charge-sheet was presented before the trial Court concerned. 5. On 05/12/2022, charges against accused Gangaram Shrivas were framed for an offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The trial commenced after the accused denied having committed the alleged offence. During the trial, the prosecution produced 18 witnesses and one witness (CW-1) was examined on defence. Based on the facts and circumstances that emerged in the evidence of the above witnesses regarding the alleged crime, a statement of charge was prepared under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and the answers and explanations of the accused were recorded. When the accused was admitted at the defence level, he expressed that he would not give evidence in his defence. 6. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record opining that it is the appellant who has committed the murder of his wife, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the IPC, against which the instant appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred. 7. Mr. Syed Majid Ali, learned counsel for the appellant argued that conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the circumstantial evidence, without there being any eye witness, though the chain of circumstances are missing and not completed to each other. He further 4 submits that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is illegal & contrary to law and hence liable to be set-aside. The Appellant has been falsely trapped in the present case based on the bald and bare suspicion. As per the materials available on record, it appears that there was cordial relationship between the Appellant and deceased. Not a single iota of evidence available on record to show that the Appellant had committed the murder of his wife. The learned trial Court has erred in law as well as in facts in convicting and sentencing the appellants under section 302 of Indian Penal Code. He further submits that the deceased Sangeeta who was the wife of the accused i.e. Gangaram died on 11.03.2021 during the course of treatment subsequent to it the FIR was registered against Gangaram on 20.06.2022 i.e. almost after 15 months. The learned trial Court has misread the statements of the witnesses on the basis of which the conviction has been held. There are major contradiction between the prosecution witnesses on the basis of which the appellants are convicted and sentenced. Further, the learned trial Court ought to have acquitted the accused/appellants from the charges of offence under section 302 of Indian Penal Code, as the impugned judgment is unwarranted by law and contrary to evidence as in the various statement of the prosecution witnesses, many omission and contradiction have occurred but the learned lower court has totally over looked such important omission and contradictions, whereas if proper appreciation would have been done by the court then on the basis of this omission and contradiction, the learned trial Court ought to have given the benefit of doubt to accused persons. He lastly submits that looking to the entire evidence available on record, there is not a single iota of evidence 5 to show that the appellant had committed murder or involved in this crime. Evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellant for commission of heinous offence of murder, therefore, the appellant is entitled for benefit of doubt. 8. On the other hand, learned Panel Lawyer, appearing for the respondent/State, supports the impugned judgment and submits that the statement of the prosecution witnesses clearly proved that, the deceased had been murdered by the accused/present appellant, as it has also been observed by the learned trial Court. The learned Trial Court has appreciated the entire evidence available on record including the deposition of witnesses and thereafter, arrived at the finding of guilt of the appellant, which is supported by the credible and cogent evidences, as the learned trial Court has specifically observed that, in the postmortem findings, as proved by Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW-11), it is established that the deceased sustained multiple injuries which could not have been caused by a mere fall, but were consistent with assault by a hard and blunt object. The recovery of the bamboo stick (Article-A) from the house of the accused at his instance, duly proved by the investigating ofÏcer Rajesh Patel (PW-16) and attested by independent witnesses, stands corroborated by the medical opinion. The subsequent FSL report (Ex.P- 30) further strengthen this link by confirming the presence of human blood on the seized bamboo stick (Article-A). Thus, looking to the gravity of the offence and the quality of the evidences, there is no reason for showing any leniency to the present appellant, thus, the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and therefore, the appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original record of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased to be homicidal in nature ? 12. In this regard, statement of Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW-11), Medical OfÏcer who conducted the postmortem of the deceased stated that on external examination of the dead body, she found that both eyes of the deceased were open, the mouth was closed, the nails had turned blue, and froth was coming out of the mouth and nostrils. Postmortem rigidity was present all over the body, and hypostasis was fixed on the dependent parts. 13. On examination, the following external injuries were found on the body of the deceased: A small blood clot in the left eye. Red contusion around the mouth. Cut injury below the left ear, measuring 0.5 × 0.2 × 0.2 1. 2. 3. cm. 4. Scratch on the right parietal region of the head, measuring 2 × 2 cm, covered with blood. 5. Contusion on the right side of the mouth, measuring 3 × 7 2 cm, reddish in colour. 6. Contusion on the left side of the face, measuring 5 × 5 cm, reddish in colour. 7. Contusion below the left eye, measuring 2.5 × 1 cm, reddish in colour. 8. Multiple old contusions on the right side of the chest, over the breast region, the largest measuring 3 × 2 cm, irregular in shape and blackish in colour. 9. Multiple old contusions on the left side of the chest, over the breast region, the largest measuring 2 × 1 cm, irregular in shape and blackish in colour. 10. Contusion on the inner part of the left shoulder (mid- axillary region), measuring 8 × 2 cm, blackish in colour. 11. Old surgical mark on the lower abdomen. Contusion on the left side of the abdomen, measuring 4 × 1 cm, blackish in colour. 12. Scratch on the outer part of the right wrist, measuring 1 × 0.5 cm. Contusion on the front of the right wrist, measuring 1 × 0.5 cm, reddish in colour. Contusion on the inner side of the right elbow, measuring 0.5 × 0.5 cm, reddish in colour. Contusion on the upper back of the right wrist, measuring 2 × 2 cm, reddish in colour. 13. Contusion on the inner side of the left elbow, measuring 2 × 1 cm, reddish in colour. 14. Multiple contusions on the right thigh, the largest measuring 5 × 8 cm, reddish in colour. 15. Contusion on the right knee, measuring 3 × 3 cm, reddish in colour. 16. Contusion on the right heel, measuring 1 × 1 cm, reddish in colour. 8 17. Four contusions on the left thigh, the largest measuring 3 × 2 cm, reddish in colour. 18. Old injury mark below the left knee, measuring 3 × 0.5 cm, and another old injury mark on the left knee, measuring 2 × 1 cm. 19. Contusion on the left shoulder, measuring 2 × 1.5 cm, reddish in colour. 14. On internal examination of the body, she found that the skull, cranium, sacrum, brain, and spinal cord were normal. The diaphragm, ribs, lungs, larynx, and windpipe were congested. Both lungs were congested and showed signs of decomposition. The right chamber of the heart was filled with blood, while the left chamber was empty. Stagnant blood was present in the large vessels. The diaphragm, intestinal membrane, mouth, and esophagus were normal.The stomach was empty, and small black particles were found on its mucosal lining. Semi-digested food was present in the small intestine, and fecal matter was present in the large intestine. The spleen and kidneys were congested. The urinary bladder was empty. The internal and external genitalia were normal. 15. The medical ofÏcer (PW-11) opined that the deceased had died within 24 to 48 hours prior to the postmortem examination. She advised that the viscera be preserved and sent for chemical examination to ascertain the exact cause of death, and reserved her opinion pending the viscera report. Accordingly, she prepared the postmortem report (Ex. P- 16). 16. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW- 11), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased, vide Ex.P/16, has clearly come to the conclusion that though PW-11, the 9 doctor who conducted the postmortem, has not categorically opined regarding the precise cause and nature of death in her report, and even reserved her opinion pending FSL examination, the evidence on record when read as a whole leads to only one conclusion. The deceased was found with multiple ante-mortem injuries on her person, froth emanating from her mouth, internal congestion of vital organs, and black particles in the stomach. These findings, coupled with the testimonies of other prosecution witnesses, the seizure of the bamboo stick, and the surrounding circumstances, exclude the possibility of accidental or suicidal death. Therefore, notwithstanding the absence of a clear medical opinion, the totality of the evidence establishes beyond reasonable doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. We hereby afÏrm the said finding. 17. In the present case, homicidal death due to multiple ante-mortem injuries on the person of the deceased and the nature of death being homicidal has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW-11) and the postmortem report (Ex.P/16) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature as has been opined by her in memo to SHO, Nawagarh, Janjgir-Champa, intimating cause of death (Ex.P-20). 18. The prosecution has examined the minor son of the accused and the deceased, Kuleshwar Shrivas (PW-18), as an eyewitness to the incident in support of its case. The trial Court has also examined witness Janiram (CW-1). However, both these witnesses have denied having seen the incident as mentioned in their earlier statements. PW-18 in his examination-in-chief, has stated that there was a quarrel between his 10 parents, i.e., the accused and the deceased, regarding drinking alcohol and cooking food. He further stated that one of his father’s friends took his mother to the hospital for treatment. However, he has clearly deposed that no one beat his mother in his presence and that he did not see his father assaulting his mother with a stick. From the testimony of this witness, it is clear that the prosecution has failed to prove its case against the accused on the basis of testimony of this witness. 19. Janiram (CW-1) although stated in his examination-in-chief that the accused took the deceased out of his house on the pretext that she was unwell and accompanied her to the hospital, he has categorically denied having seen any assault upon the deceased. In his cross-examination by the prosecution, he specifically denied the suggestion that he saw the accused fighting with his wife. Thus, the testimony of this witness also does not prove the prosecution case. 20. From the above discussion, it is clear that although the prosecution has not proved its case through eyewitness evidence, the question still remains whether the case is proved through other corroborating evidence. The prosecution has led detailed evidence to establish the motive for the accused to commit the crime of assaulting the deceased. 21. It is the case of no direct evidence, rather conviction is based on circumstantial evidence. 22. We may also make a reference to a decision of the Supreme Court in C. Chenga Reddy and Ors. v. State of A.P., (1996) 10 SCC 193, wherein it has been observed thus: 11 “In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence....”. 23. In Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P. and Ors., AIR 1990 SC 79, it was laid down by the Supreme Court that when a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy the following tests: “(1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else; and (4) the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.” 12 24. In State of U.P. v. Ashok Kumar Srivastava, (1992 Crl.LJ 1104), it was pointed out by the Supreme Court that great care must be taken in evaluating circumstantial evidence and if the evidence relied on is reasonably capable of two inferences, the one in favour of the accused must be accepted. It was also pointed out that the circumstances relied upon must be found to have been fully established and the cumulative effect of all the facts so established must be consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt. 25. Sir Alfred Wills in his admirable book “Wills’ Circumstantial Evidence” (Chapter VI) lays down the following rules specially to be observed in the case of circumstantial evidence: (1) the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference must be clearly proved and beyond reasonable doubt connected with the factum probandum; (2) the burden of proof is always on the party who asserts the existence of any fact, which infers legal accountability; (3) in all cases, whether of direct or circumstantial evidence the best evidence must be adduced which the nature of the case admits; (4) in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and incapable of explanation, upon any other reasonable hypothesis than that of his guilt, (5) if there be any reasonable doubt of the guilt of the accused, he is entitled as of right to be acquitted”. 26. Five golden principles which constitute Panchseel of proof of case based on circumstantial evidence have been laid down by the Supreme Court in the matter of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116 which state as under :- 13 “(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned “must” or “should” and not “may be” established; (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty; (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused.” 27. The Supreme Court in the matter of Suresh and Another v State of Haryana, (2018) 18 SCC 654 has observed that cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. The court at paras 41 and 42 has observed thus : “41. The aforesaid tests are aptly referred as Panchsheel of proof in Circumstantial Cases (refer to Prakash v. State of Rajasthan). The expectation is that the prosecution case should reflect careful portrayal of the factual circumstances and inferences thereof and their compatibility with a singular hypothesis wherein all the intermediate facts and the case itself are proved beyond reasonable doubt. 14 42. Circumstantial evidence are those facts, which the court may infer further. There is a stark contrast between direct evidence and circumstantial evidence. In cases of circumstantial evidence, the courts are called upon to make inferences from the available evidence, which may lead to the accused's guilt. In majority of cases, the inference of guilt is usually drawn by establishing the case from its initiation to the point of commission wherein each factual link is ultimately based on evidence of a fact or an inference thereof. Therefore, the courts have to identify the facts in the first place so as to fit the case within the parameters of “chain link theory” and then see whether the case is made out beyond reasonable doubt. In India we have for a long time followed the “chain link theory” since Hanumant case, which of course needs to be followed herein also.” 28. The Supreme Court in the matter of Sailendra Rajdev Pasvan and Others vs. State of Gujarat Etc., AIR 2020 SC 180 observed that in a case of circumstantial evidence, law postulates two-fold requirements. Firstly, that every link in the chain of circumstances necessary to establish the guilt of the accused must be established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and secondly, all the circumstances must be consistent pointing out only towards the guilt of the accused. We need not burden this judgment by referring to other judgments as the above principles have been consistently followed and approved by this Court time and again. 29. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, 15 conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW/11), Janiram (CW-1) with respect to seizure of weapon of assault i.e. bamboo stick, Radehlal Shrivas (PW-1), Manisha Shrivas (PW-2), Santosh Shrivas (PW-5), Manoj Shrivas (PW-8), Rajesh Patel (PW-16), Vivek Kumar Pandey (PW-17), FSL report (Ex.P-30) with respect to blood found in seized bamboo stick and memorandum statement (Ex.P-04). 30. Radhelal Shrivas (PW-1), a relative of the deceased, has deposed that about one year prior to the incident, the deceased’s brother had told him that the accused and the deceased often quarreled. Manisha Shrivasn (PW-2), the elder sister of the deceased, has deposed that the accused suspected the character of the deceased and alleged that she had illicit relations with her father-in-law. She further deposed that two months prior to the death of the deceased, when she visited the house of the accused, she saw him abusing and attempting to assault the deceased. She also deposed that three days before the death of the deceased, the deceased herself told her that the accused was beating her on account of such suspicion. 31. Manoj Shrivas (PW-8), the elder brother of the deceased, has corroborated this by deposing that about one and a half months before the incident, the deceased was admitted in hospital due to beatings by the accused. Similarly, Santosh Shrivas (PW-5), the father of the deceased, has deposed that the accused frequently assaulted the deceased and even caused her injuries for which she had been admitted to hospital. 32. These witnesses have remained consistent and unshaken in their 16 cross-examination. Their testimony establishes that the accused had a persistent suspicion regarding the character of the deceased and used to assault her repeatedly, including shortly before the incident in question. 33. Janiram (CW-1) has further deposed that on the morning of the incident, around 7:30 AM, on the request of the accused, he went to his house and saw the accused bringing the deceased out of the house, supporting her by her arm. At that time, the deceased was alive but weak, and no one else was present in the house except the accused and his two minor children. Manisha (PW-2) has corroborated this by stating that around 8:00 AM, the accused brought the deceased to her house on a Luna and stated that she was unwell. The deceased was then taken to hospital where she was declared dead around 10:00 AM. 34. Inspector Rajesh Patel (PW-16) has categorically deposed that on 21.06.2022, the accused in his memorandum statement (Ex.P-04) admitted to having concealed the bamboo stick used in the commission of the offence inside his house and agreed to get the same recovered. A memorandum to this effect was recorded. Acting upon the said memorandum, the accused led the police party and the independent witnesses to his house, and from beneath the flooring of the house produced a bamboo stick. The same was seized in the presence of witnesses vide seizure memo (Ex. P-05). 35. The said memorandum and seizure proceedings stand duly corroborated by the independent witness Radhelal Shrivas (PW-1), who has stated in para-06 of his deposition that he was taken by the police to the house of the accused. Upon being questioned, the accused 17 unequivocally admitted before the police that he had beaten his wife Sangeeta with a bamboo stick. When further asked about the location of the said weapon, the accused himself went inside the house, climbed to the ceiling portion and retrieved the bamboo stick, which he handed over to the police in his presence. The witness further described the said stick as being about four to five feet in length, around three inches in thickness, with six knots on it. 36. Though in para-09 of his cross-examination the witness stated that he himself had not gone inside the house, but saw the accused and the police coming out of the house with the stick, this minor inconsistency does not demolish the core of the prosecution case. The material fact remains that the accused, in pursuance of his disclosure statement, got the stick recovered from his house and handed it over to the police. It is also significant that no suggestion was given to this witness that the police were already in possession of any stick before entering the accused’s house. Thus, the recovery cannot be doubted and stands fully proved under Section 27 of the Evidence Act. 37. From a cumulative reading of the evidence of Inspector Rajesh Patel (PW-16), Radhelal Shrivas (PW-1), and Prakash Das (PW-6), it clearly emerges that the bamboo stick (Article-A) was recovered from the possession of the accused on the basis of his own disclosure statement. The recovery is thus proved beyond doubt and directly connects the accused to the weapon of offence. 38. Inspector Vivek Kumar Pandey (PW-17) has categorically stated that the bamboo stick (Article-A), recovered at the instance of the 18 accused, was sealed and duly forwarded to the Regional Forensic Science Laboratory, Bilaspur under a proper custody. 39. The FSL report (Ex. P-30) conclusively opines that human blood was detected on the seized bamboo stick (Article-A). The defence has not put forth any challenge during cross-examination to either the forwarding of the article, the integrity of the seal, or the correctness of the FSL report. Thus, the FSL finding stands unshaken and attains finality. 40. Further, Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW-11) has opined that the injuries sustained by the deceased could have been caused by the said bamboo stick. When this medical opinion is read conjointly with the forensic confirmation of human blood, it forms a highly reliable nexus between the weapon and the commission of crime. 41. It is pertinent to note that the accused, in his examination under Section 313 CrPC, offered no plausible explanation for the presence of human blood on an article recovered from his exclusive possession. The silence of the accused in this regard, when a serious incriminating circumstance stood established against him, is a vital link completing the chain of circumstantial evidence. 42. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in Gura Singh v. State of Rajasthan (2001) 2 SCC 205 has held that “scientific evidence such as serological and forensic reports carry a high degree of credibility and when not challenged in cross-examination, they become unimpeachable evidence.” The present case is squarely covered by this principle. 43. Thus, the forensic evidence is not merely corroborative, but acts as a clinching circumstance connecting the accused to the homicidal death of the deceased. 19 44. In the present case, the prosecution has proved the following circumstantial evidence against the appellant:- a) The deceased was in the company of the accused immediately before her death and that there was no one else in the house who could have inflicted such injuries upon her. b) The medical evidence establishes multiple injuries on the body of the deceased. c) During investigation, on the basis of the memorandum statement (PW-4) of the accused, a bamboo stick was recovered from his house. d) The said stick was sent to FSL and in the FSL report (Ex.P-30) and was found to contain human blood. e) Dr. Shalini Kurre (PW-11), on query, has opined that the injuries found on the deceased could have been caused by the said stick. f) The accused has failed to offer any explanation as to how human blood was present on the stick recovered from his house at his instance. 45. Thus, there is unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidences against the accused appellant, which clearly indicate the guilt of accused/appellant. There was motive for the appellant to cause death of the deceased as he used to doubt the character of his wife, which led to frequent quarrel with his wife. 20 46. With regard to the contention advanced by learned counsel for the appellant concerning the delay of about fifteen months in registration of the FIR, it is to be noted that the incident occurred on 11.03.2021, whereas the FIR against the present appellant came to be registered on
Decision
For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 52. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail since 20.06.2022, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 53. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the jail term, to serve the same on the Appellant informing him that he is at 23 liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet