Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh v. State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Raghunathnagar, Distri
Case Details
1 CRA No.1236/2022 K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Digitally signed by K GOWRI SANKARA RAO Date: 2025.08.01 11:38:06 +0530 2025:CGHC:37160-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1236 of 2022 Ajay @ Pulli S/o Munna Basor Aged About 26 Years R/o Village Kamalpur (Basorpara), Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur- Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant versus State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station Raghunathnagar, District Balrampur-Ramanujganj, Chhattisgarh. …..Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellant For Respondent-State : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer. : Mr. Akath Kumar Yadav, Advocate ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Hon'ble Ramesh Sinha, Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Chief Justice Judge Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board 30.07.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellant-accused under Section 374(2) of Cr.P.C. is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30/06/2022, passed by the learned 2nd Additional Sessions Judge, Balrampur, District:Balrampur Ramanujganj (C.G.) in Sessions Trial No. 65/2017, whereby the appellant-accused has been convicted and sentenced as under:- 2 CRA No.1236/2022 Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment & fine of Rs.200/-, in default, additional R.I. for 2 months.
Legal Reasoning
1. Facts of the case, in brief, is that the complainant Dayaram lodged a merg intimation Ex.P-11 in the police post:Wadrafnagar, P.S. Basantpur that his daughter Chandni/deceased was married to Pulli Basor/appellant in the year 2017, his daughter and son-in-law were living in his house. He had gone to the forest with his wife and daughter Chandni, to collect Mahua in the morning, but Mahua had not fallen, so his daughter Chandni returned home, at that time, his son-in-law/appellant was at home. When the complainant and his wife were returning home, on the way, his son-in-law/Sanjay Basor informed them that Chandni has died. Thereafter, he came home and saw that his daughter Chandni was lying dead on the cot, his son-in-law was not at home and had fled somewhere with his bicycle. Thereafter, FIR was registered vide Ex.P-11 at P.S. Basantpur, C.G. against the appellant. During investigation, spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-9. The appellant was arrested vide Ex.P-15. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/20), Dr. Shashank Gupta (PW-13) opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation and the nature of death is homicidal. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 20 documents. Statement of the appellant 3 CRA No.1236/2022 under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. was recorded wherein he denied guilt, however, he examined none in his defence and did not bring any document in his support either. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellant herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced him as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellant herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence.
Legal Reasoning
4. Learned counsel would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that memorandum statement of appellant was not recorded. He further submits that at the time of incident, the appellant was not present at home and FSL report is negative. He submitted that the deceased is the wife of appellant, there is cordial relation between them and there is no intention to kill his wife. He further submits that there is no eye witness in the present case and the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is material contradiction and omission in the statement of witnesses. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has 4 CRA No.1236/2022 rightly convicted the appellant for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The first and foremost question is as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, which the learned trial Court has recorded in affirmative by taking into consideration the oral and documentary evidence available on record and particularly considering the postmortem report (Ex.P-20) which is duly proved by the evidence of Dr. Shashank Gupta (PW-13). Accordingly, taking into consideration the postmortem report (Ex.P-20) and the statement of Dr. Shashank Gupta (PW-13) that the nature of death of deceased was homicidal in nature, we are of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court is absolutely justified in holding that the death of the deceased is homicidal in nature, as the same is correct finding of fact based on evidence and same is neither perverse nor contrary to the record. Accordingly, we hereby affirmed the said finding. 8. Now the next question would be whether the accused-appellant herein is the author of the crime in question ? 9. PW-9 Sougandh, nephew of deceased/Chandni stated in his evidence that the appellant had killed his bua/chandni by strangulation. Thereafter, he called his parents Mariyam and Kamaal 5 CRA No.1236/2022 (PW-5) on the spot, due to which, the accused fled from the spot with a bicycle. In cross-examination, he stated that at the time of incident, the appellant and deceased were inside the house and he was at standing near the door outside. 10. PW-5, Kamaal, brother of deceased, stated in his evidence that on the date of incident, he was working in the employment guarantee scheme. At that time he heard the voice coming from the house of accused. He reached there and his son Sougandh told him that his uncle/appellant had killed Chandni by strangulating her and hitting her with a stick. He further stated that his son Sougandh has seen the incident. 11. PW-7, Saawan Kumar, another nephew of deceased, stated that he knows the accused, he is his maternal uncle. He stated that about 6 years ago before the incident there was a quarrel occurred between the accused and the deceased, which he intervened and stopped. On the date of incident, he was going to the forest to collect Mahua. Half an hour later, there was a commotion and the villagers gathered and saw that his aunt Chandni has died. 12. PW-13, Dr. Shashank Gupta, who conducted the postmortem of deceased, stated in his evidence that there was a dark blackish brown contusion around the neck of the deceased. On opening the contusion area, blood was found inside and there were small scratch marks on the left and right wrist, which could possibly be due to the bangle breaking. 6 CRA No.1236/2022 Opinion:- The death of the deceased was due to suffocation which was caused by strangulation by some object. The nature of death was homicidal which occurred 12-16 hours before the post-mortem. The post-mortem report prepared by him vide Ex.P-20, and signed by him from parts from A to A. 13. From the statement of PW-7, Saawan Kumar, that prior to the date of incident, some quarrel took place between the appellant and deceased, to which, he intervened and stopped, it appears that the appellant used to quarrel with his wife/deceased and on the date of incident too, some quarrel took place between them, due to which, the appellant assaulted his wife and killed her by strangulation. Also, considering the statement of PW-9 Sougandh, nephew of deceased/Chandni, in which, he stated that on the date of incident, both the appellant and deceased were inside the house and he was standing near the door outside; and he stated that the appellant had killed his aunt/deceased by strangulation. This fact has also came to the statement of PW-5, Kamaal, brother of deceased, in which, he stated that his son Sougandh told him that his uncle(mama)/appellant had killed his aunt/Chandni by strangulating her and hitting her with a stick. Hence, Sougandh PW-9 is the eye witness in the case. 14. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: - “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.— When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 15. As per the requirement of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 7 CRA No.1236/2022 the accused was required to give plausible and convincing explanation about the circumstances, in which, the deceased was found dead in his house. Where an offence like murder is committed inside the house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be ofthe same degree as is required in other cases. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. 16. In view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot keep away by simply keeping quite and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. 17. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Supreme Court whilst applying provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, observed in para 14 reads as under: “14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as 8 CRA No.1236/2022 noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 18. On the interpretation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer reported in AIR 1956 SC 404 in paragraph 9 it was observed by the Supreme Court thus: "9. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the 9 CRA No.1236/2022 contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not." 19. In the matter of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382, the Supreme Court has observed in paras 31 to 33 as under: “31. The prestine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. 10 CRA No.1236/2022 32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore narrated circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognized by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.” 20. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar reported in 2021 10 SCC 725 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those 11 CRA No.1236/2022 cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 21. Reading the evidence of PW-9 Sougandh and for the fact that the appellant and the deceased alone were in the house at the time of incident and the appellant being the husband of the deceased was under obligation to disclose the fact within his exclusive knowledge which he has failed to do, presumption arises of his complicity in the crime. In absence of any explanation by the appellant the principle 12 CRA No.1236/2022 under Section 106 of the Evidence Act would apply against the appellant specially when it is a case of house murder by the husband killing his wife. 22. In the matter of Suresh & Another Vs. State of Haryana {(2015) 2 SCC 227}, the Supreme Court has held that under Section 106 of the Evidence Act it is for the person concerned to prove any especial fact within his knowledge and if such especial fact is not disclosed, an adverse inference can be drawn. 23. From bare perusal of above evidence and looking to the injuries sustained by the deceased, it is proved that because of some altercation took place between the appellant and deceased, due to which, the appellant had assaulted his wife and killed her by strangulation. Hence, we hereby accept the finding recorded by the trial Court that it is the appellant-accused who assaulted his wife/deceased, due to which, she died. As such, the finding recorded by the trial Court that the appellant killed his wife by strangulation, is based on evidence available on record and accordingly, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court that the appellant-accused is the author of the crime in question. 24. In view of foregoing discussion, we are the of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for offence under Section 302 of IPC. 25. The appellant is stated to be in jail and he shall serve out the 13 CRA No.1236/2022 remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at 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. 26. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is dismissed. 27. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) Judge Chief Judge (Ramesh Sinha) Gowri/Amardeep