The High Court of Chhattisgarh, held that where an offense 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 of the same degree as is required in other cases.
This decision was made while dismissing an appeal against the conviction and sentence order dated 24.02.2024, passed by the Additional Sessions Judge, wherein the appellant was found guilty under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to life imprisonment.
Brief Facts:
Complainant Kamta Sahu brought his sister-in-law Indrani Sahu in unconscious condition to the District Hospital where she was declared dead. A case was registered against the appellant for an offense under Section 302 of the IPC. After completion of the investigation, the charge sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, who committed the case to the Court of Session, from where the Additional Sessions Judge received the case. The trial Court convicted the appellant for an offense under Section 302 of the IPC, against which the present appeal has been preferred by the appellant.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Learned Counsel for the Appellant submitted that the Learned trial Court failed to appreciate that the incident took place in a grave and sudden provocation and the appellant had no intention to kill the deceased, and therefore, the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC being unsustainable in the eyes of law, deserves to be quashed.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The Learned Counsel for the Respondent submitted that the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act is applicable and the appellant was required to explain as to under what circumstances Indrani Sahu died in his house. He argued that the appellant failed to explain the death of the deceased and therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the offense under Section 302 of the IPC is well merited and the appeal deserves to be dismissed.
Observations of the court:
The court noted that the trial Court convicted the appellant with the aid of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, holding that it was a house murder for which the appellant was required to offer an explanation in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, which he failed to do.
The Court observed that where an offense 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 of the same degree as is required in other cases. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. The inmates of the house cannot keep away by simply keeping quiet, and there is a duty on the accused to offer an explanation. The Court said that the homicidal nature of death need not always be proved through direct evidence. It has to be inferred from the circumstances, and when the assailant is the husband, it is difficult indeed to get direct evidence of the nature of injuries.
The decision of the Court:
The Chhattisgarh High Court, dismissing the appeal, held that the prosecution succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant.
Case Title: Bhupendra Sahu vs. State Of Chhattisgarh
Coram: Hon’ble Justice Ramesh Sinha and Hon’ble Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal
Case No.: CRA No. 947 of 2024
Advocate for the Appellant: Mr. Satya Prakash Verma
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Swajit Uboweja
Picture Source :
