[Cites 14, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Devendra Kumar Singh vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 20 April, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
Digitally signed
by INDRAJEET 2026:CGHC:17781-DB
INDRAJEET SAHU
Date:
SAHU 2026.04.22
13:07:28
+0530
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 219 of 2024
1 - Devendra Kumar Singh S/o Shri Laldev Singh Aged About 25 Years R/o
Village Bargawa Tilwaridand, Police Station Darima, District Surguja (C.G.)
... Appellant
Versus
1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Station In Charge, Police Station Darima,
District Surguja (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant : Shri K. Rohan, Advocate.
For Respondent : Shri Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ramesh Sinha, CJ
Hon'ble Shri Justice Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Judgment on Board
20.04.2026
Per, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
1 Though the matter was listed for consideration on application for
suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of
the parties the appeal is being finally heard as the appellant is in jail
since 06.07.2021.
2 The present appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been filed by the
appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of
sentence dated 23.12.2023 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions
Judge, Ambikapur, in Sessions Case No.202/2021 whereby the
appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC
and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of
Rs.500/-, upon failure to pay which, additional RI for one month.
3 Brief facts of the case are that, on 06.07.2021 at about 07:30 AM, the
complainant Laldev Singh, PW-4, father of the appellant, gave a merg
intimation to the police that in the morning when he was proceeding to
his new house, on the way, his neighbor Dhaneshwar Bargah informed
him that his son Devendra (appellant) committed murder of his wife
Radha by causing injury by an Axe and her dead body is lying in the
house. The police recorded merg intimation Ex.P/8 and based on said
merg intimation an FIR Ex.P/9 was registered against the appellant for
the offence under Section 302 IPC. Inquest Ex.P./2 of the deadbody of
the deceased was prepared in presence of witnesses and then the
dead body was sent for its postmortem to Primary Heath Centre,
Darima where PW-7, Dr. Janeshwar Singh conducted postmortem of
the dead body and gave his report Ex.P/12. While conducting the
postmortem of the dead body of deceased, he noticed three incised
wound over occipital region and multiple incised wound over Neck at
Back and all the structures were cut off. He opined the cause of death
is hemorrhagic shock due to incised wound in Neck leading to cardio
respiratory arrest and it is homicidal in nature. Spot map Ex.P/7 was
prepared by the Patwari and P/10 by the Police. Bloodstained and
plain soil was seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/4. The
appellant was arrested on 06.07.2021 and his memorandum statement
Ex.P/3 was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, one Axe
and bloodstained Shirt was seized from appellant vide seizure memo
Ex.P/5. Plain soil as well as bloodstained soil were seized from spot,
Axe and Shirt seized from appellant were sent for its FSL to regional
FSL, Ambikapur, from where report Ex.P/18 was received, according to
which, human blood was found on the bloodstained soil, Axe and Shirt
seized from the appellant.
4 The statement under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses were
recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was
filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC before
the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur. The case was committed
to the Court of Sessions Judge Ambikapur from where it has been
transferred to the trial Court for its trial.
5 The trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence
under Section 302. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial.
6 In order to establish charge against the appellant, the prosecution has
examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 CrPC
of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the
circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have
submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the offence. He
also stated that on the date of incident he had gone to village
Sargawan to his elder father Tarkeshwar Singh's house.
7 After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the
prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced
him as mentioned in opening para of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
8 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution
has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are
material inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses which cannot be
made basis to convict him for the alleged offence. At the time of
incident, the appellant was not in his house and went to village
Sargawan to his elder father's house. Though the deceased was wife
of the appellant, but presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence
Act cannot be drawn against him as dead body was found in an open
place i.e. outside the house and there is no evidence available on
record that accused was present in the housed at the relevant point of
time. There is no eyewitness to the incident. The appellant has
explained that he had gone to the house of elder father at village
Sargawan. The prosecution could not establish and discharge his
primary burden to prove the presence of appellant and deceased
together in the house in the night. The case of prosecution is based on
circumstantial evidence and there are various components missing to
complete the chain. The FSL report itself is not conclusive as there is
no report regarding matching of blood group with the blood found on
the cloths of appellant as well as blood found on spot. Therefore, the
evidence produced by the prosecution is not sufficient to hold him guilty
and he is entitled for acquittal.
9 On the other hand, the counsel for the State opposes the submissions
made by the counsel for the appellant and have submitted that there is
ample evidence against the appellant to convict him for the alleged
office, but for minor omissions or contradictions, the evidence of victim
as well as other witnesses are fully reliable and conviction can be
made on the basis of evidence came on record. It is not in dispute that
appellant is the Husband of deceased and from the spot map it has
been proved by the prosecution that dead body of the deceased was
found adjacent to the house within the premises of his house. Number
of injuries have been found on the body of deceased which were
caused by Axe which was seized from appellant and human blood was
found on the said Axe and shirt of appellant for which there is no
explanation in his 313 CrPC statement. The accused took the defence
of plea of Alibi that he had gone to the house of his elder father at
village Sargawan, however, he failed to establish his defence by
examining any of the witnesses or producing any material which
proves that he was not present in his house, but went somewhere else.
From the evidence of PW-4, the father of appellant, it further transpires
that the accused and deceased were residing together in the same
house and on the date of incident also they were together and his
father PW-4 went another house in the night after having diner and in
the next morning the deceased was found dead having injuries on her
body. There is no explanation as to when and where the appellant had
gone leaving the company of deceased. Therefore, there is ample
material against the appellant to draw a presumption that he committed
the murder of deceased as provided under Section 106 of the
Evidence Act. The judgment passed by the trial court is based on
proper appreciation of evidence which does not suffer from any
infirmity and the appeal is liable to be dismissed.
10 We have heard the counsel for the parties and perused the records of
the case.
11 The homicidal death of the deceased has been proved by the
prosecution by the evidence of PW-4, Laldev Singh, the father of
appellant, who lodged the merg intimation to the police; evidence of
witness to inquest i.e. PW-4, Laldev Singh, PW-1, Dhaneshwar, PW-2,
Ghurau, who deposed that they saw the dead body of deceased
Radha who received number of injuries on her body. Further, PW-7, Dr.
Janeshwar Singh, who conducted the postmortem of the dead body
has proved the homicidal death of the deceased. He stated in his
evidence that he conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the
deceased on 06.07.2021 and found three incised wound on occipital
region of the deceased, multiple incised wound over neck at back with
all structures cut off and opined the mode of death is hemorrhagic
shock due to incised wound in Neck leading to cardio respiratory arrest
which is homicidal in nature. In cross examination, the suggestion
given by the defence that deceased received injuries on her body by
falling on a sharp edged stone, but he denied the suggestion and
stated that in such a situation only one or two injuries could be
possible, however, the deceased received multiple injuries on her Head
and Neck.
12 From the evidence of doctor, the defence could not extract any material
so that the nature of death of deceased could be disbelieved that she
was not died due to homicidal death, but for any other reason. Thus,
the findings recorded by the trial court that death of deceased is
homicidal in nature is hereby affirmed.
13 So far as involvement of appellant in the offence in question is
concerned, the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence. The deceased is the wife of appellant and PW-4 is the father
of appellant who lodged merg intimation. In merg intimation Ex.P/8 the
father of appellant informed the police that dead body of deceased is
lying in the varanda of the house having injuries on her body whereas,
in his deposition he has stated that on the date of incident when he
was proceeding to the house of appellant who was residing in a new
house, on the way, Dhaneshwar accompanied him and after some
distance they found the dead body of deceased and thereafter he took
the dead body to his new house and then he lodged the report. When
this witness have not supported the prosecution case, a leading
question was asked to him to which he replied that the appellant bring
back the deceased from her parent's house with the condition that they
will reside together in a separate house and thereafter they were
residing at new house at village Bargawa Tilwaridand. The place where
the dead body of deceased was lying, blood was spread up there.
In cross examination, he admitted that the dead body of deceased was
lying in between his new house and old house and distance between
the two is about 1 KM.
From perusal of spot map Ex.P/11 prepared by the police it
clearly reveals that the place-A shown in the map is the place where
the dead body was lying which is adjacent to the room. The same
position was also there in the map Ex.P/7 prepared by the Patwari. It is
nowhere mentioned that the dead body of the deceased was found at a
distance or PW-4 Laldev took the dead body from distance up to the
house of the appellant. Laldev, PW-4, is the witness in both these spot
maps. Therefore, his evidence that the dead body was found in
between old and new house is belied and it is found that dead body
was found in the varanda of the house of appellant.
14 PW-1, Dhaneshwar is the person who accompanied PW-4, Laldev
while going to the house of appellant. He stated same version as PW-
4, however, his evidence is also not supported by the document Ex.P/7
which is spot map prepared by the Patwari in which he was the
witness. He too turned hostile and not supported the case of
prosecution.
15 PW-2, Bhulau Singh, is the brother of deceased in relation. He is the
witness of seizure memo Ex.P/4 by which bloodstained soil was seized
from spot. The spot from where bloodstained soil was seized is
adjacent to the house of appellant. There is no spot except adjacent to
the house of the appellant where dead body was lying. Though he is
not an eyewitness to the incident, but he has supported seizure of
bloodstained soil from the spot which is adjacent to the house of
appellant.
16 PW-3, Shiv Shankar Singh, is the brother of deceased. He stated in his
evidence that his sister was residing in his house for 2-3 months and
thereafter the appellant took her back with him at village Tilwaridand.
After three days, he received information about her murder.
17 PW-5, Satnam Rajwade, is the Patwari, who prepared spot map
Ex.P/7. In cross examination he has stated that he prepared the spot
map on the basis of information given by Laldev Singh. He denied that
he received information about the fact that dead body of deceased was
found in between the old and new house of the appellant. This witness
remain stuck in saying that he prepared the spot map of a place where
the dead body was found which is the varanda of the house of
appellant.
From the evidence of this witness, it transpires that due to some
dispute between appellant and deceased, the deceased went to her
parents house where she resided for 2-3 months and just before 3
days from the date of incident, he took the deceased back from her
parents house with the condition that they will reside in a separate
house and as per the evidence of father of appellant PW-4, the
deceased was residing with his wife in a new house and he (father of
appellant) himself was residing in a old house. From spot map and
evidence of witnesses it also transpires that the dead body was found
in the varanda of the house of the appellant which is within the
premises of house. Though defence was taken by the appellant that
he went to the house of his elder father at village Sargawan, however,
he could not substantiate his defence by examining his elder father or
any of the witnesses from that place. Even distance between
Sargawan and the place of incident has not been disclosed by him.
18 In the case of Nagendra Sah Vs. The State of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC
725 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 23 has held as under:
"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."
19 In the case of Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2023) Live Law
(SC) 861 the Hon'ble Supreme Court in Para 33 and 34 has held as
under:
"33. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 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. Illustration (a) When a person does an act with some
intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the
act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.(b) A is
charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket, The burden of
proving that he had a ticket is on him.
34. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that
when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the
burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means
facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of
the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that
the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not
in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the
Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to
Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a)
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 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 the facts
which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which,
he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience."
20 The further circumstances against the appellant is the human blood
found on the shirt of the appellant for which there is no explanation. As
per the FSL report Ex.P/18, human blood was found on the
bloodstained soil seized from spot i.e. varanda of the house of the
appellant, Axe allegedly seized from appellant as also in his shirt for
which there is no explanation in his 313 CrPC statement which is a
corroborative circumstance towards guilt of the appellant.
From the overall facts and circumstances of the case, it clearly
established that the deceased was wife of the appellant, she went to
her parents house due to some dispute between them, just three days
before the date of incident she was brought back by the appellant with
the condition that they will reside in a separate house and they started
residing in a new house and the father of appellant was residing
separately in old house. The plea of alibi that he went to village
Sargawan to his elder father's house does not found proved by the
defence. Human blood was found on the Axe and shirt seized from
appellant for which there is no explanation. Thus, when the appellant
failed to establish his plea of alibi and circumstances proved that he
was in the house with the deceased where the deceased received
multiple injuries on her body, it is for the appellant to explain as to how
the deceased received multiple injuries on her body, however, the
appellant failed to explain the same and as such there are sufficient
reasons to draw an adverse presumption against the appellant as
provided under Section 106 of the Evidenced Act.
21 A false unsubstantiated defence of alibi is an additional incriminating
factor against the appellant. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of
Maharashtra, 2006 (10) SCC 681, it was observed as follows :-
"22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his
wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that
shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the
offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also
normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused
does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers
an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance
which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.
In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. it was observed that the fact that the
accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered
there with "khukhri" and the fact that the relations of the accused
with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent
explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of
Maharashtra the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife
which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the
death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation
to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his
statement under Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the
prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held
to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent
with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the
commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra
Prakash Mittal the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of
strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body
was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband
was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that
he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her
relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations
were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were
in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances
was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of
his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the
judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him
under Section 302 IPC. In State of T.N. v. Rajendran the wife was
found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that
the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00
p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when
the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of
accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter.
The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a
result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held
that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it
was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime."
22 Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case as well as
law laid down by the Hon'ble Supreme Court in the filed of presumption
under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the learned trial court has held
the appellant guilty for commission of murder of his wife in which we do
not find any illegality or perversity.
23 In the result, the appeal fails and his hereby dismissed. The appellant
is reported to be in jail since 06.07.2021. He shall undergo the entire
sentence as awarded by the trial court.
24 Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned
Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his 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.
25 The records of the case along with a copy of this judgment be sent
back immediately to the trial court concerned for compliance and
necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
inder
