[Cites 11, Cited by 0]
Chattisgarh High Court
Shiv Kumar Koshle @ Bablu vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 19 March, 2026
Author: Ramesh Sinha
Bench: Ramesh Sinha
1
2026:CGHC:13120-DB
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
CRA No. 525 of 2025
Shiv Kumar Koshle @ Bablu S/o Late Shri Jagdish Prasad Koshle Aged
About 39 Years R/o Nayapara Ganesh Nagar, Police Station- Sirgitti,
District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Appellant(s)
versus
State Of Chhattisgarh Through- The Station House Officer, Police
Station- Sirgitti, District- Bilaspur (C.G.)
... Respondent(s)
For Appellant (s) : Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate
For Respondent(s) : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate
Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
19.03.2026
1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate, appearing for the learned
counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt.
Advocate General for the Respondent/ State in the present
criminal appeal.
2. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under section 415
(2) of the B.N.S.S.2023, against the judgement of conviction and
sentence dated 26.11.2024, passed by learned 6th Additional
Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Case No. 104/2022,
whereby the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 of
IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine of Rs.
500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 01 month.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.11.2021, at about
11.20 AM, the complainant Umend Lal Bharati (PW/16) gave a
merg intimation to the Police that he was being informed by his
neighbour that Priti Koshle have been murdered and dial 112
Police took the accused to the Police Station and when he had
gone to his house, he found her dead body in her house in injured
condition. The accused suspected the fidelity of his wife and used
to quarrel regularly. Based on the merg intimation (Ex-P/16), the
Police started an inquiry. Inquest (Ex-P/7) was prepared, and the
dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem to the
District Hospital, Bilaspur. (PW/14) Dr. Katlam Singh Dhruve
conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and
gave the report (Ex-P/20). While conducting the postmortem, the
doctor found following injuries on her body:-
1. Injury on the forehead, postauricular region left side,
2. Vertex region,
4. left ear post auricular region, the skull bone was found
fractured,
5. Abrasion on the left hand and elbow,
6. Abrasion on the right side of the neck
7. Abrasion on the right scapular region
8. Hematoma on the left thigh
9. and left tibial region
And opined that according to the finding, death was due to cardio
respiratory arrest.
4. Spot Map (Ex-P/5) was prepared by the Police, and (Ex-P/9) was
prepared by the Patwari. Blood-stained and plain soil have been
seized from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex-P/8). FIR (Ex-P/17)
was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section
302 of the IPC. The appellant was arrested on 01.11.2021, and
his memorandum statement (Ex-P/1) was recorded. Based on his
memorandum statement, one spade, one half shirt, one half pant
and one mobile phone have been seized from him vide seizure
memo (Ex-P/2). The spade was sent for its query report to the
doctor, who gave his report (Ex-P/21) and opined that the injuries
found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by
the said weapon. The seized articles, i.e. blood stain and plain
soil, the spade seized from the appellant, his clothes and the
clothes of the deceased were sent for their chemical examination
to the Regional FSL, Bilaspur, from where a report (Ex-P/27) was
received. According to the FSL report, in the blood stain soil and
spade, "A" group of human blood was found, and in the clothes of
the accused and the clothes of the deceased, blood was found;
however, their origin could not be determined. Statement of the
witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, and
after completion of the usual investigation, charge sheet has been
filed before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Bilaspur,
for the offence under Section 302 of IPC.
5. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Bilaspur,
from where it was transferred to the learned Trial Court for its trial.
6. The learned trial Court has framed charge against the appellant
for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant
denied the charge and claimed trial. In order to prove the charge
against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as
16 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of
CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the
circumstances appear against him, pleaded innocence and has
submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in
the offence.
7. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by
the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and
sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of the
judgment, hence this appeal.
8. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the
prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable
doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the
evidence of the prosecution witnesses. There is no eye witness of
the case, and the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial
evidence, and the chain of circumstances is not complete. There
is no evidence that at the relevant point in time, the accused was
present in the house along with the deceased. There are other
inmates of the house, and the liability to explain the fact within the
special knowledge cannot be imposed upon the appellant. None
of the witnesses has stated that the appellant was present on the
spot. The burden shifts upon the appellant only after successfully
discharging the burden upon the prosecution that the accused
alone was present in the house with the deceased. There is no
ground to draw a presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence
Act. He would also submit that the accused himself has given the
intimation of the incident to dial 112, but there is no document
produced by the prosecution regarding the intimation given by the
appellant to prove the nature of the information. It is also
submitted that the children of the accused, as well as the
deceased, were also residing with them, but their statements have
not been recorded, and they have not been cited as witnesses. In
such circumstances, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the
accused. It is further submitted that there is cogent evidence with
respect to the seizure of the spade and clothes on the instance of
the accused, as the spade was lying there on the spot, and the
seizure of the articles has not been supported by the seizure
witnesses. In such lack of evidence, the appellant cannot be
convicted of the alleged offence, and he is entitled for acquittal. In
support of his submission, he would rely upon the judgment of
"Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra", 2021 (5)
SCC 626, "Nusrat Parween Vs. State of Jharkhand", 2024 SCC
Online SC 3683, "Manharan Rajwade Vs. State of
Chhattisgarh" 2024 (16) SCC 32, and "Pooranmal Vs. State of
Rajasthan and another", 2026 SCC Online SC 344.
9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the
submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has
submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond
reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the.
The appellant was present on the spot at the relevant point of
time, which has been proved by his Mother (PW/2) Durga Bharti.
As per the submission of the appellant himself, he informed Dial
112 Police and meaning thereby, he was present on the spot. The
wife of the appellant was found dead in a seriously injured
condition, having numerous injuries on her body, and the incident
occurred at night, then the appellant is under an obligation to
explain how his wife was found dead in injured condition. There is
absolutely no explanation from the appellant. From the evidence
produced by the prosecution, it has clearly been established that
the appellant was in the house along with the deceased at the
relevant point in time, and blood has been found on the clothes of
the appellant, for which there is also no explanation. There are
evidence on record with respect to the strange relation between
the appellant and the deceased and thus all the chain of
circumstances are enter connected with each other which forms a
complete chain of circumstances which pointing towards guilt of
the appellant that he committed murder of his wife, therefore,
there is no merits in the appeal and the same is liable to be
dismissed.
10. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the
record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection.
11. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is the
nature of the death of the deceased.
12. The dead body of the deceased was found inside the house,
having numerous injuries on her body. The injuries have been
proved by the doctor (PW/14) who conducted the postmortem of
the dead body. He stated in his evidence that while conducting the
post-mortem, he noticed various injuries on the dead body and
opined that the cause of death of the deceased is
cardiorespiratory arrest, and his post-mortem report is
(Ex-P/20). Nothing in his cross-examination makes his evidence
doubtful. He specifically denied that the deceased might have
received injury on his head by falling on the sharp-edged and
pointed object.
13. From the evidence of the doctor (PW/14) and also from the
evidence of (PW/4) Kawal Prasad, who is the witness of the
inquest. The prosecution has proved that the death of the
deceased was due to the injuries found on her body, and she was
murdered in her house.
14. The next question involved in the present case would be the
involvement of the appellant in the offence in question.
15. It is not disputed that the deceased is the wife of the appellant.
Her dead body was found inside the house where the appellant
and the deceased were residing. With respect to the presence of
the appellant at his house at the relevant point of time has been
proved by (PW/2), who is the mother of the deceased. She stated
in her evidence that the deceased was married to the appellant
14-15 years back. Her daughter was being harassed by her in-
laws; therefore, the appellant and the deceased started residing at
Ganesh Nagar Naya Para. Shiv Kumari, who is a resident of the
vicinity, informed her that her daughter is being murdered. When
the leading question was being asked, she denied that the
appellant confessed to her that he had murdered the deceased.
She also admitted that the appellant suspected her fidelity and
used to beat her. There was a frequent quarrel going on between
them. In her cross-examination, the defence could not extract any
material to show that the appellant was not present at his house
on the date of the incident. Though she stated that she did not
come to know on the spot who had murdered her daughter. When
this witness has stated that the appellant was residing with the
deceased at Ganesh Nagar Naya Para, it is for the appellant to
get her evidence rebutted in her cross-examination, but he failed
to do so.
16. (PW/3) Shiv Kumari is the resident of the vicinity who informed the
mother of the deceased about the incident. She stated in her
evidence that on the date of the incident, when she came to know
about the incident, she informed it to her mother. Though she has
not supported the prosecution's case, however, it comes in her
evidence that she came to know on the spot that the deceased
was being murdered by his husband, which she informed her
mother.
17. (PW/4) Kamal Prasad is the relative of the appellant and the
deceased. When he came to know about the incident, he had
gone to the place of the incident where the father of the deceased
informed him that the deceased was murdered by her husband,
then he accompanied Umend Lal for lodging the report. 15 days
back, there was a quarrel between the appellant and the
deceased, and he, along with Umend Lal Bharati, had gone there
and convinced them. In cross-examination, he denied the
suggestion that, due to his relationship, he is not telling the truth.
He too remains firm in his cross-examination about the statement
made in his examination in chief.
18. (PW/5) Pramod Bharati, who is the brother of the deceased. He
stated in his evidence that when he came to know about the
incident, he too had gone to the place of the incident and saw the
dead body of the deceased inside his house. He too has stated
that they married 13 years back, having 4 children. The appellant
suspected the fidelity of his sister, and for that reason, he
assaulted her with a spade and committed her murder. There is
nothing in his evidence that their relation was not strange or that
the appellant was not present in his house on the fateful night.
19. (PW/7) Laxmikant Mishra is the Constable and is attached to dial
112 Police. He stated in his evidence that on 13.10.2021, he was
on duty with dial 112. He received a phone call from the Raipur
command centre that the appellant had committed the murder of
his wife at Ganesh Nagar, Naya Para. When he reached on the
spot, he found the appellant there and confessed his guilt. He
immediately informed the Station House Officer of P.S. Sirgitti
through his mobile phone and also replied to the command centre
in Raipur. He took the appellant to the Sirgitti Police station by 112
vehicle. In his cross-examination, he denied the suggestion that
he had falsely implicated the accused in the offence. From the
evidence of this witness, it has been clearly established that at the
relevant point of time, the accused was present in the spot, he
informed dial 112, and dial 112 Police took him to the police
station, which clearly establishes his presence on the spot.
20. (PW/16) Umend Lal Bharati, who is the father of the deceased,
has stated that when he received information about the incident,
he went to her house and saw her dead body. He informed the
Sirgitti Police, where merg intimation was recorded. When he was
declared hostile and cross-examined by the prosecution, he
stated that his daughter has been married to the appellant for 13
years. He admitted that 2 years back, his daughter had eloped
with her brother-in-law, and after staying with him for 03 months,
she came back to the appellant. There was a frequent quarrel
between the appellant and the deceased, and due to this reason,
the appellant committed the murder. In cross-examination, he too
had remained firm about their strange relation, and the defence
could not extract any material from this witness, which makes his
evidence doubtful.
21. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a careful
perusal of the entire record, it clearly emerges that the death of
the deceased was homicidal in nature. The dead body of the
deceased was found inside her house bearing multiple injuries on
vital parts of the body, which have been duly proved by the
evidence of the doctor (PW/14), who conducted the postmortem
examination and submitted report (Ex-P/20). The doctor has
categorically opined that the death was due to cardiorespiratory
arrest resulting from the injuries sustained by the deceased, and
he has specifically ruled out the possibility of such injuries being
caused by an accidental fall. His testimony has remained
unshaken in cross-examination. The inquest witness (PW/4) has
also supported the prosecution's case regarding the condition of
the dead body. Thus, from the medical as well as ocular evidence,
it stands firmly established that the deceased died an unnatural
and homicidal death inside her matrimonial home.
22. As regards the involvement of the appellant, the prosecution's
case rests on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of
circumstances is found to be complete and consistent only with
the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. It is not in dispute that
the deceased was the wife of the appellant and that both were
residing together in the same house where the incident occurred.
The presence of the appellant at the relevant point of time has
been established by the evidence of (PW/2) and further
corroborated by (PW/7), the constable attached to Dial 112, who
categorically stated that upon receiving information, he reached
the spot and found the appellant present there, and thereafter
took him to the police station. The evidence on record also
establishes that there were strained relations between the
appellant and the deceased on account of suspicion regarding her
fidelity, leading to frequent quarrels. The appellant has failed to
offer any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
regarding the incriminating circumstances, particularly as to how
the deceased sustained fatal injuries inside the house where he
was present. The recovery of the weapon (spade) at the instance
of the appellant, coupled with the medical opinion that the injuries
could have been caused by such weapon, and the presence of
blood stains on the seized articles, further strengthens the
prosecution's case. Taken together, these circumstances form a
complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the
appellant, ruling out any hypothesis of innocence.
23. 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".
24. In the case of Nagendra Sah v. 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."
of the evidence on record as well as the judgment passed by the
learned trial Court, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the
conviction and sentence of the appellant. The learned trial Court,
while considering the case against the appellant and the evidence
available on record, has rightly considered the five golden
principles settled by the Hon'ble Supreme Court, in the case of
"Sharad Birdhi Chandra Sarda Vs. State of Mararastra" 1984
(4) SCC 116 and the provision of 106 of the Evidence Act, and
held the appellant guilty of the alleged offence. We found no
scope for interference in the appeal in view of the evidence
available on record.
25. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does
not assist his case, as the facts and consideration on those cases
are different from the facts of the present case, and therefore,
distinguishable. The case of "Shivaji Chintappa Patil" (supra)
pertains to the issue of whether the death of the deceased was
suicidal or homicidal, whereas the present case clearly involves a
homicidal death, as evidenced by the numerous injuries found on
the body of the deceased. The judgment of "Nusrat Parween"
(supra) pertains to the availability of evidence regarding the
presence of the accused on the spot and the existence of motive,
whereas in the present case, both aspects stand established
through the evidence of the witnesses. The judgment of
"Manharan Rajwade" (supra) concerns the burden on the
prosecution to establish the presence of the accused on the spot
and the consideration of his explanation under Section 313
Cr.P.C. However, in the present case, the prosecution has
successfully proved his presence, and the appellant has failed to
offer any explanation regarding the incriminating circumstances in
his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The "Pooranmal" case
(supra) relates to the acceptance of the DNA/FSL report, whereas
in the present case, there is other evidence also apart from the
FSL report; therefore, it is also distinguishable.
26. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed.
27. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 01.11.2021; he shall
serve the entire sentence awarded to him by the learned trial
Court.
28. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the
appellant through the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the
appellant is undergoing his jail sentence, 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.
29. The trial court record, along with a copy of this judgment, should
be sent back immediately to the trial court concerned for
compliance and necessary action.
Sd/- Sd/-
(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)
Judge Chief Justice
Sagrika
