Rajkumar @ Rajbabbar vs State Of Chhattisgarh
2026 Latest Caselaw 912 Chatt

Chattisgarh High Court

Rajkumar @ Rajbabbar vs State Of Chhattisgarh on 24 March, 2026

Author: Ramesh Sinha

Bench: Ramesh Sinha

                                                              1




                                                                        2026:CGHC:13949-DB
                                                                                            NAFR
          Digitally
          signed by
          BABLU


                                 HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
BABLU     RAJENDRA
RAJENDRA  BHANARKAR
BHANARKAR Date:
          2026.03.25
          10:18:17
          +0530




                                               CRA No. 1867 of 2022

                       Rajkumar @ Rajbabbar S/o Jaglal Rajwade Aged About 24 Years Caste
                       Rajwar, R/o Patelpara, Village Basdei, Out Post Basdei, P.S. And
                       District Surajpur Chhattisgarh
                                                                                      ... Appellant
                                                           versus
                       State Of Chhattisgarh Through Out Post Basdei, P.S. Surajpur, District
                       Surajpur Chhattisgarh
                                                                                   ... Respondent

For Appellant : Mr.Pushkar Sinha, Advocate For Respondent : Mr.S.S.Baghel, Government Advocate

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge

Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice 24/03/2026

1. This criminal appeal under Section 374(2) of the CrPC is

directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence dated 28.05.2022 passed by the Sessions

Judge, Surajpur, District Surajpur in Sessions Case

No.42/2019, by which the appellant herein has been convicted

for offence under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced to

undergo imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.500/-, in default of

payment of fine, to further undergo RI for one month.

2. Case of the prosecution, in brief, is that deceased Jugmen

used to have frequent disputes with her husband, the accused

Rajkumar @ Raj Babbar, on account of her suspicion that he

was involved with another woman. On 15.06.2019, between

approximately 11:00 AM and 12:00 noon, the appellant and the

deceased were alone in their house. The deceased had

prepared food, but it was allegedly not properly cooked, which

led the accused to scold her. This resulted in an argument

during which the deceased allegedly used abusive language

and accused the accused of having an illicit relationship with

another woman. The situation escalated into a physical

altercation. According to the prosecution, during this incident,

the accused used a scarf (dupatta) available in the house to

strangulate the deceased, causing her death. Thereafter, it is

alleged that the appellant attempted to hang the body using the

same scarf from a beam in the house. However, the scarf

broke, causing the body to fall to the ground, during which the

head of the deceased struck a nearby stove, resulting in

bleeding.

3. It is further alleged that the accused, after the incident, threw

the scarf aside, locked the house from outside, and left with the

key. He then went to his cousin Manoj Rajwade's house in

Manendragarh and informed him about the incident. Manoj, in

turn, informed his aunt Urmila Rajwade, who lived near the

accused's house, and asked her to inform the family members

and neighbors. Subsequently, information was passed to the

accused's father Jaylal. Thereafter, Jaylal and his wife, along

with the village Kotwar, reported the matter at Police Outpost

Basdei. A marg (inquest) was registered, and the locked house

was opened in the presence of witnesses. The body of the

deceased was found inside, and necessary inquest

proceedings were carried out. The body was sent for

postmortem examination to the District Hospital, Surajpur,

where Dr.Deepak Jaiswal (PW-13) conducted postmortem over

the body of the deceased and found following symptoms:-

"i. Rigor mortis present all over body, all limbane extended & supine in position.

ii. Tongue protruded out between jaw.

iii. Eye open.

iv. Blackish colour on facial skin.

v. Blebs on chest & abdomen.

vi. Throttling mark illdefined due to putrification of the body."

The doctor has opined that cause of death was asphyxia due to

throttling (assault) and nature of death was homicidal.

4. On the basis of the investigation, an offence bearing Crime No.

207/2019 was registered at Police Station Surajpur under

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. During investigation, the

appellant was taken into custody and his memorandum

statement was recorded. Based on his statement, the scarf

allegedly used in the incident and the key of the lock were

seized. A site map of the place of occurrence was prepared.

Blood-stained soil, plain soil, and a broken lock were also

seized. Statements of witnesses were recorded, and the seized

articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for

examination.

5. After completion of the investigation, a charge-sheet under

Section 302 IPC was filed before the Chief Judicial Magistrate,

Surajpur, and the case was committed to the Sessions Court

for trial. The accused/appellant abjured the guilt and entered

into defence.

6. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution examined

as many as 20 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents Exs.P-1

to P-32. Statement of the accused/appellant was recorded

under Section 313 of the CrPC in which he denied guilt.

However, the appellant-accused examined none in his defence

nor any document has been exhibited.

7. The trial Court upon appreciation of oral and documentary

evidence available on record, by its judgment dated

28.05.2022, convicted the appellant for offence under Section

302 of the IPC and sentenced as mentioned in opening

paragraph of this judgment, against which, this criminal appeal

has been preferred by the appellant herein.

8. Mr.Pushkar Sinha, learned counsel for the appellant submits

that the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed

by the learned trial Court is illegal, incorrect, and perverse,

having regard to the prosecution story and the material

available on record. The learned trial Court committed an error

by applying the "theory of last seen together" without proper

corroboration or supporting evidence. He further submits that

the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is no direct

evidence implicating the appellant. Further, the statements of

other witnesses are marked by omissions and contradictions,

which weaken the prosecution case. The trial Court ought to

have considered that there was no established motive or

intention on the part of the appellant to commit the alleged

crime. The learned trial Court wrongly held that there was a

sufficient motive for the appellant to commit the alleged crime,

without considering that no reason exists for the appellant to

have caused the death of the deceased. He also submits that

the conviction is primarily based on circumstantial evidence,

which has been incorrectly relied upon by the learned trial

Court without establishing the chain of circumstances

conclusively pointing to the appellant. The learned trial Court

failed to consider that the FSL (Forensic Science Laboratory)

report does not support the prosecution case, and therefore

cannot serve as a basis for upholding the conviction. In light of

the facts and circumstances of the case, the conviction of the

appellant is without proper application of mind and is perverse

as per the provisions of law and the sentence imposed upon

the appellant is too harsh and excessive. Hence, the criminal

appeal deserves to be allowed and the judgment impugned

deserves to be set aside.

9. On the other hand, Mr. S.S.Baghel, learned Government

Advocate appearing for the respondent/State supports the

impugned judgment and submits that dead body of the

deceased was found in the house of the appellant, therefore,

provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act is applicable in the

present case and the appellant was required to explain as to

under what circumstances Jugmen died in his house. He

further submits that appellant has failed to explain the death of

the deceased and therefore, conviction of the appellant for

offence under Section 302 of the IPC is well merited and the

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

10. We have heard learned counsel appearing for the parties,

considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also

went through the records with utmost circumspection.

11. The question for consideration is whether the appellant is the

author of the crime, which the trial Court has answered in

affirmative relying upon the circumstantial evidence available

on record. The trial Court has convicted the appellant with the

aid of Section 106 of the Evidence Act holding that it is house

murder, which the appellant was required to offer explanation in

his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, which he has

failed to offer and consequently, finding other circumstance

established, proceeded to convict him for offence under

Section 302 of the IPC.

12. 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."

13. The law regarding under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 1872 is well settled. The unnatural death of Indrani Sahu

took place in the house of the appellant.

14. As per the requirement of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence

Act, 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 of the same degree as is required in other

cases. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter

character.

15. 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.

16. 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 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."

17. 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 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."

18. 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.

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."

19. 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 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."

20. It is to be remembered here that homicidal nature of death

need not always be proved through direct evidence. It has to

be inferred from the circumstances and the nature of injuries

noticed on the dead body. The instant case is about the death

of a wife committed by the husband within four walls of the

house. When the assailant is the husband, it is difficult indeed

to get direct evidence on the nature of injuries. It is thus

concluded that the deceased died homicidal nature of death.

Considering the nature of injuries, which the deceased was

found, we are of the considered opinion that death of the

deceased was homicidal in nature. It is held accordingly.

21. In the present case, the deceased was found dead in her

house and at that time, only the appellant and the deceased

were present in the house and as per the provision of Section

106 of the Evidence Act, the burden to prove that the appellant

was not present in the house at the time of incident and he was

present elsewhere is on the appellant, which he admittedly

failed to prove in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC.

22. Taking into consideration that the burden of proving a plea

specially set up by the appellant which may absolve him from

criminal liability, certainly lies upon him and he has not offered

any plausible explanation, further taking into consideration that

the appellant was required to explain as to how the deceased

died, as the dead body of the deceased was found inside the

house of the appellant, which he has admittedly not explained

in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC and the

material collected by the prosecution, we are of the considered

opinion that the above chain of circumstances is complete and

leads only to one conclusion that it was the accused/appellant

who caused death of the deceased. The view taken by the

learned trial Court that the appellant is the author of the crime

is a pure finding of fact based on evidence available on record.

We hereby affirm that finding.

23. In the result, this Court comes to the conclusion that the

prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all

reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and

sentence as awarded by the trial court to the appellant is

hereby upheld. The present criminal appeal lacks merit and is

accordingly dismissed.

24. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve

out the sentence as ordered by the trial Court.

25. Registry is directed to transmit the certified copy of this

judgment along with the record to the trial Court concerned for

necessary information and compliance and also directed to

send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent

of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail term, 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 the High Court Legal Services Committee or the

Supreme Court Legal Services Committee.

               Sd/-                                              Sd/-

        (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal)                           (Ramesh Sinha)
               Judge                                         Chief Justice




Bablu