[Cites 4, Cited by 0]
Jharkhand High Court
Mukesh Kumar Ojha vs The State Of Jharkhand on 24 March, 2026
Author: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Bench: Rongon Mukhopadhyay
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 36 of 2019
[Against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2018 &
03.12.2018, respectively passed by learned Additional Judicial Commissioner,
XVIII, Ranchi in S.T. No.393 of 2017]
--------
Mukesh Kumar Ojha, aged about 39 years, son of Shri Durga Narayan Ojha,
resident of Pungi More, P.O. & P.S.-Mandar, District-Ranchi
... ... Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand ... ... Respondent
-----
PRESENT
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY
HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
--------
For the Appellant : Mr. A. K. Chaturvedi, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Bhola Nath Ojha, Spl.P.P.
--------
JUDGEMENT
C.A.V. on 16.01.2026 Pronounced on 24/03/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:
1. The instant criminal appeal is preferred for setting aside the impugned
judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 30.11.2018 & 03.12.2018
respectively, of the appellant passed by learned Additional Judicial
Commissioner, XVIII, Ranchi in S.T. Case No. 393 of 2017, whereby and
whereunder the appellant has been held guilty and convicted for the offence
under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life
along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
Factual Matrix:-
2. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that informant's daughter
(Asha Devi, deceased) was married with the present appellant in the year 2003.
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
Initially, everything was going on in normal manner but by passage of time, the
appellant used to scuffle and assault with his wife frequently on trivial issues.
The informant Basudeo Upadhyay (father of the deceased) made several
attempts to settle the dispute and differences between husband and wife but the
same could not be resolved. Ultimately, on 19.03.2017, informant came to
know from Narayan Ojha that his daughter Asha Devi had died. The informant
along with his son and other family members went to matrimonial home of
Asha Devi and found her dead, sustaining sharp cut injuries on her body. The
informant was suspecting that his son-in-law Mukesh Kumar Ojha along with
his father and brother had committed murder of the deceased. Accordingly,
Mandar P.S. Case No. 16 of 2017, was registered for the offence under Section
302/34 of I.P.C. After investigation, charge-sheet was submitted against the
sole accused (husband of the deceased) for the offence under Section 302 of the
I.P.C.
3. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and the accused was
put on trial. In the course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses were examined by
prosecution namely:
P.W.-1-Deoraj Singh
P.W.-2-Dilip Sao
P.W.-3-Tabrej Alam
P.W.-4- Anju Baitha
P.W.-5-A.K. Mishra
P.W.-6- Paras Nath Singh
P.W.-7-M.N. Singh
P.W.-8-Dr. Sawan Mundri (The doctor, who has conducted post mortem
examination)
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
P.W.-9-Basudeo Upadhyay (Informant)
P.W.-10-Anil Nand Tiwari
P.W.-11- Singrai Sundi (I.O.)
4. Apart from the oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary
evidence has been adduced:-
Exhibit-1-Signature of Awadhesh Kumar Mishra over seizure list dated
20.03.2017
Exhibit-2-Post Mortem Report of deceased Asha Devi
Exhibit-3-Written report of Basudeo Upadhyay (P.W.-9)
Exhibit-3/1-Signature of Basudeo Upadhyay over written report
Exhibit-4-Signatue of Basudeo Upadhyay over inquest report
Exhibit-5-Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit-6-Carbon copy of inquest report
Exhibit-7-Production-cum-seizurelist of blood samples over pillow
Exhibit-7/1-Seizure list of iron plate used in motor vehicle
Exhibit-8-Confessional statement of Mukesh Kumar Ojha
Exhibit-9-S.F.S.L. report
5. On the other hand, the case of defence is denial from occurrence and
false implication. One defence witness namely, Vikesh Kumar Ojha has also
been examined who has proved Exhibit-A, a letter purported to be written by
deceased Asha Devi.
6. The learned trial court, after evaluating the evidence available on record,
recorded the finding about guilt of the appellant and accordingly, convicted and
sentenced to him as stated above, which has been assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of appellant:-
7. Learned counsel for the appellant, in course of argument, has raised
following points challenging the legality of the impugned judgment and order:
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
i. Most of the independent witnesses examined by prosecution,
namely P.W.-1, P.W.-3, P.W.-4, P.W.-5, P.W.-6 and P.W.-7 have been
declared hostile by the prosecution and disclosed nothing incriminating
circumstance against the appellant but the learned Trial Court has taken
the evidence of hostile witnesses as a corroborative piece of evidence.
ii. P.W.-8 is the doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of
the deceased and opined about the cause of death due to certain ante-
mortem head injuries and P.W.-11 is the Investigating Officer who has
simply stated the manner in which he has conducted the investigation of
the case.
iii. The sterling witnesses of prosecution is P.W.-9, Basudeo
Upadhyay, who happens to be the father of the deceased-cum-informant
in this case. Admittedly, he is not an eye-witness of the occurrence rather
came to know about death of his daughter from one Braj Narayan Ojha
then he went to matrimonial home of his daughter along with his elder
son-in-law Anil Nand Tiwari (P.W.-10).
iv. P.W.-9 has simply seen the dead body of deceased lying on cot at
her matrimonial home under pool of blood with marks of certain injuries
over the dead body. He has stated in general terms that there was
strained relationship between the deceased and her husband which crept
after 3-4 years of marriage. In spite of endeavour made for conciliation
and settlement by convening Panchayat that could not be resolved.
v. P.W.-9 has not stated at all as to what kind of disputes and prior
issues were prevailing between the husband and wife causing their
strained relationship. Not a single instance, even overheard from the
deceased has been brought on record. There is no whisper either from
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
the mouth of P.W.-9 or P.W.-10 that on what issue the Panchayat was
ever convened. Moreover, no member of Panchayat has been examined
in this case to corroborate the aforesaid story of strained relationship.
Not only this, the informant has withheld his own son Radha Krishna
Upadhyay to appear in witness box, who also accompanied him after the
occurrence while going to matrimonial home of the deceased. Therefore,
the story of strained relationship as an incriminating circumstance
against the appellant cannot be relied upon and the learned Trial Court
has wrongly placed reliance upon it.
vi. It is admitted by the informant (P.W.-9) that his daughter once left
her matrimonial home and went to native place of this witness at village
Kwatu P.S. Ichak, Hazaribagh and after 3-4 days she was brought to
village Murgu Police Station, Ratu, Ranchi, by this witness and again
sent to her matrimonial home.
vii. There is no dispute that the deceased died an unnatural death
which may be homicidal but there is no iota of evidence showing the
involvement of appellant in commission of the said murder.
viii. The confessional statement of the appellant extorted by police is
also not leading to discovery of any fact or recovery of any incriminating
article, therefore, has no value in the eyes of law. However, the learned
Trial Court has considered the recovery of iron plate allegedly used in
assaulting the deceased from Chhaja of the house recovered at the
instance of accused relevant under Section 27 of the Evidence Act
against the principles of law. It is trite that any incriminating article
which may be recovered by ordinary search and seizure cannot be
included within the ambit of Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Therefore, recovery of blood-stained iron plate and blood-stained clothes
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
of the deceased which were found to be origin from same human being,
as per F.S.L. report, also has no bearing in the matter to be considered
against the accused appellant as a circumstance proving his guilt.
ix. The investigating officer (P.W.-11) Singrai Sundi has
categorically submitted that there was no eye-witness of the occurrence
and he has submitted charge-sheet against the accused only on the basis
of suspicion.
x. It is trite that suspicion howsoever grave it may be, cannot take
place of legal proof. The suspicion raised by the I.O. as a basis of
submission of charge-sheet and also entertained by informant (P.W.-9)
that murder was committed by none else but the husband of the deceased
never culminated into legal proof beyond doubt and in this case the
suspicion remained suspicion forever.
xi. The learned Trial Court while shifting the burden of proof against
the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, failed to consider
that the very foundational facts for invoking the above provision has not
been established by the prosecution. Simply because the deceased died
an unnatural death at her matrimonial home, it cannot be assumed that
the husband has caused murder.
xii. Admittedly, the deceased was habitual in frequently going to other
places without permission of her husband and was also under love affair
with one Bablu, prior to the marriage, which was suggested to P.W.-9
but denied. The independent witnesses have also deposed that when they
heard about the occurrence, they went to the house of accused, who
disclosed that some unknown miscreant has murdered his wife and fled
away. There was no reason to discard the aforesaid testimony of
witnesses.
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
xiii. In the premises of aforesaid vital aspects of the case, the learned
counsel for the appellant concludes that the impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence of the appellant is absolutely unwarranted under
law and based upon conjecture, surmises and assumptions and
presumptions entertained by the learned Trial Court. As such impugned
judgment is liable to be set aside and the appellant deserve acquittal from
the charge levelled against him.
Submissions on behalf of State:-
8. On the other hand, learned Spl. P.P. for the State, defending the
impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant has
submitted that the prosecution has been able to substantiate the charge levelled
against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt through circumstantial
evidence available on record.
9. The circumstances relied upon by the informant as well as the attending
circumstances under which the dead body of the deceased was found in her
matrimonial home, the cause of death which is apparently homicidal in nature,
the strained relationship between husband and wife continuing since
considerable time and the manner of assault in a closed room acquired by the
appellant, all are self explanatory that it is none else but the appellant who has
caused murder of his own wife.
10. The appellant has miserably failed to offer any valid explanation as to
under what circumstances his wife died a homicidal death while in his custody
at her matrimonial home. The defence has also not brought on record its
specific pleas suggested to witnesses regarding any love affair of the deceased
with one Bablu or any mental illness of the deceased for which she was ever
treated. The appellant has also not pleaded anywhere that he was not present at
his house at the relevant time of occurrence. He has also not raised any alarm at
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
the time of alleged intrusion of any other person into his house for committing
murder of his wife. The bald and false pleas without any evidence taken by the
appellant furnishes additional link in the chain of circumstances against him.
Therefore, the learned Trial Court has committed no error of law in accepting
the proved circumstances and shifting the burden of proof against the accused
appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. As such, there is no illegality
or infirmity in the impugned judgment and order calling for any interference by
this appeal, which is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
11. On the basis of respective argument of the learned counsels for the
parties and from perusal of impugned judgment, the only point for
consideration emerges in this appeal, as to "whether the impugned judgment
of conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder of his own wife
suffers from any error of law?"
Analysis, discussions and reasons:-
12. Before imparting our verdict on the above point, it is apposite to take
brief resume of evidence adduced in this case for proper adjudication of the
above issue.
P.W.-1-Deoraj Singh has expressed no knowledge about the occurrence
and has been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.-2-Dilip Sao has stated in his evidence that the occurrence took place
at about 10-11 months ago at night and he came to know about it at 7.00 A.M.
in the next morning. He heard that Asha Devi was murdered by Mukesh Ojha.
Thereafter, the police came there and took the dead body in their custody. He
has identified the under trial accused-Mukesh Ojha present behind the deck.
In his cross-examination, he stated that Asha Devi was mentally unfit and
she was under treatment of a mental doctor. She used to take medicines for the
same. He has further stated that prior to the occurrence, Asha Devi had fled
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
away from her home many times, for which a Panchayat was convened
between both the parties. The family members of Asha Devi married her to
Mukesh Ojha by concealing her illness.
P.W.-3-Tabrej Alam, P.W.-4- Anju Baitha, P.W.-5-A.K. Mishra,
P.W.-6- Paras Nath Singh & P.W.-7-M.N. Singh, have expressed no
knowledge about the occurrence and have been declared hostile by the
prosecution.
P.W.-8-Dr. Sawan Mundri who has conducted post mortem examination
on the body of deceased, has stated in his evidence that on 19.03.2017 he was
posted as Assistant Professor in the Department of FMT, R.I.M.S., Ranchi. On
that day, he conducted post-mortem examination upon the dead body of Asha
Devi which was brought and identified by Chowkidar No. 1/8 Mantu Lohra and
was accompanied by Braj Bihari Ojha and Awdesh Kumar Mishra. On
examination, he found that the body was of average build. Rigor mortis was
present all over the body. The abdomen was not distended. There were dry
blood stains over the right side of the face, scalp, neck and clothes.
Lacerated Wounds:-
(i) 6 cm x 1 cm x bone deep over temporo-parietal bone.
(ii) 5 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue over right side of occipital region.
Incised wounds:-
(i) 4 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue was present in fronto-lateral aspect of left neck
middle part of trachea.
(ii) 5 cm x 1 cm x soft tissue was on the front of neck, middle part over
larynx.
Internal:-
There was diffuse contusion of right temporo-parietal scalp and
temporalis muscle, fissure fracture 7 c.m. noted over right temporo-parietal
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
bone, there was contusion of brain, presence of subdural haemorrhage over
left cerebral hemisphere.
Opinion:-
(i) Above-noted injuries were ante-mortem, incised wound was caused by
sharp-cum-pointed weapon, head injury by hard and blunt substance.
(ii) Cause of death was head injury and its complication.
(iii) Time since death is 12 to 30 hour from the time of post mortem
examination.
The post-mortem report has been marked as Exhibit-2.
P.W.-9-Basudeo Upadhyay is the informant of this case. He has stated
in his evidence that the victim was his younger daughter and her marriage
was solemnized with one Mukesh Narayan Ojha in the year 2003. After
marriage, she lived peacefully for 3-4 years in her matrimonial home.
Thereafter, some altercations took place between them. He further stated
that the occurrence is of 19th March. On that day at 8.00 A.M., Braj Narayan
Ojha called him on phone and informed him that his daughter had died in
the house of Mukesh Ojha. Thereafter, he gave a written application to the
police. He identified his signature on the said application, which has been
marked as Exhibit-3. The dead body was sent for post-mortem for which a
death inquest report was prepared. He put his signature on the same,
identified it, and it has been marked as Exhibit-4.
In his cross-examination, he stated that once Asha Devi came to her
parental home from her matrimonial home and lived there for 4-5 days.
Thereafter he took her back to her matrimonial home. There were four
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
children born out of the wedlock of Asha Devi and Mukesh Ojha, out of
which one has died. Asha Devi was under treatment.
P.W.-10-Anil Nand Tiwari has stated in his evidence that on
19.03.2017 at 8.00 A.M., when he was at his home, the informant told him
that Asha Devi had died in her matrimonial home. Thereafter, when they
went to the matrimonial home of Asha Devi, they saw several wounds on
her neck and forehead. He has identified his signature on the application
given by the informant to the police and the same has been marked as
Exhibit-3/1.
P.W.-11- Singrai Sundi is the Investigating Officer of this case. He has
stated in his evidence that on 19.03.2017 he was posted as Sub-inspector at
Mandar Police Station, Ranchi. On the same day, on the basis of application
given by the informant, Mandar P.S. Case No. 16 dated 19.03.2017 was
registered under Sections 302/34 of the I.P.C. and the charge of the
investigation was handed over to him. He identified the formal F.I.R. which
contains the signature of Officer-in-charge-Ram Narayan Singh and the
same has been marked as Exibhit-5.
Thereafter he went to the place of occurrence where death inquest report
was prepared by A.S.I.-Ram Dayal Mahto. He identified the signature of
A.S.I.-Ram Dayal Mahto on the carbon copy of the death inquest report and
the same has been marked as Exhibit-6. The informant had given the
written application at the place of occurrence itself, on the basis of which
the Officer-in-charge registered the case and handed over the investigation
to him. He identified his signature on the production-cum-seizure list
prepared by FSL team and the same has been marked as Exhibit-7.
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
During investigation, he arrested the accused-Mukesh Kumar Ojha and
recorded his confessional statement on 20.03.2017 in which he has stated
that he assaulted his wife by an iron plate on her neck, thereby cutting her
neck and also assaulted on her head due to which her head causing a
fracture. Thereafter, he hide the said iron plate. The witness identified the
confessional statement of accused-Mukesh Kumar Ojha which is in his
handwriting and bears his signature and the same has been marked as
Exhibit-8. On the basis of confessional statement of accused, he recovered
the said iron plate from the house of the accused and prepared a seizure list
of the same. He identified the said seizure list and the same has been marked
as Exhibit-7/1.
Thereafter, he submitted charge-sheet No. 38/2017 dated 15.06.2017
under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the accused appellant.
13. We have given anxious consideration to the testimony of witnesses as
discussed above, particularly the evidence of P.W.-9, who happens to be the
unfortunate father of the deceased. He has stated in clear terms that just after 3-
4 years of marriage, the strain relationship between deceased with her husband
started, although, four children were born to them out of their wedlock, but the
family affairs was not in normal condition. It also appears that several times
Panchayat were also held to pacify the dispute between deceased with her
husband (appellant) but all in vain. It is also quite obvious that deceased has
died a homicidal death in her own matrimonial home, sustaining injuries caused
by sharp cutting weapon on vital part of body. The weapon used in this case
was also recovered at the instance of present appellant. The presence of the
present appellant on the fateful date and time at his own house, along with his
wife, has also not been denied.
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
In the above circumstances, the prosecution has very firmly proved the
foundational facts invoking the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The learned Trial Court has rightly shifted the burden of proof on the accused
(appellant) to explain the circumstances under which his wife died a homicidal
death in his own house while she was in his custody.
14. The explanation offered by the appellant through suggestions given to
the hostile witnesses and other witnesses of fact that someone else entered into
his house and fled away after causing murder of his wife, does not find
corroboration from any evidence. Rather, it is simply a suggestion wherein the
appellant himself has disclosed the above fact before the witnesses. The
strained relationship between the deceased and the appellant, as stated by P.W.-
9, has also not been rebutted in his cross-examination by the defence. Merely
because no member of Panchayat were examined to substantiate the factum of
Panchayat convened by the P.W.-9 (father of the deceased) itself is not
sufficient to disbelieve his testimony.
15. The discovery of iron plate used in assaulting the deceased was also
effected on the basis of confessional statement of the appellant which was
concealed under the Chhaja of the house and could not be searched by ordinary
search and seizure. Therefore, the plea of defence that provision of Section 27
of Evidence Act is not applicable here cannot be sustained. It further transpires
that the appellant has not offered any valid explanation to the incriminating
circumstances appearing against him.
16. We also find that the circumstances proved against the appellant are of
conclusive nature, pointing towards the guilt of the appellant for commission of
murder of his own wife. The appellant has failed to offer any valid explanation
2026:JHHC:8297-DB
rebutting the incriminating circumstances appearing against him and has also
failed to prove his own defence plea regarding his innocence.
17. In the above discussion and reasons, we do not find any error of law in
the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant
and no merits in this appeal, which stands dismissed.
18. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.
19. Let a copy of this judgment sent to the concerned court for information and
needful.
(RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY, J.)
(PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 24/03/2026
Arpit/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 25/03/2026
