Patna High Court
Chunnu Das vs The State Of Bihar on 26 September, 2025
Author: Shailendra Singh
Bench: Mohit Kumar Shah, Shailendra Singh
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA
CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.653 of 2015
Arising Out of PS. Case No.-257 Year-2010 Thana- GHOSI District- Jehanabad
======================================================
Chunnu Das, Son of Tulsi Das, R/o Village- Korma, Police Station- Ghosi,
District- Jehanabad.
... ... Appellant/s
Versus
The State of Bihar
... ... Respondent/s
======================================================
Appearance :
For the Appellant/s : Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, Sr. Adv.
Mr. Ranjeet Chaubey, Adv.
Mr. Manish Kumar Singh, Adv.
Mr. Dharmendra Kumar Singh, Adv.
For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shashi Bala Verma, APP
======================================================
CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE MOHIT KUMAR SHAH
and
HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH
CAV JUDGMENT
(Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE SHAILENDRA SINGH)
Date : 26-09-2025
Heard Mr. Rajesh Kumar Singh, learned senior
counsel, assisted by Mr. Ranjeet Chaubey, learned Advocate,
appearing on behalf of the appellant and Ms. Shashi Bala
Verma, learned Additional Public Prosecutor, appearing on
behalf of the State.
2. The present appeal has been filed by the sole
appellant, Chunnu Das, challenging the judgment of conviction
dated 09.06.2015 and the order of sentence dated 16.06.2015,
passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge-II, Jehanabad
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
2/50
in Sessions Trial No. 486 of 2011(SJ)/60 of 2014, arising out of
Ghosi P.S. Case No. 257 of 2010 (G.R. No. 2696/2010). By the
said judgment, the appellant has been found guilty of offences
punishable under sections 364, 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal
Code (in short 'IPC'). Accordingly, he has been convicted and
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life for the
offences under sections 364 and 302 of IPC, each separately,
and further sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for
three years for the offence under section 201 of IPC. All the
sentences have been directed to run concurrently.
3. The appellant was charged with the offences
under Sections 364, 304B, 302, and 201 all read with Section 34
of the IPC. The charges were read over and explained to him in
Hindi, to which he pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried.
Upon conclusion of the trial, the trial court acquitted the
appellant of the charge under Section 304B of IPC (dowry
death) but held him guilty of the other offences as stated above.
Prosecution Story :
4. The informant, Yogendra Das, who is the father
of the deceased, alleged that his daughter, namely Dhanita
Kumari, aged 18 years, was married to Chunnu Das (appellant),
who is a resident of Village Korma, P.S.- Ghosi, District
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
3/50
Jehanabad, and that the second marriage (Gauna) Duragman of
his daughter had not taken place. On 05.12.2010, his son-in-law
(appellant), along with his cousin Lailun Das, came to Hilsa
market and made a call to his daughter's mobile No.
9162241955 using his mobile No. 8521346603. By making that
call, he asked his daughter to come to Hilsa market and told her
that he would get anklets for her. Using the same mobile
number, his son-in-law (appellant) also talked with him and his
wife. The informant further alleged that his daughter Dhanita
Kumari went to Hilsa market but did not return by night. Then
he became anxious and called his daughter's mobile number, but
it was found switched off. Thereafter, the next day, he went to
the village of his son-in-law but did not find any information
about his daughter, and his son-in-law was also not found. In the
meanwhile, the deceased was searched for at the places of his
relatives. On 15.12.2010, his brother-in-law Govind Das
informed him that on the southern side of Korma village, on the
bank of the Falgu river, at Thakhta Khanda, the dead body of a
woman had been found in a buried condition. It is clarified that
the said appellant is a resident of Korma Village. After receiving
the information, he went to the bank of the Falgu river with his
family members and saw the dead body of a woman in a buried
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
4/50
condition. In the presence of the Block Development Officer
(BDO), Dhobi, the police exhumed the dead body and found it
to be headless. Both legs had been eaten by some animal. Near
the dead body, a blue-coloured slipper of size four (left foot), a
packet of Super Vasmol-33 hair oil, a broken mala (garland)
made of yellow and red colours, two old broken silver anklets, a
yellow ribbon used for tying hair, pink bangles (some of which
were broken), and a blue small bag with the name "Vijay
Kumar, Manish Kumar Verma Jeweller, Pitambarpur Hilsa"
written on it were found. Upon opening the bag, two currency
notes of ₹10 each, one small paper dated 23.09.2010, a small
knife with the word 'Lord' written on the butt, and one toe ring
(bichhiya) were found. As per the informant, he and his family
members identified the said articles as belonging to his daughter
and, on that basis, identified the dead body as that of his
daughter, Dhanita Kumari. The informant further alleged that he
got the information that his son-in-law (appellant) and Lailun
Das first brought the deceased to Korma village and, with the
help of Tulsi Das, Munna Das, Maheshwari Devi, Sushama
Devi, and Soni Devi (appellant's relatives), killed his daughter
by beheading her using a sharp-edged weapon and then buried
the body beneath the earth, concealing the head somewhere else,
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
5/50
which could not be found even after exhaustive search. As per
the informant, the deceased was of dark complexion, due to
which the appellant and his family members did not like her and
had been demanding Rs. 25,000/- (Rupees Twenty-Five
Thousand) as dowry. The informant further alleged that the
appellant and his family members killed his daughter by
beheading her and thereafter concealed the head to destroy
evidence and buried the corpse on the bank of the Falgu river.
5. On 15.12.2010 at 11:30 A.M., the fardbeyan of
the informant (PW-10) was recorded at the place of recovery of
the dead body and the same was recorded by Kameshwar Singh,
who was the then Sub-Inspector-cum-SHO of Ghosi police
station at that time. On that basis, Ghosi P.S. Case No. 257 of
2010 was registered for the offences under Sections 364, 304B,
201, and 34 of the IPC against the appellant and six others,
which set the criminal law in motion.
6. After completion of the investigation, the
Investigating Officer submitted chargesheet bearing No.
43/2011 dated 25.03.2011 against the appellant and co-accused
Lailun Das under Sections 364, 304B, and 201/34 of the IPC.
However, the learned Magistrate took cognizance of the
offences under Sections 364, 304B, and 201/34 of IPC only
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
6/50
against Lailun Das vide order dated 28.03.2011. The
Investigating Officer submitted final form bearing No. 165/2011
dated 30.06.2011 against the co-accused persons, namely, Tulsi
Das, Munna Das, Maheshwari Devi, Sushama Devi, and Soni
Devi, showing them as not sent up for trial in the absence of any
evidence against them. However, the learned Magistrate rejected
the final form and took cognizance vide order dated 27.08.2011
under Sections 364, 304B, and 201/34 of the IPC against all
seven accused persons, including the appellant. Thereafter, the
case of the appellant was split, and the same was committed to
the Court of Sessions. Subsequently, the learned trial court
commenced the trial of the appellant after framing charges
against him.
7. Before the trial court, the prosecution produced
and examined the following witnesses: -
Name Relevancy
PW-1 Sudhir Ravidas Brother of the deceased
PW-2 Guna Devi, at some places Mother of the deceased
written as Muna Devi or
Bhuna Devi
PW-3 Ram Pravesh Ravidas A relative of the deceased
PW-4 Arun Bind A witness of seizure list
PW-5 Govind Ravidas Informant's brother-in-law
PW-6 Devanti Devi Wife of cousin brother of the
deceased
PW-7 Dr. Dinesh Kumar Conducted postmortem examination
of the deceased
PW-8 Narendra Kumar Tiwari The then B.D.O. of Ghosi who
conducted TIP of recovered articles
and in his presence, the dead body
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
7/50
was recovered
PW-9 Kameshwar Singh 1st Investigating Officer of the case
PW-10 Yogendra Ravidas Informant, father of the deceased
Dhanita Kumari
PW-11 Umesh Kumar Singh 2nd Investigating Officer of the case
8. In documentary evidence, the prosecution proved
and exhibited the following documents, which are as under :-
Ext.-1 Postmortem report
Ext. -2 Signature of a witness Narendra Kumar Tiwari, BDO, Ghosi,
on the carbon copy of the inquest report
Ext.-3 Fardbeyan
Ext.-4 Carbon copy of inquest report
Ext.-5 Carbon copy of seizure list
Ext.-6 Dead body chalan
Ext.-7 Map of the place of occurrence
Ext.-8 Formal FIR
Ext.-9 Print out of call details of mobile No. 8521346603 in 6 sheets
9. Besides the above-mentioned exhibits, the
signatures of Arun Bind (PW-4) and Govind Ravidas (PW-5) on
the photo copy of seizure list and inquest report were marked as
following :-
Mark X Signature of Arun Bind (PW-4) on the photo copy of seizure
list, proved by PW-4 on 22.02.2013
Mark Y Photo copy of seizure list, proved by Govind Ravidas (PW-5)
Mark X/1 Signature of Govind Ravidas on photo copy of inquest report,
proved by PW-5 on 18.03.2013
Mark X/2 Signature of Arun Bind on photo copy of inquest report,
proved by PW-4 on 18.03.2013
Mark X/3 Signature of Govind Ravidas (PW-5) on photo copy of
fardbeyan, proved by PW-5 on 18.03.2013
10. After completion of the prosecution's evidence,
the learned trial court recorded the statement of the appellant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
8/50
under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (in short
'Cr.P.C.'), giving him sufficient opportunity to explain all the
incriminating circumstances appearing against him from the
prosecution's evidence, which were denied by him, and he
claimed himself to be innocent. Here, it is important to mention
that in respect of the alleged mobile communication between the
appellant and the victim, the incriminating circumstance
appearing from the prosecution's evidence relating to call details
and mobile numbers was put before the appellant; he accepted
that he had called the victim but stated that he did not know
what would be done by them. The appellant did not take any
specific defence except claiming himself to be innocent while
answering the incriminating circumstances, though he stated
that the investigation was faulty.
11. In defence, the appellant did not produce or
examine any person as his witness and also did not provide any
documentary evidence.
12. After appreciating the prosecution's evidence,
the learned trial court observed that the recovered dead body
was in a condition to be identified, and the deceased's family
members identified the dead body as that of the victim on the
basis of body structure and complexion, along with the articles
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
9/50
recovered with the dead body. The trial court also took into
account the fact that there were no details of the whereabouts of
the victim for last five years. The learned trial court believed the
prosecution story narrated in the fardbeyan of the informant and
deemed Ext.-9, showing call details concerning the alleged
communication between the deceased and the appellant during
the relevant time, as a corroborative piece of evidence.
13. Learned senior counsel appearing for the
appellant has argued that an inordinate delay of 10 days
occurred on the part of the informant in lodging the FIR without
providing any explanation. Though some prosecution witnesses
stated that after the victim went missing, they approached the
police station and filed a case in the court, no documentary
evidence was produced by the prosecution in support of this
claim. Therefore, the said delay remained unexplained, which is
fatal to the prosecution. The police actually recovered a
skeleton, which was not in the form of a dead body, and
important prosecution witnesses such as the doctor who
conducted the postmortem examination, the investigating
officer, and the Block Development Officer, before whom the
inquest report was prepared, admitted in their evidence that the
so-called body was not in a condition to be identified as that of a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
10/50
human being. Thus, the prosecution failed to prove the
identification of the recovered body as that of the informant's
missing daughter. Regarding identification of the dead body,
PW-6 introduced a new fact that the dead body was identified
by a burn mark seen on the hand of the body, but in this regard,
the close relatives of the victim did not mention anything while
giving details of the identification of the dead body. Learned
counsel has further argued that the prosecution failed to prove
the charge under Section 304B of the IPC against the appellant;
hence, he was acquitted of the said offence. As far as the
offences of murder and abduction for murder, punishable under
Sections 302 and 364 of the IPC, are concerned, the prosecution
also failed to prove the appellant's motive for killing the victim,
even if the prosecution story is believed to be true. In the
absence of such motive, the appellant cannot be held liable for
the alleged offences. It has further been argued that Ext.-9,
which contains the call details of the concerned mobile
numbers, is not admissible in evidence under the provisions of
the Indian Evidence Act, as no certificate was issued by a
competent authority of the mobile service provider to
authenticate the call detail records. Therefore, the same ought
not to have been considered by the trial court. In this regard, a
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
11/50
serious error was committed by the trial court in placing reliance
on Ext.-9. Moreover, Ext.-9 does not show the tower location of
the appellant's mobile number during the relevant time, so the
appellant's presence at or near Hilsa Market at the alleged time
when he supposedly called the victim has not been established.
Nevertheless, the learned trial court believed the prosecution's
story without any proper basis. It has been lastly argued that all
the circumstances pointed out by the prosecution are incomplete
and inconclusive to lead to only one inference -- that of the
appellant's guilt in the alleged crime. Accordingly, the
impugned judgment suffers from the above-mentioned
infirmities, and therefore, the conviction of the appellant for the
alleged offences is not sustainable and is liable to be set aside.
14. On the other hand, learned APP appearing for
the State has vehemently argued that the recovered dead body
was sufficiently identified by the victim's close relatives based
on the articles found with the body, and these were sufficient to
establish identity. The dead body was found near the village of
the appellant, and this circumstance could not be explained by
the appellant. The learned APP further argued that the appellant,
in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.,
admitted to making a phone call to the deceased during the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
12/50
relevant period using his mobile number. This communication
was made on 05.12.2010. However, from 06.12.2010 until the
recovery of the dead body on 15.12.2010, no further attempt
was made by the appellant to communicate with the victim
using his mobile number. This circumstance suggests that the
appellant was aware of the victim's death. Secondly, the
appellant and his family members were found absconding from
their house when the informant arrived there while searching for
the victim. This subsequent conduct of the appellant and his
family members, just after the commission of the alleged
occurrence, goes against the appellant and is sufficient to show
his involvement in the alleged crime. The learned APP further
argued that the victim went missing on 05.12.2010, and
thereafter, neither the appellant nor his family members
attempted to contact the informant or his family members to
inquire about the victim's well-being. This conduct also goes
against the appellant. All the incriminating circumstances
appearing from the prosecution's evidence form a complete
chain with no missing links. In respect of the motive behind the
killing, all the prosecution witnesses consistently deposed that
due to the victim's dark complexion, she was not liked by the
appellant, and a demand of ₹25,000 was also made by the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
13/50
appellant and his family members, which had not been fulfilled.
As such, the learned trial court rightly convicted the appellant
for the alleged offences, and there is no merit in this appeal,
which is liable to be dismissed.
15. We have heard both sides and gone through the
evidences available on the record of the trial court, and have
taken into account the appellant's statement recorded under
Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. We have also given our thoughtful
consideration to the aforesaid submissions advanced by both
sides.
16. In the instant matter, the prosecution case is
based on circumstantial evidence. So, at first, we would like to
mention the relevant circumstances emerging from the
prosecution's evidences, which, according to the prosecution,
show the commission of the alleged offences by the appellant.
The relevant circumstances are as follows:-
(i) The deceased was not liked by the appellant on
account of her dark complexion, and the appellant also
demanded Rs. 25,000/- from the victim as dowry.
(ii) The appellant and the victim had mobile phones
and used the same for communication.
(iii) On 05.12.2010, the appellant came to Hilsa
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
14/50
market with his cousin and made communication with the
victim on her mobile number using his mobile number, the
details of which are mentioned in the FIR. He thereby persuaded
the victim to come to Hilsa market on the pretext of purchasing
anklets for her. At the same time, the appellant also spoke
through his mobile number with the informant and his wife.
(iv) On 05.12.2010, the victim went to Hilsa market
after receiving a phone call from the appellant and thereafter
went missing and never returned.
(v) The informant started searching for the victim
since the morning of 06.12.2010, i.e., the day after the victim
had gone to Hilsa market. During the course of the search, he
and his family members first went to the village of the appellant.
(vi) The appellant and his family members were not
found at their house when the informant went there while
searching for the victim.
(vii) A headless human body was found in a buried
condition on the bank of the Falgu river, and the appellant's
village is situated on the southern side of the said river, as per
the site map (Ext.-7).
(viii) Several articles, which are generally used by a
rural married woman, were found with the dead body. Mainly
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
15/50
on that basis, the informant and his relatives claimed to have
identified the dead body as that of the victim.
(ix) After 05.12.2010 and between 06.12.2010 and
till recovery of the dead body on 15.12.2010, the appellant did
not make any attempt either by using his mobile phone or
otherwise to contact the victim or her parental family members,
while he used to talk with the victim.
Discussion of evidences :-
17. Now, we would like to discuss the evidence of
the prosecution's witnesses in a brief manner to determine
whether the above-mentioned circumstances stand proved and
whether the same are of such a nature so as to form a complete
chain of the entire prosecution story, indicating the guilt of the
appellant in the alleged crime, leaving no room to draw any
other presumption or inference except that of the appellant's
guilt.
18. Prosecution witness Sudhir Ravidas (PW-1),
son of the informant and brother of the victim, deposed in his
examination-in-chief that the appellant and one person, namely
Lailun Das, called his sister Dhanita Kumari on her mobile
phone and asked her to come to Hilsa Market, saying that they
would get ornaments prepared for her and would give the same
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
16/50
to her. At that time, both also talked with him, his parents, his
younger brother Niraj Kumar, and his sister Namita Kumari. He
further deposed that mobile number 9162241955 was in the
name of his sister, and the appellant's mobile number was
8521346603. He further deposed that his sister (deceased) went
to Hilsa market, saying that she would return after 2 hours, but
she did not return till late at night. Then they became anxious
and tried to call the appellant on his mobile phone, but the same
was found switched off. On the next morning, he, his parents,
his siblings, and maternal grandfather went to Korma village,
i.e., the sasural of the victim, but his sister was not there and
even the appellant was not found. Thereafter, they enquired
from their relatives and villagers about the victim but did not
find her location. On 15.12.2010, Ghosi police station exhumed
a dead body from the bank of the Falgu river on the southern
side of Korma village, and this was informed by Ghosi police to
his maternal uncle Govind Ravidas (PW-5), from whom they
got the information about the said recovery of a dead body. He
further stated that after getting the information from his uncle,
he and his family members went to the bank of the Falgu river
and saw a beheaded dead body, of which the legs had been eaten
by some animals, and they identified the body as that of his
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
17/50
sister Dhanita Kumari. This witness, in paragraph no. 10 of his
examination-in-chief, gave the details of the articles found with
the dead body as detailed by the informant in his fardbeyan, and
according to him, they were able to identify the dead body as
being that of his sister mainly on the basis of said articles. He
further stated in paragraph no. 12 of his examination-in-chief
that his sister was of dark complexion, for which her in-laws
used to taunt her, and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- had been demanded
by her in-laws. He stated in paragraph no. 14 of his cross-
examination that when his sister received the call on her mobile
phone, he, his parents, his brother Niraj Kumar, and sister
Namita Kumari were all present in the house, and when his
sister started going to Hilsa market, none of his family members
went with her. They did not give any information to the police
station when his sister did not return till evening on that day. He
further stated in paragraphs nos. 15 & 16 of his cross-
examination that no prior information was given to the police
station regarding the accused's treatment with his sister on
account of her dark complexion and the accused's demand of
Rs. 25,000/- from his sister. Even in this regard, no panchayat
meeting took place, nor was any information given to the
Chowkidar. They did not find the appellant and his family
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
18/50
members at their village (sasural of the victim) when they
reached there upon receiving the information. He further stated
in paragraphs nos. 17 & 18 of his cross-examination that he had
given information to the police station before the dead body of
his sister was recovered, though he remembered that his uncle
had also given information regarding the disappearance of his
sister, just 5 to 6 days after her going missing, to Ghosi police.
He stated in repeated paragraph no. 24 of his cross-examination
that upon seeing the dead body, he found a human skeleton with
only some flesh on it, and it was without a head. At that time,
his father, mother, uncle Govind Ravidas, co-villagers
Rampravesh Ravidas and Sanjay Ravidas, and others were also
present with him. He further stated in paragraph no. 29 of his
cross-examination that the appellant was engaged in the
profession of driving a tractor at Madras (now Chennai) and
used to talk with his sister on the mobile phone from Madras.
19. Prosecution witness Guna Devi (PW-2), mother
of the deceased/victim, deposed in her examination-in-chief that
her daughter was of dark complexion, owing to which her in-
laws used to taunt her and also used to demand a sum of Rs.
25,000/- from her. As the said demand could not be fulfilled, her
son-in-law (appellant) phoned and asked her to send her
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
19/50
daughter to Hilsa market, saying that he would get an anklet and
a gold chain prepared for her daughter. Thereafter, her daughter
went to Hilsa market but did not return till evening, and then her
son Sudhir Ravidas (PW-1) tried to contact the appellant on his
mobile phone, but the same was found switched off. She further
deposed in her examination-in-chief that she went to the
appellant's house on the next day of the incident but found the
house locked, and the appellant and his family members were
found to be absconding; her daughter was not found. Thereafter,
she learned about the recovery of a dead body buried on the
bank of the Falgu river, and upon getting the information, she
went there. After exhumation, it was found to be that of her
daughter, and she identified the dead body. She recorded her
statement before the police, giving the aforesaid details. In the
cross-examination, she stated that no complaint had been lodged
by her with the police regarding the appellant's demand of Rs.
25,000/-. When her son-in-law (appellant) phoned, she, her
husband, and her daughter were present in the house. When her
daughter did not return, no complaint was made to the
Chowkidar, and no attempt was made at night to search for the
victim. On the next day, she, her husband, son, and her father
Ram Lagan Das all started searching for the victim and also
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
20/50
went to the appellant's village, Korma, from where they also
searched among their relatives. After 2 to 4 days, she returned
home, and thereafter, an oral information regarding her
daughter's missing was given to Ghosi police station. She
further stated in paragraphs nos. 16, 17, 18, and 19 of her cross-
examination that her daughter went alone to Hilsa Market. Her
son-in-law (appellant) had called her daughter on her mobile
phone, due to which she became suspicious that her son-in-law
had killed her daughter. Regarding recovery of the dead body,
her brother Govind Ravidas informed her, and her brother got
the information from the police. She, her daughter Namita
Kumari, her brother, and other family members were among
those who saw the dead body. She further deposed in paragraphs
nos. 21, 22, and 23 of her cross-examination that none of her
family members went with her daughter to Hilsa market, her
daughter used to talk with her husband on her mobile phone,
and her son-in-law (appellant) worked as a tractor driver in
Madras.
20. Prosecution witness Ram Pravesh Ravidas (PW-
3), is the uncle (in village relation) of the informant, who
deposed in his examination-in-chief that he went to the place of
occurrence and saw the beheaded body of the victim. The dead
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
21/50
body was found buried on the bank of the Falgu river and was
recovered by the police. He, his wife Devanti Devi, Bhajju
Ravidas, Chandradev Ravidas, Raj Kumar Ravidas, and others
also went to the place of occurrence. He further stated in his
examination-in-chief that the recovered dead body was
identified as being that of Dhanita Kumari on the basis of a
small purse used for keeping jewelry. One toe ring, mangalsutra,
one pair of slippers of Lakhani company, and a broken pair of
silver anklets (payal) were also found near the dead body. He
further stated that the victim was of dark complexion, due to
which the appellant wanted to kill her. He further stated that the
information regarding the murder of the victim was received by
him two days after the occurrence from the informant and his
wife Munni Devi. Thereafter, immediately on that day,
information was given in written form to Ghosi police station by
the informant and his wife, and he was also with them. He stated
in paragraphs nos. 13 and 14 of his cross-examination that the
dead body was recovered ten days after the information of
murder of the victim had been given. There were no marks on
the recovered mangalsutra, anklets, or slippers. He further
deposed that the dead body was identified after seeing the
recovered articles, such as the purse, toe ring (bichhiya),
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
22/50
mangalsutra, slippers, and he also stated that the deceased was
of dark complexion and a sum of Rs. 25,000/- was demanded
from her, which could not be fulfilled, due to which she was
killed.
21. Prosecution witness Arun Bind (PW-4) is a formal
witness and he has proved the seizure list concerning the
recovery of the articles with beheaded dead body and also
proved the recovery of the dead body. He has identified his
signature on the photocopy of the seizure list, which has been
marked as 'X'. He stated in his cross-examination that the
beheaded dead body was recovered in his presence and only the
skeleton of that body was recovered, so it was not possible to
determine whether the recovered skeleton was of a human
being.
22. Prosecution witness Govind Ravidas (PW-5),
maternal uncle of the victim, deposed in his examination-in-
chief that on 05.12.2010, the appellant and his cousin brother,
namely Lailun Ravidas, came to Hilsa Market and called his
niece Dhanita Kumari on her mobile phone and asked her to
come to Hilsa Market, saying that they would get ornaments
such as anklets, mangalsutra, chain, etc., prepared and would
give the same to her. Then his niece came to Hilsa Market to
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
23/50
meet her husband (appellant), and the appellant was contacted
on the mobile phone, upon which he assured them that he would
send the victim before evening to Bhatbhigha (victim's parental
village), but till evening, the appellant did not send her. When
his brother-in-law Yogendra Ravidas (informant) called the
victim, her mobile phone was found switched off. After that, he
got the information of the incident at night with regard to the
appellant's conduct and victim's disappearance and the fact that
she did not return home. After that, they all started searching for
the victim. In that course, they also went to the victim's sasural,
Korma, but they did not find any trace of the victim. He further
stated in his examination-in-chief that after their attempts to
search for the victim, the incident was informed to Ghosi police
station. On 15.12.2010, the Officer-in-Charge (Bada babu) of
Ghosi police station phoned him, giving details of the recovery
of a female dead body on the bank of the Falgu River near
Korma village, and they were asked to come to identify the
body. Then they went to the place of recovery and saw the
victim's blue colour slipper (size 4) of Lakhani company, her
anklet, and a small garland having yellow and red pearls, pink
coloured bangles, yellow coloured hairband, a toe ring, and a
blue coloured small purse bearing the name Vijay Kumar-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
24/50
Manish Kumar Verma Jewelers, Pitambarpur, and also a knife
with the dead body. These articles were recovered, and a seizure
list was prepared before him. The witness identified his
signature on the photocopy of the seizure list, which was
marked as 'X' for identification. He further stated that the
inquest report of the dead body was prepared before him, and he
identified his signature on the said inquest report, which was
marked as 'X/1' for identification. He further stated in
paragraph no. 11 of his cross-examination that the victim's body
was headless, and only on the basis of the articles found with
the body they could have identified it as that of his niece
Dhanita Kumari. He also signed the fardbeyan of the informant
and identified his signature on the said fardbeyan, which was
marked as 'X/3'. Regarding the cause of the murder of the
victim, he stated the same reason as the other witnesses stated.
In his cross-examination, he stated that the factum of phone
communication made by the appellant with the victim was
informed to him by his brother-in-law Yogendra Ravidas on
05.12.2010
. When the victim was not found, he went to Ghosi
police station to inform about the incident, but his written
application regarding the incident was not accepted by the
police; rather, his mobile number was taken. When the police
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
did not accept his written application, he went to the DSP, Hilsa,
and gave a written application to him, a copy of which he would
produce before the court. He further stated that the complaint to
the DSP, Hilsa, was made on 10.12.2010, but the same was not
registered, and thereafter, an application was given to Hilsa
Court on 10.12.2010. The witness was cross-examined at length
regarding all relevant facts stated by him in his examination-in-
chief as well as on other aspects, and we do not find any serious
contradiction between the facts stated by him in his cross-
examination and those in his examination-in-chief as well as
those stated by other witnesses.
23. Prosecution witness Devanti Devi (PW-6), the
cousin sister-in-law of the deceased, testified during her
examination-in-chief that the victim, Dhanita Kumari, had
passed away three years prior to her testimony. She explained
that the victim had been asked by her husband (the appellant) to
come to Hilsa market to buy an anklet and chain. The victim
informed her mother, Munni Devi, about the appellant's phone
call. However, because the victim's second marriage (Rukhshadi
Gauna) had not yet been performed, her mother was initially
reluctant to let her go. Despite this, PW-6 and other villagers
convinced the victim's mother to allow her to go, citing that the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
victim had stayed at her in-laws' place on two or three occasions
in the past. PW-6 further stated that when the victim was
preparing to leave for Hilsa market, she offered to accompany
her, but the victim declined, saying that the appellant had
specifically asked her to come alone. Later, when the victim did
not return by evening, the victim's mother called the appellant
on his mobile phone, who claimed that the victim was not with
him. The next day, the victim's parents began searching for her
and went to the appellant's village, Korma, where his parents
informed them that the victim had not arrived there. PW-6
continued that the victim had gone to Hilsa market on the 5th,
and on the 15th, Govind Ravidas (the victim's maternal uncle)
called the victim's mother to inform her that a dead body had
been found on the banks of the Falgu river. They were asked to
come and identify the body. The witness's husband arranged for
a vehicle, and victim's parents, along with Sanjay Ravidas and
others, went to the riverbank at Korma, where they identified
the headless body as that of Dhanita Kumari based on a burn
mark on the hand. She also described the articles found with the
body as detailed by other witnesses. In her cross-examination,
PW-6 confirmed that she had been present at the location where
the body was recovered, along with the victim's family. She also
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
reiterated her earlier statement made to the police, wherein she
had mentioned that the appellant had called the victim and asked
her to come to Hilsa market for the purpose of purchasing an
anklet and chain.
24. Prosecution witness Dr. Dinesh Kumar (PW-7)
conducted the postmortem examination of the recovered body.
Upon external examination, he made the following
observations:
(i) Rigor mortis was absent.
(ii) The postmortem was performed on a body that lacked
both the head and neck.
(iii) Both legs had been amputated at the mid-thigh level.
(iv) Fine blisters were present on the skin.
During internal examination, he found that:
(i) Both chambers of the heart were empty.
(ii) The urinary bladder and stomach were also empty.
(iii) The lungs, liver, spleen, and kidneys appeared pale
He opined that death had occurred due to injuries inflicted
by a sharp cutting instrument. Regarding the estimated time
since death, he stated it was "more than 36 hours." He identified
his signature on the postmortem report, which was marked as
Exhibit-1. In cross-examination, he stated that visual
identification of the body was difficult due to the absence of the
head, neck, and both legs from the mid-thigh level.
25. Prosecution witness Narendra Kumar Tiwari (PW-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
8), who was the Block Development Officer (in short 'BDO') of
Ghosi Circle, Jehanabad, testified that on 15.12.2010 at
approximately 8:30 A.M., he received a phone call from the
Station House Officer of Ghosi Police Station regarding the
recovery of a partially buried body on the bank of the Falgu
River near Korma village. He immediately proceeded to the
location, where he saw a crowd and police personnel. Upon
arrival, he observed the legs of a body, partially eaten by
animals. The body was exhumed in his presence and found to be
headless. Near the body, a slipper and a small purse containing
various items were recovered. Upon examining these items, the
relatives of the deceased identified the body as that of Dhanita
Kumari. The inquest report was then prepared in his presence,
and a carbon copy was also made. He identified his signature on
the carbon copy, which was marked as Exhibit-2. During cross-
examination, he stated that the body itself was unidentifiable by
appearance, but some individuals present identified it based on
the recovered articles.
26. Prosecution witness Kameshwar Singh (PW-9),
the first Investigating Officer, deposed that he recorded the
fardbeyan of the informant on 15.12.2010 at around 11:30 A.M.
on the bank of the Falgu River near Korma village. He
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
identified and confirmed his signature on the fardbeyan, which
was marked as Exhibit-3. Following this, he himself took charge
of the investigation. He stated that the body was found buried,
with the legs exposed but without flesh, possibly eaten by
animals. Near the body, he recovered a blue-colored money bag,
bangles, a slipper, and a small purse bearing the name of "Vijay
Kumar Manish Kumar, Jewellers, Pitambarpur, Hilsa." The
purse contained two ₹10 currency notes, a paper dated
23.09.2010, five pink bangles, red and yellow hair bands, and
two broken silver anklets. He informed the BDO of the recovery
via mobile phone. Once the BDO arrived, the body was
exhumed in the presence of witnesses and was found to be
headless. An inquest report was prepared by him and signed by
the BDO and two witnesses, namely Govind Ravidas and Arun
Bind. He identified his signature on the carbon copy of the
inquest report, marked as Exhibit-4. He also stated that several
individuals, including the informant Yogendra Ravidas and
others, identified the body as that of Dhanita Kumari based on
the articles found. He prepared a seizure list in the presence of
Govind Ravidas and Arun Bind, which was signed by them and
marked as Exhibit-5. He visited the scene of the occurrence,
which was on the southern bank of the Falgu River near Korma
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
village, and prepared a site plan marked as Exhibit-9. In cross-
examination, he confirmed that although the body was headless,
identification was made based on its structure and the articles
found. He further clarified that no witness had seen the incident
occur. He added that witness Rampravesh had stated that the
body was identified through recovered articles, which was also
confirmed by Muna Devi. He also deposed that the victim's
brother (PW-1), son of the informant, had mentioned that the
victim's in-laws were found to be absconding. Additionally, he
admitted that no missing report regarding the victim was filed at
Ghosi Police Station before 15.12.2010.
27. Prosecution witness Yogendra Ravidas (PW-10),
the father of the deceased, supported the prosecution's case in
his examination-in-chief and was extensively cross-examined.
In paragraphs 7, 10, and 11 of his cross-examination, he stated
that when his daughter Dhanita Kumari did not return from
Hilsa market, no immediate report was lodged with Ghosi
Police. The next day, when she was still not found despite
visiting the appellant's village, they went to Ghosi Police
Station, but no case was registered. He deposed that no
complaint was made to senior police officers regarding this. He
explained that the victim had gone alone to Hilsa market at the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
appellant's request, as he had assured her that she would be sent
to her parental home that day. This led PW-10 to not feel any
suspicion. He added that a case was eventually filed at Hilsa
Court 2-3 days prior to the recovery of the body. In paragraphs
17 and 19, he stated that the recovered body was identified as
that of Dhanita Kumari based on its structure, color, and the
items recovered. During the exhumation, villagers such as Ram
Pravesh Ravidas (PW-3), Devanti Devi (PW-6), and other
family members were also present. In paragraph 25, he testified
that the victim's in-laws were not present at their residence
(sasural), and inquiries made to neighbors yielded no helpful
information about their whereabouts. In paragraph 26, he stated
that he had accepted the demand of ₹25,000 from the appellant
but was unable to pay the amount due to his poor financial
condition.
28. Prosecution witness Umesh Kumar Singh (PW-
11), the second Investigating Officer, testified that he obtained
six pages of call detail records pertaining to the mobile numbers
mentioned in the FIR. These records were procured from the
office of the Superintendent of Police, Jehanabad. He proved the
call detail report, which was marked as Exhibit-9.
Consideration and analysis :-
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
29. As per the principles laid down by the Hon'ble
Apex Court in catena of judgments, the conviction can be based
solely on circumstantial evidence if the circumstances so
established are consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt
of the accused and also conclusive in nature leaving no room of
any hypothesis of innocence of the accused in the alleged crime
and the entire chain of circumstances, is complete. In this
regard, we would like to refer to the judgment rendered by the
Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of SK. Yusuf vs. State of West
Bengal, reported in (2011) 11 SCC 754 and the relevant
paragraph No. 32 of this Judgment is being reproduced as
under : -
"32. Undoubtedly, conviction can be
based solely on circumstantial evidence. However,
the court must bear in mind while deciding the case
involving the commission of serious offence based on
circumstantial evidence that the prosecution case
must stand or fall on its own legs and cannot derive
any strength from the weakness of the defence case.
The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt
is to be drawn should be fully established. The facts
so established should be consistent only with the
hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and they should
not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty. The circumstances should
be of a conclusive nature and tendency. There must
be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave
any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability that the act must have
been done by the accused."
30. In the present matter, the case of the prosecution is
based on circumstantial evidence, so, we would examine
whether the crucial circumstances as they appear from the
prosecution story discussed in paragraph No. 3, are sufficient to
establish the guilt of the appellant in connection with the alleged
crime and would further see whether all the alleged
circumstances have been proved by cogent and sufficient
evidence of the prosecution and whether the same are so
complete as to removing any hypothesis of the appellant's
innocence.
31. In a criminal case based on circumstantial
evidence, motive assumes great significance as the motive is
considered to be a crucial link for establishing the prosecution's
allegation. All the prosecution's witnesses PW-1, PW-2, PW-3,
PW-4, PW-5, PW-6 and PW-10 have deposed that the victim
was of dark complexion, due to which, she was not liked by the
appellant and his family members and the accused also used to
demand Rs. 25,000/- from the victim. Against this allegation,
the appellant did not succeed to elicit any fact/contradiction
from the prosecution witnesses in their cross-examination, as
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
such, we find that the prosecution's allegation that the appellant
did not like his wife (victim) on account of her dark complexion
can be deemed to be the main motive of the appellant to get rid
of his wife. The second important circumstance appearing from
the prosecution story is that the appellant and his cousin brother
Lailun Das came to Hilsa market on 05.12.2010 and from there
the appellant made a mobile call on victim's phone and asked
her to come to Hilsa market while saying that they would get
anklet prepared for her and would give it to her, and at that time,
the appellant also talked to victim's parents on mobile phone,
thereafter, the victim went to Hilsa market but did not return
back till late evening. This part of the story shows four relevant
circumstances, first, the appellant's calling on mobile phone of
the victim and persuading her to come to Hilsa market on the
pretext of buying anklet for her, secondly, the conversation
between the appellant and the victim on mobile phones during
the relevant time, thirdly, the victim's going to Hilsa market
within some hours of receiving the appellant's call and fourthly,
disappearance of the victim from the Hilsa market. Regarding
these circumstances, the prosecution's material witnesses PW-1,
PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, and PW-10 remained firm to their stand
and their evidence also remained consistent in their
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
examination-in-chief as well as cross-examination, although
they were cross-examined at length by the defence. It has
transpired from the evidence of prosecution's witnesses that the
appellant used to talk with victim on her mobile phone, hence
the victim and her parental family members had no reason to
disbelieve the appellant, thus, a newly married wife going to
the market at the instruction of her husband for taking jewellery,
like the victim of the present matter, is a probable conduct.
32. The victim's parents, father (PW-10), mother
(PW-2) and her brother (PW-1) deposed that upon getting call
from the appellant on mobile phone of the victim, they allowed
the victim to go to Hilsa market. Though in this regard Devanti
Devi( PW-6) stated that initially the victim's mother was having
some hesitation to send the victim to Hilsa market as at that
time, Gauna (post ceremonial marriage) had not taken place but
after her persuasion and convincing her as also upon giving two
instances of victim having visited her sasural on earlier
occasions, the victim's mother finally became ready to send her.
This witness has further deposed that when the victim was
preparing to go to Hilsa market, she proposed to go with her but
the victim stated that the appellant had asked her to come alone.
Though these facts do not find place in the evidence of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
victim's parents and brother but upon these facts, these
witnesses were not cross-examined and it appears that PW-6
gave the details in depth regarding the discussion which took
place in the victim's parents' house after receiving the
appellant's phone call which is a natural conduct and also seems
to be believable. The evidence of these witnesses is sufficient to
establish the appellant's phone call, the victim's preparation to
go to Hilsa market, her going to Hilsa market and thereafter, not
returning back from the said market.
A relevant fact can be proved by direct evidence and also
by an indirect evidence, though direct evidence has greater
importance than the indirect evidence but an indirect evidence
can also be relevant and useful in establishing a crucial fact
especially when an offense has been committed in a
premeditated or planned manner. As far as conversation between
the appellant and the victim on their mobile phones on
05.12.2010 is concerned, in this regard the details of their
mobile phone numbers was given in the FIR and the prosecution
produced the call detail record (in short 'CDR') pertaining to
communication by mobile phones between them on 05.12.2010
and the same was marked as Ext.-9 before the trial court.
33. The learned senior counsel appearing for the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
appellant has vehemently argued that exhibit-9 is not admissible
in evidence as it comes in the purview of secondary electronic
evidence, which can not be taken into consideration in absence
of required certificate which is mandatory under section 65(B)
of the Indian Evidence Act. Though the said submission is
important but the facts of the present matter are entirely
different as firstly, the appellant did not raise any objection
when Ext-9 was being marked as exhibit before the trial court,
thus if an objection on his part was raised at that time then
definitely the prosecution could have tried to remove the curable
lacuna on its part by getting the required certificate from the
concerned mobile provider company. Secondly, the purpose of
requirement of a certificate under section 65(B) of the Indian
Evidence Act in respect of a secondary electronic evidence, is
only to make such secondary evidence authentic and reliable but
when the material fact relating to such electronic evidence has
been accepted by the concerned party then such evidence can
not be thrown out merely due to absence of required certificate.
In the present matter, the main circumstance relating to
conversation by mobile phones between the appellant and the
victim allegedly made during the relevant time on 05.12.2010
appearing from the prosecution's evidences, was put before the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
appellant while recording his statement under section 313 of the
Cr.P.C., in which he accepted that communication. So, in view
of this admission as well as no objection being raised at the time
of marking the CDR details on the part of the appellant before
the trial court, exhibit-9 showing details of communication by
using mobile phones can be taken into consideration and the
same goes in favour of the prosecution to establish the alleged
conversation between the appellant and the victim. Furthermore,
the ocular evidence given by PW-1, PW-2, PW-3, PW-4, PW-6
and PW-10 is completely supportive and consistent to the said
communication. As such, there is sufficient material to establish
the communication.
34. All the material witnesses of the prosecution, as
discussed in the preceding paragraphs, have deposed that the
victim went alone to Hilsa market in the day time to meet her
husband (appellant) when he asked her to come to Hilsa market
while saying that he would give her anklet and thereafter, the
victim did not return back. In this regard, all these witnesses
were cross-examined at length by the appellant before the trial
court but they remained firm to their stand and their credibility
to the said circumstance could not be shaken by the appellant.
The prosecution's evidence clearly suggests that the victim was
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
lastly in the company of the appellant before she went missing.
Though, to establish the victim's last company with the
appellant, there is no direct evidence but in view of the aforesaid
discussed circumstances, the factum of victim being in the
company of appellant on 05.12.2010 seems to be reliable and
we are of the view that in the instant matter, there is sufficient
material to presume the circumstance as to the victim being in
the company of appellant on 05.12.2010 at Hilsa market, before
she went missing, with the help of the provision contained in
section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act as the victim's going to
Hilsa market at the direction/persuasion of the appellant to meet
him, was a normal and presumable conduct on her part and the
same would have happened. Accordingly, the circumstance as to
the victim being with the appellant on 05.12.2010 and thereafter,
having gone missing, which is an important link in the alleged
circumstances, can be deemed to have been established in the
present matter.
Though in the instant matter, there is no direct evidence to
show the factum of last seen of the victim with the appellant but
as discussed above, as regards the victim's company with the
appellant in her last days particularly before she went missing,
there is sufficient indirect evidence, so, in such a situation, the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
appellant should have offered his explanation before the trial
court as to how and when he parted company from the victim as
also he should have furnished explanation to prove his
separation from the victim after the victim had met with him at
Hilsa market but he failed to offer any explanation on this aspect
and further failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by
section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. It is a settled principle
of law that in a case mainly based on circumstantial evidence if
the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation for not
discharging the burden placed on him, that itself provides an
additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him.
In this regard, we would like to refer to the observation made by
the Hon'ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan vs.
Kashi Ram, reported in (2006) 12 SCC 254. and the relevant
paragraph No. 23 of the said Judgment is being reproduced as
under : -
"23. It is not necessary to multiply with
authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and
categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially
within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that
fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the
deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when
he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which
appears to the court to be probable and satisfactory. If he
does so he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his
special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast
upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case
resting on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to
offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of the burden
placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the
chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does
not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is
always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when
the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are
specially within his knowledge and which could not support
any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the
court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as
an additional link which completes the chain. The principle
has been succinctly stated in Naina Mohd."
Learned counsel for the appellant has argued that the
appellant used to work in Madras (Chennai) during the relevant
period and Exhibit-9 does not show the tower location of the
appellant's phone being at Hilsa market on 05.12.2010. We do
not find any force in the said contention as the factum of
appellant's presence at Madras on 05.12.2010 was in his special
knowledge so the said defence ought to have been proved by
him in view of the provisions of section 106 of the Indian
Evidence Act, which could have been proved if there was any
substance in his defence but the appellant remained silent on
this aspect.
35. The second circumstance relates to subsequent
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
conduct of the appellant and his family members after
disappearance of the victim. As per the prosecution story
narrated in the FIR and also in the light of the evidence given by
the prosecution witnesses, the parents of the victim as well as
her some other relatives went to appellant's village Korma on
the next day of missing of the victim but neither the appellant
nor his family members were found in their house. Though in
this regard, there is some contradiction in the evidence of PW-6
but on this aspect, the said witness appears to be hearsay as she
has deposed that when the victim did not return back, the
victim's parents started searching for her and visited the
relatives and also went to the appellant's village Korma.
However, the other witnesses remained consistent to the fact
with regard to the appellant and his family members being
found absconding from their house when the victim's parents
reached their house at Korma village and their evidence appears
to be reliable and the contradiction appearing from the evidence
of PW-6 does not seem to be material.
Although mere absconding of an accused after
commission of the alleged crime can not establish his guilt or
his guilty conscience but in certain cases the same can constitute
a relevant piece of evidence, evidentiary value whereof depends
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
upon the surrounding circumstances. In this regard, we would
like to refer to the observation made by the Hon'ble Apex Court
in the case of Sekaran vs. State of Tamil Nadu reported in
(2024) 2 SCC 176 and relevant paragraph No. 30 is being
reproduced as under :-
"30. Although not brought to our notice in
course of arguments, it is revealed from the oral testimony of
PW 11 that the appellant could be apprehended 3 (three)
years after the incident from Puliyur road junction in (1 km
away from Ambalakalai) in Kerala after vigorous search.
However, abscondence by a person against whom an FIR
has been lodged and who is under expectation of being
apprehended is not very unnatural. Mere absconding by the
appellant after alleged commission of crime and remaining
untraceable for such a long time itself cannot establish his
guilt or his guilty conscience. Abscondence, in certain cases,
could constitute a relevant piece of evidence, but its
evidentiary value depends upon the surrounding
circumstances. This sole circumstance, therefore, does not
enure to the benefit of the prosecution."
36. Now, we come to the identification of the dead
body. In the present matter, as per prosecution, a headless
human dead body was found in semi-buried condition on the
bank of Falgu river near the appellant's village. The body was
exhumed before the BDO (PW-8) and victim's parents and other
relatives, including PW-6, who had also arrived at the place of
recovery and witnessed the exhuming process.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
37. In the case of recovery of torso (headless
body), the identification of the body becomes very difficult and
in such a situation, the DNA profiling between the DNA
samples of the recovered body and from potential relatives can
be the most scientific method to ascertain the identification
however, in the case of a woman, who was married 2 or 3 years
back, for establishing her identification, the articles particularly
the ornaments and routine wearing apparel may be relevant
when the same are put before the close relatives of such women.
In the present matter, though the police did not proceed for DNA
profiling, nonetheless several articles such as silver anklet, small
garland made of pearls, bangles, toe ring and a ladies purse, etc.
were recovered with the dead body. As the victim had been
married 2 to 3 years back of the alleged occurrence and she had
gone to meet her husband on his call, so, it was natural for her to
adorn herself by wearing bangles, anklet, toe ring, etc. and by
these articles, a married lady can be identified by her close
relatives like parents and her brother. As such, the articles
detailed in the seizure list (Ext-5) which has been proved by the
investigating officer and PW-4 were completely helpful for PW-
1, PW-2 and PW-10, who happen to be parents and brother of
the deceased, to identify the dead body as being that of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
deceased Dhanita Kumari.
38. By referring to the evidence of PW-7, who
conducted the postmortem examination, learned counsel
appearing for the appellant has argued that the recovered body
was only a skeleton and also headless, so, it will not be safe to
assume it as being of a human and of the victim. Though PW-4,
before whom the seizure memo and inquest report were
prepared, deposed that only a skeleton was recovered from the
recovery place but PW-7, who conducted postmortem
examination, deposed that on dissection, he found the vital
organs being present in the body, such as, heart, lungs, urinary
bladder, spleen, liver, kidney, etc, and according to him, the time
since death was 'more than 36 hours', so, in view of the finding
given by PW-7, it can not be said that the recovered dead body
was merely a skeleton. As PW-4 is a rustic villager, hence, by
seeing some leg bones of the recovered body as also finding that
some flesh of the body had been eaten by animals, he termed the
body as mere skeleton and in this regard, the evidence of PW-7
is reliable as he is a medical expert. Furthermore, for
establishing the identification of the recovered body, the seized
articles detailed in the exhibit-5 were more significant for the
prosecution witnesses PW-1, PW-2 and PW-10 to identify the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
body and the same appears to be sufficient to establish the
identification. Accordingly, the prosecution's plea that the
recovered body was that of the victim, seems to be reliable and
on this aspect, we deem the trial court's finding to be correct.
39. Now, we come to some other circumstances
which are also relevant in the present matter. The victim's
parental village is situated in Nalanda district while the
appellant's village Korma is situated in Jehanabad district. As
we have deemed that the human body recovered on the banks
of Falgu river was that of the victim, so, in view of this fact,
we find that the said recovery was made near the appellant's
village and there was no reason for the victim to come alone
at the said place while on the other hand, the appellant had
sufficient opportunity to bring the victim from Hilsa market
to his village Korma for executing his plan at a secluded
place on the banks of Falgu river. The other circumstance is
that the appellant used to talk with victim on her mobile
phone and on 05.12.2010, he talked with victim several times
as also the victim herself made calls on the appellant's phone
and as per the prosecution case, the victim went to Hilsa
market on 05.12.2010 and thereafter, went missing. If the
appellant was not present at Hilsa market during the relevant
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
period of time or had never asked the victim to come at Hilsa
market, then he should have made attempts to contact the
victim by making phone calls on the victim's mobile phone
after she had gone missing but after 05.12.2010, till the
recovery of the dead body, he did not make any attempt in
this regard as it reflected from the call details report (Ext-9),
which was possible only when the appellant had knowledge
of the victim's location or about her killing. Thus, the
appellant's inaction in making further contact with victim in-
between 06.12.2010 and 15.12.2010 on her mobile phone,
goes against him and makes his subsequent conduct, after the
commission of the alleged occurrence, to be highly
suspicious and makes the prosecution's case strong.
40. The appellant's counsel has vehemently argued
that between 05.12.2010 and 15.12.2010, no attempt was
made by the victim's father and other relatives to lodge a
complaint at the police station regarding missing of the
victim and in this regard, reliance has been placed on the
evidence of the investigating officer (PW-9), thus the said
unexplained long delay in lodging the FIR creates a serious
doubt about the prosecution's case. We find no force in the
said contention as it has come in the evidence of the
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
prosecution's witnesses that the victim's parents, brother and
other relatives remained busy in searching for the victim for
some days after her disappearance and an attempt was also
made to lodge a case at the police station concerned which is
sufficient to explain the delay which took place in lodging the
FIR by the informant. Further, it has come in the evidence of
Govind Ravidas (PW-5) that an information had been given
to the Ghosi police station after disappearance of the victim
and all the material witnesses have deposed that after the
recovery of the dead body, the police had first informed the
said Govind Ravidas who brought the factum of recovery of
the said dead body in the knowledge of the victim's parents.
If the police had not received any information about the
missing of the victim then why did the police need to inform
the victim's relative (uncle) about the recovery of a headless
body, suspecting it to be that of the victim and the said
circumstance in itself shows that the police had got
information about the missing of the victim prior to recovery
of the dead body.
Conclusion : -
41. Considering the facts and circumstances of the
present case and the evidence which has been brought on
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
record to prove the allegations levelled against the appellant
beyond all reasonable doubt, we are of the considered view
that though the instant matter is based on circumstantial
evidence, however all the material circumstances, right from
the motive of the appellant to commit the alleged crime and
disappearance of victim till recovery of her dead body (torso),
have been successfully established by the prosecution before
the trial court and the entire chain of the relevant
circumstances is complete without any missing crucial link.
The above discussed circumstances clearly indicate the guilt
of the appellant in the alleged crime of abduction of the
victim, her disappearance and murder and dispel any
hypothesis of innocence of the appellant in the alleged
offences, hence, we find no merit in this appeal, consequently
we do not find any reason to interfere with the conclusion and
finding of the trial court, leading to conviction of the
appellant for the offences punishable under sections 364, 302
and 201 of the IPC and the ensuing sentence, by the
impugned judgment of conviction dated 09.06.2015 and order
of sentence dated 16.06.2015. In result, the instant appeal
stands dismissed.
Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.653 of 2015 dt.26-09-2025
42. Let the judgment's copy be sent to the trial
court along with the LCR forthwith for needful information
and compliance.
(Shailendra Singh, J)
(Mohit Kumar Shah, J) (Mohit Kumar Shah, J)
annu/-
AFR/NAFR AFR
CAV DATE 01.07.2025
Uploading Date 26.09.2025
Transmission Date 26.09.2025
