IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT PATNA CRIMINAL APPEAL (DB) No.681 of 2019 Arising Out of PS. Case No.-167 Year-2012 Thana- NAUTAN District- Siwan ====================================================== Dharmendra Yadav, Son of Late Pradhan Yadav, Resident of Village- Gosai Tola Khas, Misraoli, P.S.- Nautan, District- Siwan ... ... Appellant/s Versus The State of Bihar ... ... Respondent/s ====================================================== Appearance : For the Appellant/s : Mr. Shailendra Kumar Dwivedi, Advocate For the Respondent/s : Mr. Shiwesh Chandra Mishra, APP ====================================================== CORAM: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI and HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE RANA VIKRAM SINGH ORAL JUDGMENT (Per: HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE BIBEK CHAUDHURI) Date : 13-08-2026 The instant appeal is preferred assailing the judgment of conviction dated 15.04.2019 and order of sentence dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-Cum- Special Judge, Siwan, in Sessions Trial No. 277 of 2013 arising out of Nautan P.S. Case No. 167 of 2012, whereby and whereunder, the learned trial Judge convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian penal Code (hereinbelow referred as the IPC) and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life with a fine of Rs. 5,000/- for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC and also to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with a fine of Rs. 3,000/- Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 2/12 for the offence under Section 201 of the IPC with fine and default clause. 2. An F.I.R., vide Nautan P.S. case No. 167 of 2012, was registered on the basis of an oral statement made by the informant, namely, Yadunandan Yadav on 07.12.2012 at about 02:15 P.M. which was recorded by a police officer at Gosaitola Khas by the side of Mishrauli Nahar. It was alleged by the informant that the marriage of his daughter, namely, Sunita Devi (deceased herein), was solemnized with one, Dharmendra Yadav (appellant herein) following Hindu rites and customs about seven years before the date of recording the statement. Sunita Devi gave birth to a male child, who was, at the relevant point of time, aged about six years. It was alleged in the F.I.R. that after few months of his marriage, the appellant, namely, Dharmendra Yadav, went to a foreign country in connection with his livelihood. About one week before the date of lodging the case, Dharmendra Yadav came to his house. In the absence of her husband, Sunita Devi was staying at her paternal home and after return, the appellant took her to his house. It is also alleged that Dharmendra Yadav started physical and mental abuse upon the deceased on false allegation. 3. The informant, namely, Yadunandan Yadav went Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 3/12 to the matrimonial home of Sunita Devi about 2-3 days prior to the incident and made him understand that he should not physically assault and mentally abuse her. On 07th December, 2012, when the informant was in his house, he heard the sound of crying of a woman coming from the side of Gosaitola Khas, Mishrauli at about 11:30 A.M. and on being curious, he went to the spot and found that a dead- body was laying by the side of a canal at Gosaitola Khas, Mishrauli. He identified the dead-body as that of his daughter. There was mark of violence on the dead- body and her legs were fractured. The informant alleged that Dharmendra Yadav (appellant) assulted his wife, namely, Sunita Devi and committed her murder. Thereafter, in order to scrim the evidence, the dead-body was thrown away on the bank of the canal at Gosaitola Khas, Mishrauli. 4. On the basis of the aforesaid complaint, an F.I.R. vide Nautan P.S. Case No. 167 of 2012 was lodged and one Ajay Kumar Mishra, Sub-Inspector of Police, was given the responsibility to investigate into the case. 5. During investigation, the Investigating Officer recorded the statement of the witnesses, recovered the dead-body of the deceased/Sunita Devi, sent the corpus to the nearest hospital for post-mortem examination and obtained post-mortem Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 4/12 report. On the basis of the materials so found during the investigation, the I.O. submitted charge-sheet against the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 6. Since the offence under Section 302 of the IPC is exclusively triable by the Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the learned Sessions Court at Siwan. The case was subsequently transferred to the Court of the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Court, Siwan for trial and disposal. 7. The learned trial Judge, on due consideration of the materials available on record and the case diary, framed and charged the accused person under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. When the charge was read over and explained to the appellant, he pleaded not guilty. Therefore, the trial commenced and on conclusion of the same, the appellant was found guilty, and therefore, convicted under Section 235 (1) of the Code of Criminal Procedure and sentenced, as stated above, for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. 8. The said judgment is under challenge in the instant appeal. 9. It is submitted by the learned Advocate appearing on behalf of the appellant that there was no eye-witness to the occurrence, and therefore, the instant case is based upon Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 5/12 circumstantial evidence. The law relating to circumstantial evidence is that a case based on the circumstantial evidence stand well established and in such a case, the prosecution is under an obligation to prove at least, prima facie, the continuity in the links of the chain of circumstances so as to lead the only and inescapable conclusion of the accused being the appellant; inconsistent and incompatible with the possibility of any other hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. According to the learned Advocate for the appellant, the prosecution failed to prove, even, prima facie, the links of circumstances, which, if considered together, will form a garland pointing at the hyposis of guilt of the accused and there should not be any missing flower or links in the garland that is to be worn on the neck of the accused. 10. With the above introduction, the learned Advocate for the appellant draws our attention to the evidence of witnesses produced on behalf of the prosecution. The prosecution has examined as many as eight witnesses on its behalf. Amongst them, P.W. 2 is the informant, P.W. 1, namely, Sudama Yadav is the elder brother of the informant, P.W. 3, namely, Jitendra Yadav is another brother of the deceased, P.W. 4, namely, Rajendra Yadav is the cousin of the informant, P.W. 5, namely, Lilawati Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 6/12 Devi and P.W. 6, namely, Champa Devi, who are the residents of Gosaitola Khas, Mishrauli, turned hostile and P.W. 7, namely, Dr. Ramesh Chandra Thakur was the member of the Medical Board constituted by the Authority of District Hospital, Siwan to conduct post-mortem examination over the dead-body of the deceased. This is all about the prosecution evidence whereas, the accused did not adduce any evidence in support of his defence. 11. From the evidence of the informant (P.W. 2), it is evident that Dharmendra Yadav (the appellant) went to Saudi Arabia in connection with his livelihood after a few months of his marriage. In Saudi Arabia, he was implicated in a case for committing murder of another person. At that time, he demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- from P.W. 2 for his release. P.W. 2 sold out a piece of land and arranged a sum of Rs. 1,20,000/- and gave it to the sister of the appellant. 12. After seven years, he returned to his village and during the period, the daughter of the informant was staying at her paternal home. After he returned to his village, he took his wife to his house. In her matrimonial home, he used to assault his wife physically, putting false aspersion against her. The informant went to settle the disputes amicably, but failed. On 07th December, 2012, at about 11:30 A.M., he received an Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 7/12 information that a dead-body was lying on the bank of a canal by the side of the house of the accused. He and his brother went to the place and identified the dead-body that of his daughter. He came to know that Dharmendra Yadav (the appellant herein), Mannu and Pushpa assaulted her and committed murder by strangulation and then threw away the dead-body by the side of bush grown on the bank of the canal. Then, he made a statement before the police, which was recorded as fardbeyan and the same is marked as Exhibit-1 during trial of the case. 13. During cross-examination P.W. 1, admitted that even when her husband was in a foreign country, she used to visit her matrimonial home. In her matrimonial home, she used to perform household works. Dharmendra Yadav (the appellant) used to send money from foreign country to his home and not directly to his wife. It is affirmatively taken during the cross- examination that Dharmendra Yadav (the appellant) took his wife to his house on his motorcycle. After his departure, the informant went to the matrimonial home of his daughter. The witnesses denying the suggestion that he did not commit murder of the daughter of the informant. P.W. 1, namely, Sudama Yadav, P.W. 3, namely, Jitendra Yadav and P.W. 4 Rajendra Yadav corroborated the evidence of the informant in all relevant aspects Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 8/12 or in all materials and particulars of the witnesses stated that when Sunita Devi (the deceased) died, she was in her matrimonial home. 14. From the autopsy report proved by P.W. 7 (the Doctor), it is found that the victim was murdered by way of physical strangulation, thyroid gland and hyoid bone were found broken. 15. It was suggested on behalf of the accused during his cross-examination that thyroid gland fractured and hyoid bone are indicating of committing suicide by the deceased. However, the Medical Officer opined that thyroid gland cannot be broken as a result of hanging, but hyoid bone can be broken. However, the Medical Officer did not find any ligature mark around the neck of the deceased, which shows that the victim was murdered by strangulation. 16. Our observation is further fortified from the post-mortem report, where the Doctor stated on oath that trachea of the deceased was collapsed with blood and clots found inside. 17. Thus, from the evidence on record, we find the following circumstances :- (i) Marriage of Dharmendra Yadav (the appellant herein) with Sunita Devi (the deceased herein) remains Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 9/12 undisputed; (ii) It is also not in dispute that the appellant went to a foreign country for earning his livelihood; (iii) No cross-examination is made with respect to Dharmendra Yadav (the appellant herein) was involved in a case of murder in the foreign country and it was also not specifically denied that the father of Sunita Devi gave Rs. 1,20,000/- to the sister of Dharmendra Yadav, so that he might be released, of course there are cross-examinations asking the witness in whose presence the said amount was paid to the sister of Dharmendra Yadav, but no specific denial was made that the father of the deceased never paid any amount to Dharmendra Yadav for his release; (iv) Indisputably, Dharmendra Yadav (the appellant herein) came back to his village about seven days before the date of occurrence and took his wife to his house; and (v) Within seven days, on 07.12.2012, the dead-body of Sunita Devi was found in Gosaitola Khas, Mishrauli by the side of the canal. It is stated by the witnesses that the place where the dead-body was found was by the side of the matrimonial home of the deceased, did not take any believe that she was not present in the house. Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 10/12 18. No cross-examination was made that the relationship between the deceased and the appellant was very cordial and there was no question of committing her murder. The residents of Gosaitola Khas, Mishrauli, who were examined in this case, were declared hostile saying that they do not about such incident between the appellant-husband and his wife. 19. It is specifically laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court in number of cases that when the incidence took place within four corners of the matrimonial home and the married woman is tortured and abused, the neighbors might not know about such incidence. Therefore, the defence cannot get any help from the ground that the residents of Gosaitola Khas, Mishrauli (P.W. 5, P.W. 6 and P.W. 8) turned hostile and did not support the prosecution case. 20. The evidence of the witnesses on behalf of the prosecution, who are not near relatives of the victims, revealed that they did not try to improve the case by making exaggerated statement, even, it is true that in the F.I.R., the informant did not state that the accused was involved in the case of murder in Saudi Arabia and he demanded Rs. 3,00,000/- for his release. 21. We are also not placing much reliance on it except the fact that the appellant was a criminal minded person Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 11/12 and the aforesaid fact was not challenged in the cross- examination of P.W. 2. 22. From the above observation, we find that on the date of occurrence, both, the victim and the accused were in the house and on the following morning, the dead-body of the victim was found. 23. Taking together the above circumstances, we now proceed to discuss as to whether the real burden of special knowledge under Section 106 of the Evidence Act can be held to be applicable under the facts and circumstances of the present case. Since the accused and the victim was together on the night of her death and it is proved that the death was caused due to physical strangulation, the burden of special knowledge as to how the deceased died must be on the accused when the accused failed to discharge the burden, which does not alone prove his guilt. Failure to discharge, the burden of special knowledge acts as an additional link in a case governing circumstantial evidence. When we take the exercise of joining the links together resistively proves in favour of the hypothesis of guilt, inconsistent or incompatible with the possibility of any other hypothesis compatible with the innocence of the accused. Therefore, the ratio laid down in Reena Hazarika vs. the State of Patna High Court CR. APP (DB) No.681 of 2019 dt.13-08-2026 12/12 Assam, reported in (2018) 4 PLJR (SC 368) is held to be not applicable under the facts and circumstances of the case and we also hold the same view in respect of the ratio laid down in Kewal Krishan vs. Harnek Singh (Dead) by Lrs., reported in AIR, 2001 SC 1440. 24. For the reasons stated above, we do not find any scope to seat over the judgment passed by the trial Court, and therefore, the judgment of conviction dated 15.04.2019 and the order of sentence dated 25.04.2019 passed by the learned 1st Additional Sessions Judge-Cum-Special Judge, Siwan in Sessions Trial No. 277 of 2013, is, hereby, affirmed. 25. This appeal is dismissed on contest. 26. However, there shall be no order as to cost. 27. Let, the Lower Court Records be returned to the Court below immediately. saurabh.kr/- (Bibek Chaudhuri, J) (Rana Vikram Singh, J) AFR/NAFR NAFR CAV DATE N.A. Uploading Date 17.08.2026 Transmission Date 17.08.2026