1 2025:CGHC:13783-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 928 of 2021 Sukanyapuri Goswami W/o Late Ajaypuri Aged About 25 Years R/o Barakonpara Bilaitangar, P.S. Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ... Appellant(s) (In Jail) versus State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur, Chhattisgarh. ...Respondent(s) For Appellant : Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, Government Advocate. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 22 .03.2025 1. Heard Mr. Suresh Kumar Verma, learned counsel for the appellant. Also heard Mr. Sangharsh Pandey, learned Government Advocate, appearing for the respondent/State. 2. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 374(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘Cr.P.C.’) is BRIJMOHAN MORLE Digitally signed by BRIJMOHAN MORLE Date: 2025.03.26 19:32:12 +0530 2 directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 31.07.2021, passed by the learned Additional Session Judge, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) in Session Case No. 18 of 2020, whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under: Conviction under Section Sentence Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short, ‘IPC’) Rigorous imprisonment (for short, ‘R.I.’) for life and fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year R.I. more. Section 201 of the IPC R.I. for 05 years and fine of Rs.1,000/-, in default of payment of fine, 01 year R.I. more. Above sentences are run concurrently and in default of fine the sentence are separately-separately. 3. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that on 03.03.2020, at 19:10, complainant, Bhagat Goswami (PW-1) lodged a merg intimation at the Pathalgaon Police Station stating that he resided in Bhim Chauhan's house in Bilaitangar, while his younger brother Ajaypuri lived with his family in Manjar Ali's house on rent. On 02.03.2020, at about 2:30 a.m., Ajaypuri's 10-year-old daughter, Nehapuri (PW-7), arrived at Bhagat Goswami's residence with her younger brother Ganesh. She informed him that her parents were not at home. Shortly thereafter, Manjar Ali (PW-2), who lived nearby, came to Bhagat Goswami's residence carrying Ajaypuri's younger son, Sanskar. Manjar Ali (PW-2) stated that there was no one in Ajaypuri's house, and his younger child was knocking at the 3 door, which prompted him to bring the child to his residence. Thereafter, when Bhagat Goswami, accompanied by his wife Rukmani (PW-8) and children, went to Manjar Ali’s house, they encountered Ajaypuri's wife, accused Sukanyapuri, on the way. Sukanyapuri informed them that she had gone to the bathroom and had a dispute with her husband in the evening. She claimed that her husband slapped her twice and left the house. 4. Subsequently, on 03.03.2020, at about 4:00 p.m., a crowd gathered at Sindar Singh Sardar's old poultry farm. Upon arriving at the scene, Bhagat Goswami discovered his brother Ajaypuri's naked body inside the house, with visible marks of assault. He suspected that his brother had been beaten to death by his wife, Sukanyapuri, who had then hidden the body inside the poultry farm. Based on Bhagat Goswami's information, the Pathalgaon Police Station registered a merg intimation (Ex.P/1) and a First Information Report (FIR) (Ex.P/2) bearing Crime No. 35 of 2020 for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC against the accused, Sukanyapuri. 5. During the investigation, on 03.03.2020, a dog squad panchnama (Ex.P/13) was prepared in the presence of witnesses to track down the unknown accused. On 04.03.2020, the crime details forms were prepared (Exs.P/3 and P/12), and the map of the deceased Ajaypuri's body was prepared in the presence of witnesses (Ex.P/24). The accused, Sukanyapuri, was interrogated on 04.03.2020, and her memorandum statement (Ex.P/8) was recorded. A black-colored suit and leggings with blood-like stains were seized from her possession (Ex.P/9). Bloodstained soil, mud, and a burnt spider web were seized from the crime scene 4 crime scene (Exs.P/6 and P/11). After recording the statements of the witnesses, the accused was arrested vide Ex.P/27. 6. Dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem to the Community Health Centre, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.). Dr. Shakuntala Nikunj (PW-13) conducted postmortem vide Ex.P/25 and found following injuries :- 1. A contusion on the neck, 2.5 cm x 1.5 cm, with severe bruising. 2. A contusion, 3.5 cm, on the left side of the neck. 3. A bluish contusion, 9 cm x 2 cm, on the lower part of the neck. 4. A ligature mark, 13 cm x 4 cm, on the front of the neck. 5. A swelling, 8 cm x 8 cm, on the right parotid region. 6. Multiple grazed abrasions on the right side of the back. 7. A lacerated wound, 8 cm x 3 cm, on the front of the right knee. 8. Multiple scratch marks on the right thigh. 9. A bluish contusion, 18 cm x 10 cm, on the right buttock. 5 10. Multiple scratch marks on the right buttock. Rigor mortis was present, and decomposition had not begun. The injuries were inflicted before death. After examining the body, Dr. Shakuntala Nikunj (PW-13) in her report (Ex.P/21) has opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by constriction of the neck. The nature of death was homicidal. The time of death was within 72 hours of the postmortem examination. 7. Statements of the witnesses were recorded under Section 161 of the Cr.P.C. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed against the appellant before the jurisdictional criminal court and the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial from where the learned Additional Session Judge, Pathalgaon, District Jashpur (C.G.) received the case on transfer for trial and for hearing and disposal in accordance with law. 8. The trial Court has framed charges against the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC and proceeded on trial. The appellant abjured the guilt and entered into defence stating that she has not committed any offence and she has been falsely implicated. 9. The prosecution in order to bring home the offence examined as many as 15 witnesses and exhibited 32 documents. The appellant has not examined any witnesses in her support nor exhibited any documents. 10. The trial Court after completion of trial and after appreciating oral and documentary evidences available on record, by the impugned judgment dated 31.07.2021 convicted and sentenced the appellant in the 6 manner mentioned in the second paragraph of this judgment, against which this appeal under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C. has been preferred by her calling in question the impugned judgment. 11. Learned counsel for the appellant vehemently argued that although conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Neha Puri Goswami (PW-7), who is the daughter of the accused/appellant & deceased and eyewitness of the incident, but her evidence does not inspire confidence and not trustworthy, her evidence is not safe for placing reliance in absence of any corroboration from independent source. Thus, the conviction of the accused/appellant herein is unsustainable, inadmissible and bad in law. It has been contended that even if the entire case is taken at its face value, the case would not travel beyond Section 304 Part-II of the IPC. It has been further contended that the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution is suspicious in nature and same is not safe for placing reliance that too for conviction of the appellant for commission of heinous offence of murder, as such, the impugned judgment of conviction is liable to be set aside and appellant/accused be acquitted/discharged from the said offence. 12. Per-contra, learned State counsel supports the impugned judgment and submits that Neha Puri Goswami (PW-7), who is the daughter of the deceased and accused/appellant and eyewitness of the incident, has stated in her evidence that on the date of incident, that her mother killed her father by strangulating him. He further contended that the prosecution has been able to bring home the offence beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC, and therefore, the 7 appeal deserves to be dismissed. 13. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the trial Court with utmost circumspection and carefully as well. 14. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 15. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court was justified in holding that death of deceased was homicidal in nature? 16. The trial Court, relying upon the statement of Dr. Shakuntala Nikunj (PW-13), who has conducted postmortem on the body of deceased vide Ex.P/25, has clearly come to the conclusion that the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by constriction of the neck and the nature of death was homicidal. The said finding recorded by the trial Court is a finding of fact based on evidence available on record, which is neither perverse nor contrary to record. Even otherwise, it has not been seriously disputed by the learned counsel for the appellant. We hereby afÏrm the said finding. 17. The next question for consideration would be, whether the trial Court has rightly held that the appellant is author of the crime by relying upon the following circumstances:- (i) Homicidal death was proved by the prosecution as per postmortem report (Ex.P/21) of Dr. Shakuntala Nikung (PW-13) who conducted postmortem. (ii) As per the case of the prosecution, the fact of death 8 of deceased was within the knowledge of the appellant, however, there was no any explanation given by the appellant in her statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. Thus, burden of proof was on the appellant to explain such circumstance, which she failed to explain. 18. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: “106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.” 19. This provision states that when any fact is specially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him. This is an exception to the general rule contained in Section 101, namely, that the burden is on the person who asserts a fact. The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the knowledge of the other side. To invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the main point to be established by prosecution is that the accused person was in such a position that he could have special knowledge of the fact concerned. 20. In the present case, the homicidal death of the deceased was due to asphyxia caused by constriction of the neck and the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which was before death has not been substantially disputed on behalf of the appellant. On the other hand, it is also established by the evidence of Neha Puri Goswami (PW-7), who are the eyewitness of the incident and daughter of the deceased and accused/appellant, Dr. Shakuntala Nikunj (PW-13) and the postmortem 9 report (Ex.P/21) that the death of deceased was homicidal in nature. 21. As regards complicity of the appellant in crime in question, conviction of the appellant is substantially based on the evidence of Neha Puri Goswami (PW-7) and Dr. Shakuntala Nikunj (PW-13). 22. Neha Puri Goswami (PW-7), who is the minor daughter of the accused/appellant & deceased and also the eyewitness of the incident, has stated in her evidence that on the day of incident, her parents went to the market and returned home. After dinner, they slept. In the midnight, she woke up to the sound of almirah and saw her mother strangulating her father. She asked her mother what she was doing, the accused threatened her, saying, “If she tell anyone, she will kill her”. Thereafter, she went back to sleep, and her mother dragged her father outside the house. Her younger brother, Ganesh, was crying, so she took him to their elder parents’ house. The Police questioned Neha Puri Goswami (PW-7) about the murder of her father and she told them that her mother strangulated her father. When the accused was dragging him away, she tried to stop her, but she threatened to assault. The Police recorded the statement of Neha Puri Goswami (PW-7), which is marked as Ex.P/14 with her signature. 23. Bhagatpuri Goswami (PW-1), who is the elder brother of the deceased and brother-in-law of the accused/appellant, has stated in his deposition that the Police summoned the accused, Sukanaya Puri to the crime scene and questioned her. She denied any involvement in the crime. The Police then called a dog squad, and when the dog arrived, it was first taken to sniff the body of the deceased, Ajaypuri Goswami. After 10 snifÏng the body, the dog followed the scent to Ajaypuri's house, where Sukanaya Puri was already present. The dog grabbed Sukanaya’s saree, and the Police again questioned her. Then, Sukanaya confessed to the crime, telling the Police that on the night of the incident, around 8:00 p.m., she had strangulated Ajaypuri with a mosquito net cord and left the body at the scene. She also admitted to burning the mosquito net and a gamcha (scarf) near a drain outside the house and cleaning up the blood that had come out of Ajaypuri's nose. However, the bloodstains were still visible. Sukanaya further confessed to dragging Ajaypuri's body to the poultry farm, the crime scene. 24. Sanjeev Kumar Sahu (PW-6), Police Dog Handler, has stated in his deposition that on 03.03.2020, he received a phone call from the Pathalgaon Police Station in-charge, requesting his assistance in investigating an unknown body found at Pathalgaon Police Station. He arrived at the station around 10:00 p.m. and went to the crime scene with Investigating OfÏcer Santlal Ayam (PW-15). At the crime scene, a trained Police dog was presented with the deceased Ajaypuri's clothes and footprints. The dog followed the scent to a nearby house, approximately 500 meters to 1 kilometer away, and entered the house, where it identified the accused, Sukanaya Puri. A dog identification report, Ex.P/13, was was prepared by Investigating OfÏcer Santlal Ayam (PW-15). 25. Dr. Shakuntala Nikunj (PW-13), who conducted postmortem vide Ex.P/25 found injuries as stated in paragraph 06 of this appeal and she opined that the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by constriction of the neck and the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. 11 26. Now, the question is, whether the prosecution has discharged its initial or general burden or primary duty of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt? 27. In this regard, the trial Court observed that from the evidences of prosecution witnesses Santlal Ayam (PW-15), Shivshankar Paikra (PW- 11), and Dilip Kumar Minj (PW-14), along with documents Exs.P/19 (receipt exhibits), P/20 (duty certificate), P/22 (copy of seized article register) and P/29 (memo for FSL report) to P/31 (FSL report), establishes that on 04.03.2020, clothes seized from the accused, Exs.P/9 & P/12, and bloodstained soil and human blood were found at the crime scene, Ex.P/11. However, no explanation could be given by the accused as to how the human blood was found on her clothes. Therefore, all the above circumstances are linked with each other in relation to the incident and the incident has been witnessed by the minor daughter Neha Puri Goswami (PW-7), whose statement too has no reason to be disbelieved and there is also no reason for her to lie. On the basis of all the above circumstances and the statements of the witnesses of the incident etc., it is established beyond doubt that the incident has been committed by the accused. 28. A careful perusal of the aforesaid findings recorded by the trial Court would show that the prosecution has established that, 1. death of deceased was homicidal in nature; 2. it is the appellant who has murdered the deceased by strangulating him. 12 29. Considering the statements of the prosecution witnesses, the finding recorded by the trial Court in its judgment, the fact that the appellant has not offered any explanation under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and considering the statement of Neha Puri Goswami (PW-7), who is the minor daughter of the deceased & accused/appellant and also the eyewitness of the incident disclosing the fact that the accused/appellant had strangulating the deceased, therefore, the act of the accused/appellant strangulating the deceased clearly shows the intention of the accused/appellant to kill the deceased. For this reason, it is clearly and reliably established that it was the accused/appellant, who caused the death of the deceased by strangulating the deceased and in this regard, there is no defence on the part of the accused/appellant during his examination under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., and therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. Therefore, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 30. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 31. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, she shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 32. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at 13 liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Hon’ble Supreme Court with the assistance of High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 33. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Brijmohan