1 CRA No.199/2025 2025:CGHC:57728-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 199 of 2025 1 - Mukesh Kumar Sahu S/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 29 Years R/o Village Aamatola, Police Station - Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh 2 - Basanti Sahu D/o Late Mohan Lal Sahu Aged About 34 Years R/o Village Aamatola, Police Station - Ambagarh Chowki, District Mohla- Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh ... Appellants versus The State of Chhattisgarh Through The Police Station Ambagarh Chowki, District : Mohla-Manpur-Ambagarh Chowki, Chhattisgarh …..Respondent ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- For Appellants : Mr. Veer Verma, Advocate For Respondent-State : Mr. S.S. Baghel, Dy. G.A. ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 27.11.2025 This criminal appeal filed by the appellants-accused under Section 415(2) of BNSS, 2023 is directed against the impugned judgment of AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Digitally signed by AMARDEEP CHOUBEY Date: 2025.11.28 11:42:07 +0530 2 CRA No.199/2025 conviction and order of sentence dated 09/01/2025, passed by the learned 3rd Additional Sessions Judge, Rajnandgaon, C.G. in Sessions Trial No. 04/2023, whereby the appellants-accused have been convicted and sentenced as under:- For Accused Mukesh Kumar Sahu (A-1): Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment & fine of Rs.1000/- with default stipulation Under Section 201/34 of the IPC R.I. for 7 years & fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. For Accused Basanti Sahu (A-2): Conviction Sentence Under Section 201/34 of the IPC R.I. for 7 years & fine of Rs.500/-, with default stipulation. 1. Brief facts of the case is that on 29.08.2022 at night, an altercation took place between the A-1 and his wife-Kiran Sahu (since deceased) regarding going to her maternal home for the Teeja festival. During the dispute, A-2, who is the sister-in-law of deceased, hold the head of the deceased and pressed it down, while A-1 strangulated her, due to which, the deceased died. Thereafter, they hanged her body from the roof in the courtyard shed using a gamchha (cloth), attempted to show it as a natural death. After committing the said act, the appellants were preparing for her last rites. Upon receiving information about the 3 CRA No.199/2025 death, Narad Sahu, father of deceased PW-1, reached the spot and suspecting murder, then he went to the police outpost along with the village Kotwar Ramsai Sahare PW-3 and reported the incident. Based on this report, Merg was registered vide Ex.P-1. Spot map was prepared vide Ex.P-10. After due investigation, Memorandum statements of the appellants were recorded. The dead-body of deceased was sent for postmortem examination and in the postmortem examination report (Ex.P/19), Dr. Priyanka Jamdar (PW-11) opined that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling. After completing the investigation, the final report was prepared. 2. The prosecution in order to prove its case examined as many as 19 witnesses and exhibited 37 documents. Statement of the appellants under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. were recorded wherein they denied guilt. 3. The learned trial Court after appreciating the oral and documentary evidence available on record proceeded to convict the appellants herein for the aforementioned offence and sentenced them as mentioned herein-above against which this appeal has been preferred by the appellants-accused herein questioning the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence. 4. Learned counsel for the appellants would submit that the 4 CRA No.199/2025 appellants have been falsely implicated in the present case. He submits that the dead body of deceased was found hanging outside the house i.e. in country yard and after completion of process as well as intimating whole villagers and relatives of the deceased, the dead body was prepared for funeral and in between, the father of the deceased came and raising the allegation of murder. Learned counsel submits that there is a possibility of committing suicide of deceased and due to which the ligature marks was found in the dead body, whereas the prosecution also projected that there is some scratch marks of nails but its length and width are not mentioned in the report. Learned counsel submits that that the learned trial Court failed to appreciate that there is material contradiction and omission in the statement of witnesses. He submits that the conviction and sentence of the appellants is based on surmises and conjectures. Hence, the present appeal deserves to be allowed and the impugned judgment deserves to be set aside. 5. Per-contra, learned State counsel supported the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence and submits that the prosecution has proved the offence beyond reasonable doubt by leading evidence of clinching nature. The learned trial Court has rightly convicted the appellants for the aforesaid offence, thus, the present appeal deserves to be dismissed. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, considered their 5 CRA No.199/2025 rival submissions made herein-above and went through the records with utmost circumspection. 7. The question would be whether the accused-appellants herein are the author of the crime in question ? 8. PW-14, daughter of deceased, aged about 9 years, stated in her evidence that she does not know the date of incident. She stated that she was sleeping at night when her younger sister Himanshi came to her crying and said that she could not find their mother. Then, she told her that mother must have gone to the bathroom and would return and asked her to go back to sleep. Thereafter, she came out of the room with her sister, saw that her aunt A-2, her father A-1 and her grandmother were all assaulting her mother with a stick. She categorically stated that it was her father/A-1 who beat her mother with the stick. After that, her father and her aunt took her mother towards the backyard area and hung her in the shed. Then, in the morning, her aunt and grandmother pretended to crying. 9. PW-1 Narad Sahu, father of deceased stated in his evidence that the incident occurred in the night of 28.08.2022. They came to know about the next day i.e. on 29.08.2022. On 29.08.2022, at around 5:00 a.m., the brother-in-law of A-1 called and informed them that due to fever, his daughter died. When they reached the spot, they saw that gulal had been applied to deceased and 6 CRA No.199/2025 preparations were being made to take her for cremation. At that time, he noticed the neck of deceased, where a certain mark was seen by him, which was appeared black in colour and unusual. He then called the police. 10. PW-3 Ramsaye, stated in his evidence that the deceased was not sent for the Teeja festival by the family of the accused Mukesh, due to which the person (who had come to take her) returned. The next morning, there was discussion in the village that Kiran Sahu had died. Thereafter, family of deceased came to the house of Mukesh Sahu. They saw that Kiran Sahu was lying on the ground with a cloth covering her. When they lifted the cloth, they noticed that pink-colored gulal had been shown on her head, neck, face, and hair. A black mark was visible on her neck, there was Vaseline applied over the neck, and nail marks were also visible. They suspected that the family members of Mukesh Sahu had done something wrong, which caused her death. 11. Bhaggu Ram Kunjam (PW-3) is a neighbour of Narad Sahu PW-1 stated that he had gone to village Amatola to bring the deceased, Kiran Sahu, for the Teeja festival. However, he had to return without bringing her with him, and on the very next day, he came to know that the Kiran Sahu died. 12. PW-11 Dr. Priyanka Jamdar, who conducted the postmortem of deceased and submitted a report which is vide Ex.P-19. She 7 CRA No.199/2025 stated in her evidence that the body was of a 29-year-old woman, of average height and build. The body was lying straight on the postmortem table, wearing a yellow blouse and a white cloth tied below. The entire body was smeared with turmeric paste. A ligature mark was present on the neck of the deceased. In the said report, A-1: A ligature mark was found around the entire circumference of the neck and in the middle region of the neck. The ligature mark was horizontal, extending from the front towards the back. On both the right and left sides, there were small marks resembling nail scratches. The Doctor opined that the cause of death of the deceased was asphyxia due to throttling and has confirmed that the death was unnatural. 13. The present case is a case of house murder, which the appellants were required to offer explanation in their statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, which they have failed to offer and consequently, finding other circumstance established, proceeded to convict them for offence under Section 302, 201/34 of the IPC. Even the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act also requires plausible and convincing explanation about the circumstances. 14. Section 106 of the Evidence Act reads 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.” 15. The law regarding under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 8 CRA No.199/2025 1872 is well settled. The unnatural death of deceased took place in the house of the appellants. 16. As per the requirement of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused were required to give plausible and convincing explanation about the circumstances, in which, the deceased was found dead in his house. Where an offence like murder is committed inside the house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. 17. In view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot keep away by simply keeping quite and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on the accused to offer any explanation. 18. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Supreme Court whilst applying provisions of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, observed in para 14 reads as under: “14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants 9 CRA No.199/2025 have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads: (b)A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 19. On the interpretation of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer reported in AIR 1956 SC 404 in paragraph 9 it was observed by the Supreme Court thus: "9. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional 10 CRA No.199/2025 cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not." 20. In the matter of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and others reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382, the Supreme Court has observed in paras 31 to 33 as under: “31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries, and the society would be the casualty. 32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore narrated circumstances, the Court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognized by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. 11 CRA No.199/2025 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a process of reasoning and reach a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process Court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.” 21. The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra (supra) was followed with approval in the matter of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar reported in 2021 10 SCC 725 in which it has been held by their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: “22. Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference. 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial 12 CRA No.199/2025 evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.” 22. Applying the well settled principles of law to the case at hand as well as after having carefully examined the evidence brought on record, this Court finds that the prosecution has established a consistent and coherent chain of circumstances proving the guilt of the appellants. The testimony of PW-14, the minor daughter of the deceased, is trustworthy and unshaken. She clearly witnessed A- 1, A-2 and the grandmother assaulting the deceased, and specifically stated that A-1 assaulted the deceased with a stick and thereafter, along with A-2, carried her to the backyard and hung her in the shed. Her account finds substantial corroboration from PW-1, who noticed suspicious black marks on the neck of the deceased when the accused family was preparing for cremation, and from PW-3, who described the presence of gulal on the body, nail marks on the neck, and the unnatural conduct of the accused in suppressing the true cause of death. The conduct of the 13 CRA No.199/2025 accused family in applying gulal, covering the body, and attempting cremation, strengthens the inference of guilt. Furthermore, the medical evidence of PW-11 Dr. Priyanka Jamdar conclusively establishes that the cause of death was asphyxia due to throttling, consistent with the injuries described by the eyewitness. The appellants have failed to offer any plausible explanation for the death of deceased occurring inside their home. In light of the ocular testimony, corroborative evidence and the clear medical opinion, this Court holds that the prosecution has proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants, sharing common intention, intentionally caused the death of Kiran Sahu. 23. Importantly, looking to the testimony of PW-14, the minor daughter of the deceased categorically stated in her evidence that she had seen that A-1 assaulted the deceased with a stick and thereafter, along with A-2, carried her to the backyard and hung her in the shed and after going aforesaid evidence, A-1, who is husband of deceased, killed his wife by throttling her and the same fact has been proved in the postmortem report, we hereby affirm the finding recorded by the learned trial Court and does not require any interference. 24. 24. As far as conviction of A-2 Basanti Sahu is concerned, it is evident that the learned trial Court has convicted A-2 for the offence under Section 201/34 of IPC and sentenced to R.I. for 7 years, whereas, she has already undergone the jail sentence of 14 CRA No.199/2025 about 16 months. 25. As regards sentence, in the matter of Mohammad Giasuddin v. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (1977) 3 SCC 287, Hon'ble Supreme Court has observed that if you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries and held in para-9 as follows: "9. Western jurisprudence and 'sociologists, from their own angle have struck a like note. Sir Samual Romilly, critical of the brutal penalties in the then Britain, said in 1817: "The laws of England are written in blood". Alfieri has suggested: 'society prepares the crime, the criminal commits it'. George Nicodotis, Director of Criminological Research Centre, Athens, Greece, maintains that 'Crime is the result of the lack of the right kind of education. It is thus plain that crime is a pathological aberration, that the criminal can ordinarily be redeemed, that the State has to rehabilitate rather than avenge. The sub- culture that leads to anti-social behaviour has to be countered not by undue cruelty but by re-culturisation. Therefore, the focus of interest in penology is the individual, and goal is salvaging him for society. The infliction of harsh and savage punishment is thus a relic of past and regressive times. The human today views sentencing as a process of reshaping a person who has deteriorated into criminality and the modern community has a primary stake in the rehabilitation of the offender as a means of social defense. We, therefore consider a 15 CRA No.199/2025 therapeutic, rather than an in 'terrorem' outlook, should prevail in our criminal courts, since brutal incarceration of the person merely produces laceration of his mind. In the words of George Bernard Shaw: 'If you are to punish a man retributively, you must injure him. If you are to reform him, you must improve him and, men are not improved by injuries'. We may permit ourselves the liberty to quote from Judge Sir Jeoffrey Streatfield: "If you are going to have anything to do with the criminal Courts, you should see for yourself the conditions under which prisoners serve their sentences” 26. Further the Hon’ble Apex Court in the matter of Pramod Kumar Mishra vs. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in (2023) 9 SCC 810 has reiterated the above facts and also placed reliance upon the decision rendered in Mohammad Giasuddin (supra). 27. Considering all these above aspects and also considering the fact and keeping in view the Judgment of Hon'ble Supreme Court in the matter of George Pon Paul v. Kanagalet, (2009) 13 SCC 478, and in light of the Supreme Court in cases of Mohammad Giasuddin (supra) and Pramod Kumar Mishra (supra) and further considering the fact that the A-2 has served almost 16 months of her jail sentence, this Court is of the opinion that no fruitful purpose would be served by retaining A-2 in jail at this stage and the ends of justice would be adequately served, if A-2 is sentenced to the period already undergone by her during trial and incarceration. 16 CRA No.199/2025 28. Also having regard to the fact that the A-2 Basanti Sahu has already undergone the jail sentence of about 16 months, the sentence imposed upon her is modified to the period already undergone, while maintaining the conviction under Section 201/34 IPC. However, the fine amount imposed by the trial Court shall remain intact. If A-2 failed to deposit the said fine amount, she shall undergo R.I. for 20 days. 29. A-2 Basanti Sahu is in jail. She be released forthwith if not required in any other case, on furnishing a personal bond for a sum of Rs.25,000/- with one surety in the like sum to the satisfaction of the trial Court. The bail bond shall remain in operation for a period of six months as required under the provisions of Section 481 of the BNSS. She shall appear before the higher Court as and when directed. 30. As far as the conviction of A-1 Mukesh Kumar Sahu is concerned, we are the of the considered opinion that the learned trial Court has rightly convicted him for offence under Section 302, 201/34 of IPC and the same is hereby upheld. 31. A-1 Mukesh Kumar Sahu is stated to be in jail and he shall serve out the remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where he is undergoing the jail sentence to serve the same and informing him that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this 17 CRA No.199/2025 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. 32. Accordingly, the Criminal Appeal is partly allowed to the extent herein above. 33. Let a certified copy of this judgment along with the original record be transmitted forthwith to the trial Court for information and necessary action. SD/- SD/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Gowri/ Amardeep