1 CRA No. 351 of 2024 2025:CGHC:42901-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 351 of 2024 Purushottam Pando @ Parshottam S/o Jaikaran Pando Aged About 50 Years R/o Village- Koldiha, Pandopara, P.S.- Gandhi Nagar, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Appellant versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through The Station House Officer, Police Station Gandhi Nagar, District : Surguja (Ambikapur), Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from the Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Shahid Ahmed Ansari, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Hariom Rai, Panel Lawyer Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru , Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 25/08/2025 1. This criminal appeal preferred under Section 374(2) of the Cr.P.C is against impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.11.2023 passed in Sessions Trial No. 06/2022 by the learned Fifth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Surguja, C.G., whereby the appellant has been convicted and sentenced as under:- SOURABH BHILWAR Digitally signed by SOURABH BHILWAR Date: 2025.08.26 10:47:20 +0530 2 CRA No. 351 of 2024 Conviction Sentence U/s 302 of the IPC Life Imprisonment and fine of Rs. 500/- with default stipulation. U/s 201 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for 02 years and fine of Rs. 200/- with default stipulation. Both the sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. Case of the prosecution in brief is that on 08-09-2021, Purushottam Pando (appellant herein), along with village Sarpanch Sumit Kerketta and his son Mahesh Pando appeared in Gandhinagar Police Station and verbally informed that on 05-09-2021, he and his wife Manbasiya (Since deceased) both consumed alcohol in the evening, and at 07:00 pm his wife Manbasiya went somewhere from the house without informing anyone, whose whereabouts were not found after searching in the vicinity. On 08-09-2021 at around 09:00 am his daughter Shanti Bai informed that the body of Manbasiya was lying in the courtyard behind the house, her blouse was half open and she was wearing a petticoat, the reason for her death is not known. On the basis of the said report, a case bearing No. 63/2021 was registered at Gandhinagar police station and panchnama proceedings were taken up. 3. During investigation, Spot Map was prepared. Statement of the Victim and the Statements of witnesses were recorded. Subsequently after completing the investigation, a charge-sheet was submitted before the Court. 4. After framing the charges against the accused/appellant, the charges were read out and explained to the appellant, he denied committing the crime and demanded trial. 3 CRA No. 351 of 2024 5. In order to bring home the offence, the prosecution has examined 13 witnesses in its support. Statement of the accused/appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C was recorded, wherein he has pleaded his innocence and false implication in the matter. 6. The trial Court after appreciating oral and documentary evidence available on record, by its judgment dated 30.11.2023 convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in paragraph one of this judgment. Hence, this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant submits that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. He would submit that the conviction against the appellant is bad in law and it is not supported by the evidence of the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt. He would submit that while passing the impugned judgment, the trial Court failed to appreciate the fact that there are material contradictions and omissions in the statements of the prosecution witnesses. He would further submit that the trial Court has failed to appreciate the fact that there is no eye witness in this case. Learned counsel would submit that the prosecution has failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances against the appellant and in such case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the conviction cannot be sustained. Learned counsel would submit that without there being any cogent evidence, the conviction of the appellant is bad in the eyes of law. 8. Learned counsel appearing for the State opposes the submissions made by the counsel for the appellant and submits that the conviction of the 4 CRA No. 351 of 2024 appellant is well merited which does not call for any interference, therefore, this appeal deserves to be dismissed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the record with utmost circumspection. 10. The first question for consideration would be whether the appellant has murdered the deceased or not. 11. PW/1- Shanti, daughter of the deceased stated in her statement that she knows the accused Purushottam, he is her father and the deceased was her mother. At the time of the incident, she was at her in-laws' place in Bankipur. She went to her mother's place after 08 days of the incident, when she opened the door of her mother's house, she smelled something bad, on which she went to the courtyard of her house, at that time found her mother's dead body was lying in the courtyard, which had decayed. She further stated that her mother was wearing blouse and petticoat, and there were worms in her body, there was a very bad smell, wounds and blood stains were visible on her body and there were blood splatters on the floor of the house as well. She told this to her father, then her father asked how did she die, he did not kill her. In her cross-examination, she categorically stated that Mahesh is not the real son of Purushottam, he is the son of the deceased Manbasiya's first husband. She further stated that Mahesh inherited the share of land from her father Purushottam Pando. She also stated that 5 CRA No. 351 of 2024 Mahesh Ram had many times argued with Purushottam Pando for his share of the land. She further deposed that Mahesh Ram had also said that you have kept my mother, you will have to give me a share, if you do not give it then I will not let my mother live with you, on this issue, after drinking alcohol, Mahesh Ram used to fight with her father and her second mother. 12. PW/13- Thunnu Pando @ Gangaram, grand son of the deceased stated in his statement that he knows the present accused Purushottam Pando, who is his grandfather and knows the deceased Manbasiya, she was his grandmother. He stated that the incident occurred about three years ago. His grandfather and grandmother had invited him to their house to eat chicken and drink alcohol. He went to his grandparents' house in the morning and on the same day in the evening, he, his grandparents, their son and their neighbor Jagannath, ate chicken, consumed alcohol and slept together. He had slept in a separate room earlier. His grandparents and their son were sleeping inside the room. When he woke up at 6:00 in the morning, his grandfather told him that his grandmother is missing, let's go and look for her. Then he searched for his grandmother in the neighborhood and the whole village with his grandfather, but he couldn't find her. After that, he told his grandfather that he had to go home, and he went home. He further stated that his aunt came to his house from village Bankipur to after a week, then she told him that his grandmother had died. Her dead body was found in courtyard of his grandmother’s house. It was found in a rotten state. At this stage, this witness was 6 CRA No. 351 of 2024 turned hostile. He further negated the fact that on questioning by the police he had told that at night Purushottam and his family members were quarrelling and he had heard it but due to being heavily intoxicated he did not wake up. In his cross-examination, he categorically stated that on the date of the incident, when they were asleep, his grandfather woke up in the morning and told him that your grandmother is missing, let's go and look for them. They searched around, but grandmother was not found. He admitted that his grandfather told him to go to the police station to report the matter but he did not know that after he left, whether his grandfather went to the police station to report the matter or not. 13. Perusal of the above statements reveal that there was a quarrel and an ongoing family dispute between the accused, the deceased and their son. The other evidence on record further supports the prosecution’s case in its entirety and clearly points towards the appellant as the appellant is the one who committed the murder. Taken together, these elements establish a strong motive and link the appellant to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. 14. Bare perusal of the FSL report (Ex.P./28) conducted by Dr. S.K. Singh, Assistant Chemical Examiner, SFSL, Ambikapur would go to show that human blood was found in the sample of soil article-A, mattress article E, blanket article F, and blouse and petticoat article I1 I2 respectively. In this regard, the letter of Gandhinagar police station is Ex.P. 26, the letter 7 CRA No. 351 of 2024 of Superintendent of Police is Ex.P. 27 and the FSL report is Exhibited as Ex. P/28. 15. Further the Dr. S. K. Bagh (PW/10), who conducted the postmortem on the body of the deceased, stated in his statement that he was found that the deceases was wearing a red blouse and a blue coloured petticoat. There were live caterpillars inside her body, a foul smell was coming from the dead body. The entire body was swollen due to the gas. As the body was in the initial stage of decomposition, the tongue was visible from the mouth and both the eyes were also visible. A cut wound of 03 cm was present on the right leg sole of the deceased, a second degree burn wound was present on the right elbow of the deceased, which was spread in the size of 10X06 cm. On the internal examination, he found that on opening the head of the deceased there were empyema (blood accumulation) due to injury in left occipital and temporal scalp and fracture was present in temporal bone on left side of skull and sub arachnoid blood accumulation was present in cerebellum region of brain. According to his opinion, it was not possible to give a clear cause of death at this stage of post-mortem, the period of death was within 03 to 05 days of his post-mortem. In cross-examination, the witness said, it has been denied that the injury found on the head of the deceased could have been caused by hitting the door frame of the house, and it has been clarified in the form of self statement that a depressed fracture was found, for which a forceful blow is required. Similarly, it is denied that such an injury 8 CRA No. 351 of 2024 would have occurred due to stumbling and falling under influence of alcohol, saying that in such a situation, other parts of the body like shoulder, elbow and back of the hand would also have been injured. 16. Thus, from the above evidence presented by the prosecution in the present case and perusal of the medical witness adduced by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW/ 10) while certifying the postmortem report (Ex.P. 15) has stated that during the postmortem serious injuries were found on the head of the deceased, due to which, it is proved in this case the prosecution has been successful in proving beyond reasonable doubt that on the date of incident, the accused with the intention of causing death of the deceased or causing such bodily injury to her, which is likely to cause death, or with the knowledge that it is likely, to cause the death of the deceased by that act, caused the death of Manbasia by beating her with a pointed wooden stick, and after killing the deceased, to hide the dead body of the deceased in order to escape the punishment of murder, threw the dead body of the deceased in the courtyard, eliminating the evidence of the crime of murder of the deceased, this Court comes to the conclusion that the accused had murdered the deceased. 17. 17. The present is a house murder, which the appellant was required to offer explanation in his statement under Section 313 of the CrPC, which he has failed to offer and consequently, finding other circumstance established, proceeded to convict him for offence under Section 302 of the IPC. Even the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act also requires plausible and convincing explanation about the circumstances. 9 CRA No. 351 of 2024 18. 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.” 19. The law regarding under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is well settled. The unnatural death of deceased took place in the house of the appellant. 20. As per the requirement of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, the accused was 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. 21. 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. 22. In the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 the Supreme Court whilst applying 10 CRA No. 351 of 2024 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 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." 23. 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: 11 CRA No. 351 of 2024 "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 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." 24. 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 prestine 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 12 CRA No. 351 of 2024 is a course recognized by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. 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.” 25. 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. 13 CRA No. 351 of 2024 23. When a case is resting on circumstantial 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.” 26. Therefore, in the facts and circumstances of the case, as also the evidence on record, it would be safe for this Court to hold that the appellant has murdered the deceased. Since it has justifiably been established by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt that it was the accused who had murdered the deceased and hide the dead body of the deceased in order to escape the punishment of murder, threw the dead body of the deceased in the courtyard of the house, eliminating the evidence of the crime of murder of the deceased, the conviction under Section 201 of the IPC which deals with causing disappearance of Evidence or giving false information to screen an offender from punishment, it stipulates that anyone who, knowing or believing a crime has been committed, intentionally hides evidence or provides false information to protect the guilty party can be punished, is also affirmed. 27. Considering the entire facts and circumstances of the case and upon cumulative analysis of the evidence available on record, this Court 14 CRA No. 351 of 2024 comes to the conclusion that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubts against the appellant. The conviction and sentenced as awarded by the trial Court is hereby upheld. The present appeal lacks merit and is accordingly dismissed. It is reported that the appellant is in jail. He shall serve out the remaining period of jail sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 28. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at 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. 29. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Bibhu Datta Guru) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice S. Bhilwar