1 CRA No. 960 of 2025 2025:CGHC:55787-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 960 of 2025 Guruveer Singh S/o Pannalal Gautam Aged About 25 Years R/o Village Rudrayan, Islam Nagar, District- Badayun (U.P.) Current Address- 204 Cobra Battalion Karanpur, P.S. Nagarnar, District- Bastar (C.G.) Appellant(s) Versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through P.S. Nagarnar, District- Bastar (C.G.) Respondent(s) (Cause-title taken from Case Information System) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Priyank Rathi, Advocate For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, PL Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge Judgment on Board Per Bibhu Datta Guru, Judge 17/11/2025 1. This appeal has been preferred by the appellant against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 22/03/2025 passed in Sessions Case no. 27/2019 by the learned III Additional Sessions Judge, Bastar at Jagdalpur (C.G.), whereby the learned Addl. Sessions Judge has RAHUL JHA Digitally signed by RAHUL JHA Date: 2025.11.19 10:18:22 +0530 2 CRA No. 960 of 2025 convicted and sentenced the appellant as under:- Conviction Sentence Under Section 302 of the IPC Life imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation. Under Section 201 of the IPC Rigorous imprisonment for two years and fine of Rs. 1000/-, with default stipulation. The sentences were directed to run concurrently. 2. The facts of the case, in brief, are that on 18.03.2019, the complainant, Guruveer Singh (appellant herein), lodged a merg intimation reporting that his wife, Anupriya Gautam (hereinafter referred to as “the deceased”), had died under unknown circumstances sometime between 11:00 p.m. on 16.03.2019 and around 6:15 a.m. on 17.03.2019. During the merg enquiry, the police inspected the spot, recorded the statements of the panch witnesses, and sent the body of the deceased for postmortem examination at the Medical College, Dimrapal. The postmortem report revealed that the cause of death was homicidal, resulting from manual strangulation. Based on this finding, an FIR was registered against the accused. During investigation, the crime scene was inspected and other requisite steps were taken. Upon completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed before the concerned Court. Thereafter, charges were framed against the accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code. 3 CRA No. 960 of 2025 In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution examined as many as 13 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents. The statement of the appellant under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. was also recorded, in which he denied all incriminating material appearing against him and pleaded innocence, stating that he had been falsely implicated. 3. After appreciation of the evidence available on record, the learned trial Court convicted the accused/appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in paragraph 1 of the judgment. Hence, this appeal. 4. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the appellant has been falsely implicated in the present case. It is urged that the entire prosecution story rests merely on suspicion and conjectures, as there is no direct evidence whatsoever connecting the appellant with the alleged act of murder. The conviction is founded solely on circumstantial evidence, which, according to learned counsel, has not been proved beyond reasonable doubt. It is further contended that the trial Court failed to appreciate that it was the appellant who had promptly lodged the merg intimation upon discovering the death of the deceased, which conduct is consistent with innocence and not indicative of any attempt to screen or conceal the commission of an offence. 5. Learned State counsel, opposing the appeal, would submit that the trial Court has correctly appreciated the evidence and recorded a well- reasoned conviction. It is pointed out that although the appellant lodged the merg intimation, the postmortem report clearly established that the 4 CRA No. 960 of 2025 deceased died a homicidal death due to manual strangulation. The incident occurred within the matrimonial home during the night, and no explanation has been offered by the appellant as to how such injuries were caused. It is further submitted that the prosecution examined 13 witnesses and proved 26 documents, which collectively form a complete chain of circumstances unerringly pointing towards the appellant’s guilt. The mere act of lodging the merg report does not absolve the appellant, as such conduct may also be adopted to create an appearance of innocence. The defence plea of false implication is unsupported by any material, and the appellant, in his Section 313 Cr.P.C. statement, failed to provide any plausible explanation. Accordingly, learned State counsel submits that the findings of the trial Court are based on cogent evidence and call for no interference. 6. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record with utmost circumspection. 7. Dr. Kiran Patil (PW6), who has conducted the postmortem of the body of the deceased has found as under:- “Body brought to the Mortuary of Late BRKM Govt Medical College, Dimrapal from the above mentioned site. As per the requisition, the deceased was found dead inside her bedroom in between 16/03/2019 and 17/03/2019. The postmortem examination started at 02:50 PM and ended at 04:40 PM on 17/03/2019. Clothes & Belongings- Body was wrapped in brown-yellow- white Coloured Blanket-Intact. Body-supine and cold to 5 CRA No. 960 of 2025 touch. Worn clothes- Half sleeves mai-coloured white Top (T-shirt)- Intact, soil particles adherent over right upper back, Violet- Black checks full Trouser-Intact, Blue Bra- Intact, Pink Underwear- Intact. Nose-ring present over left nostry- Intact. Black thread around neck, Black thread around left ankle. Black ear-rings over both car-lobes. Metallic whitish- (two), Blackish pearls (one) and Golden coloured (one) rings present over Indes, middle, ring and little fingers of the left hand respectively. Left hand nails are over-grown, crossing nails bed, Intact. Nali-painted over (left) ring and little fingers with pinkish coloured "Heart" shaped surrounded by white colour paint. Left & Right hand nails- Bluish discoloration is present all over except left ring and little fingers. Long” Injuries (External) 1) Abrasion of size 0.8 cm X 0.5 cm present over front and right side of neck, placed 9.5 cm below chin, 6 cm above sternal notch and 0.5 cm right from mid-line. Reddish brown. 2) Linear scratch abrasions (two) each of size 0.5 cm X 0.1 cm present over front and right side of neck, placed 0.2 cm above injury no.1, reddish brown. 3) Linear Contusion of size 4 cm X 1 cm obliquely crossing injury no.1 & 2 above and below over front of neck, upper edge directed left side and lower side directed towards right side, faint reddish. 4) Multiple scratch abrasions over an area of size 1.5 cm X 0.5 cm present over front and left side of neck placed 2.8 cm from injury no.2 over left upper side. Each of abrasion varying of sizes from 0.2 cm X 0.1 cm to 0.3 cm X 0.1 cm, reddish brown. 6 CRA No. 960 of 2025 5) Linear Contusion of size 3 cm X 1 cm present over left upper side of neck crossing Injury 4 above and below, upper edge directed towards left side and lower edge towards right sic faint reddish. The injury is parallel with injury no.3. 6) Abraded contusion of size 0.9 cm X 0.3 cm present over front and right side of neck, placed 2.2 cm from mid-line, 3 cm from injury no. 1 and 6.5 cm below chin, reddish brown. 7) Contusion of size 4.5 cm X 2.2 cm present over inner aspects of left elbow, dark brown. 8) Abrasion of size 0.5 cm X 0.3 cm is present over left elbow, placed 1.5 cm below injury no.7. reddish brown. 9) Linear old healed scar of size 1.5 cm X 0.1 cm present horizontally over front of left forearm, placed 7 cm above wrist joint, raised-non-shiny, dark brown. 10) Linear old healed scar of size 1.5 cm X 0.1 cm present horizontally over back of righ forearm, placed 4 cm above head of right ulna bone, raised-non-shiny, dark brown. 11) Linear old healed scar of size 1.7 cm X 0.1 cm present horizontally over back of right forearm, placed 0.5 above injury no. 8, raised-non-shiny, dark brown. Internal Neck- There is contusion of superficial strap muscles of front of neck, over thyroid cartilage, underlying and corresponding to the external injuries nos. 1 to 6, reddish. After reflection of superficial muscles, there is extravasation of blood into the deep neck structures, muscles and over thyroid gland, dark reddish. The hyoid bone is fractured over right greater cornua and fractured part is directed inwards with extravasation of reddish blood into surrounding tissues. Muscles- congested. Blood vessels- 7 CRA No. 960 of 2025 engorged with blood, intact. All the injuries mentioned above are antemortem in nature. The injuries nos. 1 to 8 are recent duration prior to the death. The injuries nos. 9 to 11 are of older duration. The doctor opined that as per history and postmortem findings, the cause of death was throttling and the nature of death was homicidal in nature. 8. From the postmortem report and the testimony of Dr. Kiran Patil (PW6), it is evident that the deceased sustained multiple injuries and that her death was homicidal in nature. The trial Court rightly recorded this finding after considering both oral and documentary evidence, and the same cannot be termed perverse or contrary to record. 9. PW-1, Satyendrapal Singh, father of the deceased, stated that he did not know the accused prior to the incident and first saw him at Police Station Nagarnaar. On 17.03.2019, he received a call from the Nagarnaar police informing him of his daughter’s death. As the District Etah (Uttar Pradesh) was nearly 1500 km away from Nagarnaar, he asked the police to conduct the postmortem. He then travelled with his son and brother and reached Nagarnaar police station around 11:00 p.m. on 18.03.2019, where the accused was already in custody. He stated that the police took them to a nearby colony, where they saw an open room with scattered articles. The police seized clothes, broken bangles, books and the deceased’s mobile phone. PW-1 stated that he was in shock and did not fully understand the proceedings. He admitted his signatures on Ex.P-1, Ex.P-2 and Ex.P-3, though the accused had been apprehended before his 8 CRA No. 960 of 2025 arrival. He was later taken to a hospital around 1:30–2:00 a.m., where he was informed that the postmortem had already been completed. The next morning, he received the body of the deceased after signing Ex.P-4. PW- 1 stated that he did not know how the deceased came to Nagarnaar, as she had been studying in Agra. He stated that the police only verified his identity and obtained his signatures. On clarificatory questions, he stated that the police seized clothes, bangles and study materials from the spot, interrogated the accused in his presence, and recovered a mobile phone from a flour container in the kitchen on the accused’s disclosure. He further stated that the accused confessed before the police in his presence and was arrested in his presence. He denied ever telling the police that the deceased was married to the accused, lived with him at Karanpur COBRA Battalion, was harassed by him, or that the accused had placed a suicide note, stating that these statements were incorrectly shown in police papers. He admitted that upon his arrival, the police informed him that the accused had killed his daughter and that the accused also stated so before the police. He denied that the accused was his son-in-law. He stated that the police learned his identity only after his arrival at the station. He also admitted that the deceased had earlier been married to one Sunil Kumar, who had several criminal cases against him. He further stated that Agra, where the deceased studied, was about 80 km from District Etah, and that he last met her in February, after she had stayed at home for about two months. 9 CRA No. 960 of 2025 10. PW-2, Shri Vishal Singh, brother of the deceased, stated that he did not know the accused prior to the incident and first saw him at Police Station Nagarnaar after the occurrence. On 17.03.2019, his father informed him of Anupriya’s death, and he, along with his father and uncle, travelled from Etah (UP) to Jagdalpur (CG), reaching the police station on the night of 18.03.2019, where the accused was already in custody. He stated that the police took them to a colony residential area where the accused was residing on the upper floor. Inside the house, he saw two rooms one with broken bangles and a broken necklace scattered on the floor, and another with clothes lying about. After brief police proceedings, they were taken to Jagdalpur Hospital, where they were informed that the postmortem had already been completed. The next morning, the deceased’s body was handed over to his father, and PW-2 signed the supurdnama Ex.P-4. PW-2 stated that he was also questioned by the police. He stated that the deceased had been studying in Agra and that he was living in Aligarh; he used to speak to her regularly, including shortly before the incident. She had never told him that she was residing in Nagarnaar or mentioned anything about the accused. On clarificatory questions, he stated that the accused was interrogated in his presence and admitted that he had caused the death of the deceased by strangulation. He further stated that the police recovered a mobile phone from a flour container in the kitchen on the accused’s disclosure. PW-2 denied ever telling the police that the deceased was married to the accused, lived with him at the COBRA Battalion, or was harassed by him, and stated 10 CRA No. 960 of 2025 that any such statements in police papers were not made by him. He denied giving any statement that his father told him the accused had killed the deceased. He denied any malice towards the accused. He further stated that the accused was not his sister’s husband and that the police learned his identity only after his arrival. He also stated that the deceased had earlier been married to one Sunil Kumar, though he did not know the details of the cases against him. 11. PW-6, Dr. Kiran Patil deposed that on 17.03.2019 at about 2:40 p.m., the body of the deceased was brought to her by Constable Navlesh Kashyap for postmortem. She commenced the postmortem at 2:50 p.m. and concluded it at 4:40 p.m. On external examination, she found multiple abrasions and contusions over the front, right and left sides of the neck, as well as injuries on the left elbow and both hands. On internal examination, she found contusion of the neck muscles, hemorrhage over the thyroid region, and fracture of the hyoid bone with inward displacement. He opined that these injuries were antemortem. PW-6 further stated that, in his opinion, the cause of death was manual strangulation, and the nature of death was homicidal. The approximate time between death and postmortem was 12–24 hours. He proved the postmortem report as Ex. P-7. 12. PW8- Arjun Shrivastava, deposed that in the year 2019 he was posted as Naib Tahsildar at Jagdalpur and is presently posted at Lohandiguda. On 17.03.2019, upon receiving instructions from the SDM, Jagdalpur, he visited 204 Cobra Battalion, Karanpur, and conducted the merg enquiry 11 CRA No. 960 of 2025 proceedings. He prepared the Death Inquest Panchanama (Ex. P-10) and the Site Panchanama Map (Ex. P-11) at the spot in the presence of witnesses, which bear his signatures. He further stated that after completing the proceedings on the same day, he sent the body of the deceased for postmortem through Constable Navlesh Kashyap along with the postmortem requisition (Ex. P-6), which also bears his signatures. In cross-examination, he admitted that the witnesses mentioned in Ex. P-11 were local persons residing near the place of occurrence. He also admitted that he visited the spot in his capacity as Executive Magistrate and that he did not record the statements of the persons present there, as he did not consider it necessary. He further stated that the body was sent for postmortem because the circumstances appeared suspicious. 13. Upon careful consideration of the submissions made on behalf of the appellant and a thorough evaluation of the entire record, this Court finds no merit in the challenge to the conviction. The medical evidence on record categorically establishes that the deceased did not die a natural or accidental death. The postmortem report, duly proved by the Medical Officer, records injuries consistent with homicidal violence, particularly manual strangulation. The nature, position and severity of the injuries conclusively rule out any possibility of an accidental fall or self- infliction. In cross-examination, nothing substantial has been elicited to weaken the testimony of the doctor or to cast doubt upon the cause of 12 CRA No. 960 of 2025 death. The finding of homicidal death recorded by the trial Court is therefore fully justified. 14. The evidence relating to the place and circumstances of the incident further supports the prosecution case. PW-8 Arjun Shrivastava, Naib Tahsildar, who was directed by the SDM to conduct marg inquiry, has stated that on 17.03.2019 he visited the house and prepared the inquest report and spot map (Ex. P-10 and P-11) in the presence of witnesses. His testimony remains consistent that the body was found inside the residential premises under circumstances that appeared suspicious. The omissions brought out in cross-examination—such as not recording statements of Panch witnesses or not issuing written documentation to the constable are minor procedural lapses and do not go to the root of the matter. PW-8 is not an investigating officer but an Executive Magistrate whose role is limited to preparation of inquest and spot inspection. There is nothing in his testimony to indicate fabrication or manipulation of the proceedings. 15. Another significant circumstance proved by the prosecution is that as per merg intimation lodged by the accused himself vide Ex.P/14 it is manifest that the marriage took place between the accused and deceased prior to seven months from the date of incident i.e. 16/3/2019 as per the rituals. During the intervening night of 16th & 17th March, the appellant and the deceased were the only two persons present in the house. This fact is not disputed by the defence. When the homicidal death of a young woman occurs inside the matrimonial home, and the accused is 13 CRA No. 960 of 2025 admittedly present with her, the burden shifts upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to offer a plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which the deceased sustained fatal injuries. However, in his examination under Section 313 of the Code, the appellant has offered only bare denials and has not provided any explanation whatsoever. His silence in the face of such incriminating circumstances is itself an additional link in the chain of guilt. 16. In cases where a homicidal death occurs inside a dwelling occupied exclusively by the accused and the deceased, the law presumes that the accused must offer an explanation for the circumstances of death. The Supreme Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, held that when the offence takes place inside the privacy of a house, the accused alone is expected to explain how the death occurred, failing which the Court may presume his involvement. Likewise, in State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram, (2006) 12 SCC 254, the Court held that when certain facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused, the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts upon him to explain those facts, and his inability to do so provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances. These principles squarely apply to the present case, where the appellant has offered no plausible explanation regarding the homicidal death of the deceased inside their residence. 17. The appellant has attempted to rely upon the fact that he informed the police by lodging the merg intimation. While this circumstance is noted, 14 CRA No. 960 of 2025 it cannot, by itself, dilute the other strong and consistent evidence on record. Merely giving information does not displace the presumption arising from exclusive presence, nor does it explain the homicidal injuries suffered by the deceased. The trial Court has correctly held that such conduct, though relevant, is insufficient to rebut the prosecution case when the appellant has not provided any explanation for the death inside his own house. 18. The appellant’s act of giving merg intimation does not discharge the burden cast upon him under Section 106, particularly when the prosecution has already proved foundational facts namely, that the deceased suffered homicidal death by throttling inside the house where the appellant was present. As held in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725, the burden of the prosecution does not extend to proving negative facts or facts exclusively within the knowledge of the accused. Once the prosecution proves homicidal death and exclusive presence, it becomes incumbent upon the accused to furnish a credible explanation. The appellant’s silence and bare denial, therefore, assume significance and constitute an incriminating circumstance. 19. The official witnesses, including PW-8, the medical officer, and the investigating officers, have supported the prosecution version in material particulars. Their evidence is consistent, natural and free from contradictions of a material nature. The defence has not succeeded in suggesting any alternative theory such as accident, medical condition, involvement of a third person, or any other cause to explain the death. In 15 CRA No. 960 of 2025 a situation where the deceased dies a homicidal death inside the house where only the appellant is present, and the appellant fails to give any explanation, the inference of guilt is not only permissible but inevitable. 20. In such circumstances, the Court is entitled to draw a presumption of fact under Section 114 of the Evidence Act regarding the natural and probable course of events. Where the deceased suffers homicidal injuries inside the home, and the accused fails to explain how such injuries occurred, the presumption arises that the accused is responsible for the same. The Supreme Court in Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (2019) 5 SCC 112, reiterated that absence of explanation from the accused, coupled with proved circumstances of exclusive presence, completes the chain of circumstantial evidence. In the present case, no material has been brought forth by the defence to break this chain or render the prosecution version improbable. 21. In view of the above discussion, this Court is of the considered opinion that the prosecution has established a complete chain of circumstances, each of which is firmly proved, and all of which unerringly point to the guilt of the appellant. There is no break in the chain, nor is there any circumstance that may reasonably be interpreted in favour of innocence. The judgment of conviction does not suffer from any illegality or perversity warranting interference. 22. Accordingly, the appeal, therefore, deserves to be and is hereby dismissed. 23. The appellant is stated to be in jail and shall serve out the remaining 16 CRA No. 960 of 2025 period of the jail sentence as awarded by the learned trial Court. The Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing the jail sentence, informing the appellant that he is at liberty to assail the present judgment passed by this Court by preferring an appeal before the Supreme Court with the assistance of the High Court Legal Services Committee or the Supreme Court Legal Services Committee. 24. 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 Rahul/Gowri