2025:JHHC:17456-DB 1 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 202 of 1998(R) [Against the Judgment of conviction dated 22.07.1998 and Order of sentence dated 24.07.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No.299 of 1995] Serajuddin Ansari, son of Wazir Mian, resident of village Lalgarh Bihar, P.S. Bishrampur, District (Palamau).. … … Appellant Versus The State of Bihar (now Jharkhand) … … Respondent P R E S E N T HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE SUJIT NARAYAN PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH KUMAR ….. For the Appellant : Mr. Amit Sinha, Advocate For the Respondent : Mrs. Nehala Sharmin, Spl. P.P. ….. C.A.V. on 13.06.2025 Pronounced on 01/07/2025 Per Sujit Narayan Prasad, J. 1. The instant appeal is directed against the Judgment of conviction dated 22.07.1998 and order of sentence dated 24.07.1998 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge, Palamau at Daltonganj, in Sessions Trial No.299 of 1995 arising out of Bishrampur P.S. Case No.42 of 1994 corresponding to G.R. No.531 of 1994 registered under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for committing murder of Magrum Bibi by which the appellant has been convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and has been directed to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.5,000/-. In default of payment of fine, further two years R.I. has been ordered. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 2 Factual Matrix 2. This Court, before proceeding to examine the legality and propriety of the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, deems it fit and proper to refer the background of institution of prosecution case. The prosecution story in brief as per the allegation made in the First Information Report reads hereunder as :- 3. According to the fardbeyan of the informant Ahmad Ali brother of the deceased that his sister Magroom Bibi was married with the appellant about 12 years ago. It has been alleged that after few years of marriage, the appellant used to assault the informant’s sister Magroom for one or the other reasons. About a year before, the golden nose ring of the informant’s sister was lost somewhere for which the appellant assaulted the informant's sister. On one occasion when the informant had gone to appellant's house he was assaulted by appellant by means of lathi. About 14 days prior to the incident, the informant's sister was in her Maike in village Godamana Kalan. The appellant came there where the informant’s uncle Ahjad Ali made him understood not to assault the deceased and thereafter, the informant's sister returned to Lalgarh. 4. It has further been alleged that on 14.04.1994, the neighbour Shakur Mian came to village of informant and told informant's uncle that the informant's sister Magroom Bibi has died. On this information, the informant went to Lalgarh 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 3 where he learnt from the villagers that his brother-in-law Serajuddin had killed his sister and had lodged a case in police station that the deceased died by consuming poison. It has further been alleged that the informant's mother, while giving bath to the dead body, had seen sign of assault on the body of the deceased. 5. On the basis of the fardbeyan of the informant recorded at the police station a FIR being Bishrampur P.S. Case No. 42 of 1994, under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code was instituted against the appellant. 6. After investigation, the police submitted charge sheet under Section 302 Indian Penal Code against the appellant. 7. After cognizance of the offence, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions. Charge under Sections 302 of the IPC was framed to which the accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. 8. The prosecution has altogether examined 10 witnesses. P.W-1 is Gayasuddin Ansari cousin of informant, P.W. 2 is Kalo Bibi @ Kaloiya Bibi, the mother of informant, P.W. 3 is Ahmad Ali, the informant and brother of deceased. P.W.4 is Amjad Ali, uncle of informant, P.W.5 is Anup Kumar, a police personnel and formal witness, P.W.6 is Ramchandra Choudhury and P.W.7 Rajmani Singh, both are co-villagers, P.W.8 is Doctor who conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased, P.W.9 is Md. Jalil, a relative of informant and 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 4 P.W.10 is Investigating Officer. None of these witnesses are eye witness to the alleged occurrence. 9. The Defence has not examined any witness in support of his case. 10. The trial Court, after recording the evidence of witnesses, examination-in-chief and cross-examination, recorded the statement of the accused person, found the charges levelled against the appellant proved beyond all reasonable doubts. Accordingly, the appellant had been found guilty and convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. 11. The aforesaid order of conviction and sentence is subject matter of instant appeal. Submission of the learned counsel for the appellant: 12. Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the impugned Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence passed by the trial court cannot be sustained in the eyes of law. 13. The following grounds have been taken by the learned counsel for the appellants in assailing the impugned judgment of conviction: - (i) The appellant has been falsely implicated in this case and the prosecution case suffers from several infirmities and improbabilities. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 5 (ii) The ground has been taken that there is no direct evidence as against the accused/appellant and there is nothing except suspicion against the accused. (iii) The further ground has been taken that the I.O. did not find anything material on the place of occurrence, i.e., no sign of disturbance or no blood drop. There is no seizure of material exhibit, nor anything was found establishing the place of occurrence. (iv) The learned trial court ought to consider that whatever oral evidences have been produced in the court are lacking corroboration and substantiation. (v) The learned trial court has failed to appreciate the evidence of P.W. 3 the informant who admitted in his deposition that during the 12 years of the married life of the appellant and deceased the appellant never committed any torture or cruelty on the deceased. (vi) The learned trial court failed to appreciate that there is no direct evidence to show that the appellant ever assaulted the deceased on the question of nose ring. (vii) The ground has also been taken that according to fardbeyan, the nose ring was lost about one year prior to the occurrence and the same cannot be a 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 6 motive behind the occurrence, the circumstance which happened about a year before cannot form the motive or a circumstance after one year but the learned trial court failed to appreciate this aspect of the case. (viii) The learned trial court did not consider that the nose ring which was lost one year before the occurrence cannot be used as a circumstance leading to killing of a good wife. (ix) For that the learned trial court did not consider that U.D. case has not been proved in this case by the prosecution and therefore the same cannot be said to be a circumstance and cannot be used as a circumstance against the accused/appellant. (x) The learned trial court did not consider that the evidence of P. W. 2 on point of sign of assault is not corroborated by the evidence of doctor and as such her evidence is not worthy of acceptance. (xi) The ground has also been taken that P.W 1, 2, 3, 4 and 9 are all close relatives of the P.W. 3, who had animosity with the appellant and as such they have falsely and wrongly deposed after falsely implicating the appellant: Moreover they have deposed to have heard regarding the occurrence but they did not disclose the name of the persons from whom they heard and as such their entire 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 7 evidence is even not hearsay and the same is inadmissible as evidence. (xii) The learned court below has come to the finding in para 9 of its judgment that the relation of the deceased and appellant was good and there was no immediate reason or motive or circumstances leading to such occurrence by the appellant. (xiii) Some of the interested witnesses have said to have heard about the incidence from Shakur, but the learned trial court did not consider that Shakur is not examined in this case. (xiv) The learned trial court did not consider that after the death of his wife the appellant had sent his man Shakur Mian to inform his in-laws regarding her death and to participate in funeral which shows bona fide of the appellant. (xv) Learned counsel for the appellant has submitted that the entire investigation of the case is perfunctory in as much as the I.O. did not examine any person of the vicinity as also he did not prepare sketch of the scene of occurrence. 14. The learned counsel for the appellant, based upon the aforesaid grounds, has submitted that the trial court has not taken in to consideration of the aforesaid facts as such impugned judgment requires interference. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 8 Submission of the learned Special Public Prosecutor for the state: 15. While defending the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, learned Special Public Prosecutor appearing for the State raised the following arguments in response to the grounds as referred hereinabove: (i) The prosecution witnesses particularly P.W.2 and P.W.3 had stated that appellant/accused used to assault the deceased for the loss of gold nose ring and further as per the post-mortem report injuries were found on body of the deceased which has not been satisfactorily explained by the appellant husband. (ii) Admittedly the instant case is based upon the circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence available herein but if the testimony of prosecution witness will be taken in to entirety along with the fact that the appellant had lodged false UD case by saying that the deceased had consumed poison, then the chain of circumstances established against this accused/appellant and the same has been taken in to consideration by the learned trial court while convicting the appellant, therefore impugned judgment of conviction needs no interference. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 9 (iii) Further, it is settled position of law that when the husband and wife remained within the four walls of a house and a death by homicide takes place then it will be for the husband to explain the circumstances in which she might have died. 16. Learned APP appearing for the State based upon the aforesaid premise, has submitted that the impugned judgment does not suffer from any error, hence the instant appeal is fit to be dismissed. Analysis 17. We have heard learned counsel for the parties, perused the documents available on record as also the finding recorded by the trial court in the impugned judgment. 18. We have also gone through the testimonies of the witnesses as available in the LCR as also the exhibits. 19. Learned trial court, based upon the testimonies of witnesses as also chain of circumstances having been complete, has passed the judgment of conviction convicting the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 20. This Court before considering the argument advanced on behalf of the parties is now proceeding to consider the deposition of witnesses, as per the testimony as recorded by learned trial Court. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 10 21. In this case the prosecution has examined altogether ten witnesses. 22. PW-1 Gaisuddin Ansari - This witness has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the incident had happened about two years ago. The deceased Magrum Bibi was married to Sirajuddin in Bishrampur police station in Lalgarh. After marriage, Sirajuddin used to beat his wife. Sirajuddin had given nose ring of gold to his wife. The said nose ring was lost for which Sirajuddin used to beat him saying that his wife Magrum Bibi has given it to her parents. He has further deposed that Sirajuddin has murdered Magrum Bibi. This witness has identified the appellant in the court. In the cross-examination, he has deposed that he got information about the incident from Magrum Bibi's brother. Magrum Bibi's brother told him about Magrum's death. The reason given is that she has lost the nose ring given by Sirajuddin and that is why he has killed her. He has further deposed that he has not seen any fight between Magrum Bibi and her husband with his own eyes but the neighbors told him. He has further deposed that it is not the case that they have filed a case without any reason on the basis of suspicion and have falsely implicated the accused. 23. PW-2 Kalo Bibi @ Kaloiya Bibi is the mother of the deceased. She has deposed that the accused/appellant used to beat her daughter, the deceased. She has stated that the accused used to assault the deceased for losing the gold nose- 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 11 ring. She has deposed that she went to Lalgarh after getting the news and saw the girl lying dead. While bathing the dead body of the girl, she saw marks of assault on the arms, chest and neck. In her cross examination, she has deposed that her son- in-law (accused) used to beat her daughter all the time. They were not having good relationship that is why he used to beat her. She has further deposed that her son-in-law used to beat her daughter in front of her. She had seen her son-in-law beating her daughter in her own house. She has further deposed that she has never filed any case for assaulting her daughter, nor Panchayati has ever been done. She has stated that the marks she had seen on the body of her daughter were marks of beating and due to this beating, her daughter has died. 24. PW-3 Ahmad Ali - is the brother of the deceased and informant of this case. He has deposed in his examination-in- chief that that the incident is about two years old. Magrum Bibi was married to Sirajuddin Ansari of Lalgarh. The marriage took place about ten years ago. He has deposed that the relationship between his sister and brother-in-law was good but in between a gold nose ring was lost which Magrum Bibi had given to her mother for keeping. The accused used to beat her sister for the nose ring (lolo). He has deposed that when he went to Sirajudin's (my brother-in-law) house, Lalgarh for a compromise, there Sirajudin beat him also. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 12 Thereafter, Sirajuddin sent the deceased to her brother’s house. When this witness assured Sirajuddin/appellant that he will get the nose ring, then appellant took her sister back. After two-four days Sirajuddin’s uncle Shakur came and told that Magrum Bibi has died. After getting this news, he went to Lalgarh Nihar Basti where people in the colony said that Sirajuddin has killed Magrum Bibi. He has further deposed that his mother told there were marks of beating on the neck and on the urinary tract of Magrum Bibi. He went to the police station and informed the police station in-charge Bishrampur. This witness has recognized Sirajuddin Ansari, who was present in the court. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the married life of husband and wife i.e. Sirajuddin and his wife (his sister) was happy till the gold nose ring (lolo) was not lost. Earlier there was no fight or quarrel. He has deposed that he did not see the fight between the husband and wife with his own eyes. Some people from the neighbourhood told his mother. He has deposed that he went and talked about it 15 days before the incident took place but cannot tell the date. When he went to convince the accused, the accused has beaten him up too. Despite this, he did not inform the police. When Sirajuddin had sent my sister to her maternal home, my sister told us about the beating. Even then, neither he nor his sister informed the police station. Sirajuddin was counselled in the village when he came to my village. He has further 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 13 deposed that information about the incident was received from Shakoor Miya. Shakoor Miya also informed him about the incident. His statement was recorded by the police three days after the incident, after the deceased was buried. He has also stated that he saw his sister after her death and also saw marks on sister's neck. He felt that there was a mark of a rope tied around her neck. Her eyes were open at that time, her mouth was open and there was blood on it. 25. PW-4 Amjad Ali - PW-4 Amjad Ali has deposed that he knew Magrum Bibi. She was married to Sirajuddin in Lalgarh. Sirajuddin and his wife had good relations earlier. The thing about the incident is that there was a golden Lolo (nose ring). Sirajuddin asked Magrum Bibi about the Lolo. He has further deposed that when he heard the conversation between Sirajuddin and Magrum Bibi, he asked them not to fight among yourselves and be content. He has deposed that Sirajudin's uncle Shakur Mian came to his village and told him that Sirajudin's wife Magrum Bibi has died. So he asked Ahmed to go and find out what the matter was. Ahmed went to find out and then he went to the police station. I came to know that Ahmed's younger brother said that Ahmed has gone to the police station, so he followed him to the police station. He has recognized the accused Sirajuddin in the court. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he did not see the fight between the deceased and the accused (husband and wife) with my own eyes. He had not seen the gold nose 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 14 ring (lolo) but he had heard that it was lost. He came to know about this incident from Sakur Mian in Godama village. He has further deposed that when he reached to the police station, by that time Ahmed's statement had already been written. 26. PW-5 Anup Kumar - PW-5 Anup Kumar has deposed that he was posted as Probation S.I. in Bishrampur Police Station on 15.04.93. That day he recorded the statement of informant Ahmed Ali. He proved his handwriting and signature marked as Exhibit-2. 27. PW-6 Ram Chandra Choudhary – This witness has deposed that the incident took place two years ago. People told that Sirajuddin's wife had died after consuming poison. Later it was found out that Sirajuddin killed his wife. He identified the accused Sirajuddin in the court. 28. PW-7 Rajmani Singh - PW-7 has deposed that the incident happened about two years ago. He heard a rumour that Sirajuddin's wife had consumed poison and died. Later it was learnt that Sirajuddin had beaten her to death. In his cross examination he has deposed that his house is at a distance of 100-150 meters from Siraj's house. He cannot say the name of the person from whom he heard about the incident. 29. PW-8 Raghubans Narayan Singh – PW-8 Rabhubans Narayan Singh is the Doctor who had conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased. He has deposed in his 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 15 examination-in-Chief that on 14.04.1994 he was posted as CAS Sadar Hospital Daltonganj. On that date he conducted post mortem examination of Magroom Bibi wife of Sirajuddin Mian of Village Lalgarh P.S. Bishrampur, Distt. Palamau and found following ante mortem injuries on her body: (1) Abrasion on upper lip 1/2" x 3/4" in diameter. (2) Hematoma below chin about 1" diameter. (3) On dissection of the skull there was hematoma beneath the right temporal region along with the fracture of the same bone. On opening the skull subdural hematoma was found present. The stomach of the deceased contained about 200 gm undigested food and in his opinion death was due to shock and hemorrhage following had injury caused by hard blunt substance 6 to 36 hours This P.M. examination is in his pen and signature is marked as Ext. He has deposed that the injury was sufficient in ordinary course of nature to cause death. In the cross-examination, this witness has deposed that all the injuries can be by fall when in motion on high momentum then only such injury can be possible. The gap between the time of injury and time of death can be ascertained or estimated. He has further deposed that he cannot say the gap between the time of injury and time of death. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 16 He has deposed that Injury no.1 & 2 may be possible by fall. He did not find any blood mark. 30. PW-9 Md. Jalil – This witness has been tendered by the prosecution. 31. PW-10 Kameshwar Thakur - PW-10 Kameshwar Thakur is the I.O. of the case. He has deposed that on 15.04.94 he was posted as SHO in Bishrampur Police Station. He registered the case on the statement of informant Ahmed Ali. This is in his signature and is in the handwriting of literate constable Vijay Kumar Singh. It was marked as Exhibit-4. The fardbeyan is in the handwriting of PSI (Probation SI) Anup Kumar on the statement of the informant. It was marked as Exhibit-1/2.. He has deposed that he started the investigation and inspected the crime scene. He stated that since in this case UD case number 3/94 was already registered in Bishrampur police station, the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem from the crime scene by sub-inspector Anup Kumar after the death review report. Later, this case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the informant at the police station. The UD case was registered on the basis of the application of the accused Sirajudin. This murder case was registered on the basis of the statement of the informant. He has deposed that he inspected the site of the incident. The site of the incident of this crime is the thatched 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 17 house of Sirajudin Ansari located in village Lalgarh. He was told that the dead body was found in the courtyard land adjacent to the north-east of the house. Adjacent to the south of this place is the house of the accused and 8-10 yards to the north is a village road. To the east is the land of Hussaini Mian and to the west is the under-construction concrete house of Prakash Chaudhary. It was told that the deceased had gone to the farm of the accused which is one kilometer away. In his cross examination this witness has deposed that he had not prepared map of the house. He has deposed that no eyewitness to the occurrence was found. 32. This Court, after having considered the testimony of witnesses is now proceeding to consider the argument advanced by learned counsel for the appellant. The ground has been agitated on behalf of appellant that there is no eye witness and the judgment is based upon the principle of circumstantial evidence. 33. It has further been contended that the I.O. did not find anything material on the place of occurrence, i.e., no sign of disturbance or no blood drop. There is no seizure of material exhibit, nor anything was found establishing the place of occurrence. 34. The ground has also been taken that according to Fardbeyan, the nose ring was lost about one year prior to the occurrence and the same cannot be a motive behind the 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 18 occurrence the circumstance which happened about a year before cannot form the motive or a circumstance after one year but the learned trial court failed to appreciate this aspect of the case. 35. Per contra the learned counsel for the state has submitted that admittedly the instant case is based upon the circumstantial evidence as there is no direct evidence available herein but if the testimony of prosecution witness will be taken in its entirety along with the fact that the appellant had lodged false UD case by saying that the deceased had consumed poison, then the chain of circumstances said to be established against this accused/appellant and if the same has been taken in to consideration by the learned trial court while convicting the appellant, the impugned judgment of conviction needs no interference. 36. In the backdrop of the aforesaid contention this Court is now adverting to factual aspect of the case. Admittedly, it is not a case of direct evidence as such this Court is now proceeding to examine as to whether it is a case of circumstantial evidence completing the chain of the circumstances in order to prove the guilt of the appellant accused beyond reasonable doubt. 37. Before appreciating the aforesaid issue, it would be apt to refer settled proposition of law relating to circumstantial evidence. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the year 1952, in the judgment rendered in Hanumant Son of Govind 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 19 Nargundkar vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343] has laid down the parameters under which, the case of circumstantial evidence is to be evaluated, which suggests that: “It is well to remember that in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should in the first instance be fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. ......” 38. The judgment referred in Hanumant (supra) has been consistently followed by Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Tufail (Alias) Simmi Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh [(1969) 3 SCC 198]; Ram Gopal Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1972) 4 SCC 625] and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116 and also in Musheer Khan alias Badshah Khan & Anr. Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [(2010) 2 SCC 748. 39. The Hon’ble Apex Court in Musheer Khan (Supra) while discussing the nature of circumstantial evidence and the 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 20 burden of proof of prosecution has held as under paragraph nos. 39 to 46 as under: “39. In a case of circumstantial evidence, one must look for complete chain of circumstances and not on snapped and scattered links which do not make a complete sequence. This Court finds that this case is entirely based on circumstantial evidence. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, the Court must adopt a cautious approach as circumstantial evidence is “inferential evidence” and proof in such a case is derivable by inference from circumstances. 40.Chief Justice Fletcher Moulton once observed that “proof does not mean rigid mathematical formula” since “that is impossible”. However, proof must mean such evidence as would induce a reasonable man to come to a definite conclusion. Circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, has been compared by Lord Coleridge “like a gossamer thread, light and as unsubstantial as the air itself and may vanish with the merest of touches”. The learned Judge also observed that such evidence may be strong in parts but it may also leave great gaps and rents through which the accused may escape. Therefore, certain rules have been judicially evolved for appreciation of circumstantial evidence. 41. To my mind, the first rule is that the facts alleged as the basis of any legal inference from circumstantial evidence must be clearly proved beyond any reasonable doubt. If conviction rests solely on circumstantial evidence, it must create a network from which there is no escape for the accused. The facts evolving out of such circumstantial evidence must be such as not to admit of any inference except that of guilt of the accused. (See Raghav Prapanna Tripathi v. State of U.P. [AIR 1963 SC 74 : (1963) 1 Cri LJ 70] ) 42. The second principle is that all the links in the chain of evidence must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and they must exclude the evidence of guilt of any other person than the accused. (See State of U.P. v. Dr. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 21 Ravindra Prakash Mittal [(1992) 3 SCC 300 : 1992 SCC (Cri) 642 : 1992 Cri LJ 3693] , SCC p. 309, para 20.) 43. While appreciating circumstantial evidence, we must remember the principle laid down in Ashraf Ali v. King Emperor [21 CWN 1152 : 43 IC 241] (IC at para 14) that when in a criminal case there is conflict between presumption of innocence and any other presumption, the former must prevail. 44. The next principle is that in order to justify the inference of guilt, the inculpatory facts must be incompatible with the innocence of the accused and are incapable of explanation upon any other reasonable hypothesis except his guilt. 45. When a murder charge is to be proved solely on circumstantial evidence, as in this case, presumption of innocence of the accused must have a dominant role. In Nibaran Chandra Roy v. King Emperor [11 CWN 1085] it was held that the fact that an accused person was found with a gun in his hand immediately after a gun was fired and a man was killed on the spot from which the gun was fired may be strong circumstantial evidence against the accused, but it is an error of law to hold that the burden of proving innocence lies upon the accused under such circumstances. It seems, therefore, to follow that whatever force a presumption arising under Section 106 of the Evidence Act may have in civil or in less serious criminal cases, in a trial for murder it is extremely weak in comparison with the dominant presumption of innocence. 46. The same principles have been followed by the Constitution Bench of this Court in Govinda Reddy v. State of Mysore [AIR 1960 SC 29 : 1960 Cri LJ 137] where the learned Judges quoted the principles laid down in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P. [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] The ratio in Govind [(1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 : 1953 Cri LJ 129] quoted in AIR para 5, p. 30 of the Report in Govinda Reddy [AIR 1960 SC 29 : 1960 Cri LJ 137] are: “5. … „10. … in cases where the evidence is of a circumstantial nature, the circumstances [which lead to 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 22 the conclusion of guilt should be in the first instance] fully established, and all the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be [shown] that within all human probability the act must have been [committed] by the accused.‟ [ As observed in Hanumant Govind Nargundkar v. State of M.P., (1952) 2 SCC 71 : AIR 1952 SC 343 at pp. 345-46, para 10.] ” The same principle has also been followed by this Court in Mohan Lal Pangasa v. State of U.P. [(1974) 4 SCC 607 : 1974 SCC (Cri) 643 : AIR 1974 SC 1144] “ 40. Thus, it is evident that for proving the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence, it would be necessary that evidence so available must induce a reasonable man to come to a definite conclusion of proving of guilt; meaning thereby there must be a chain of evidence so far it is complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and it must be such as to show that within all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 41. In the backdrop of the aforesaid settled legal position this Court is going to revisit the testimony of the witnesses in order to come to the conclusion that whether the charge on the basis of circumstantial evidence against the present appellant has been established or not. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 23 42. PW-1 Gaisuddin Ansari - has deposed in his examination-in-chief that the deceased Magrum Bibi was married to Sirajuddin and after marriage, Sirajuddin used to beat his wife. He had further deposed that Sirajuddin had given nose ring of gold to his wife and the said nose ring was lost for which Sirajuddin used to beat him saying that his wife Magrum Bibi has given it to her parents. In the cross-examination, he had deposed that Magrum Bibi's brother told him about Magrum's death and the reason given is that she has lost the nose ring given by Sirajuddin and that is why he has killed her. He has further deposed that he has not seen any fight between Magrum Bibi and her husband with his own eyes but the neighbors told him. 43. Thus, this witness has only substantiated the fact of marriage between deceased and appellant because on the point of the occurrence he had deposed that P.W.3 had informed him about the alleged occurrence and also the reason behind the alleged occurrence. 44. PW-2 Kalo Bibi @ Kaloiya Bibi is the mother of the deceased, has deposed that the accused/appellant used to beat her daughter/the deceased for losing the gold nose-ring. She has further deposed that while bathing the dead body of the deceased, she saw marks of assault on the arms, chest and neck. In her cross examination, she has deposed that her son- in-law (accused) used to beat her daughter all the time and 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 24 they were not having good relationship that is why he used to beat her. She has further deposed that her son-in-law used to beat her daughter in front of her. She had seen her son-in- law beating her daughter in her own house. She has stated that the marks she had seen on the body of her daughter were marks of beating and due to this beating, her daughter has died. 45. Thus, from the testimony of this witness it is evident that the appellant used to beat the deceased and even appellant beat her daughter in front of her. In her testimony she had substantiated the fact that the accused/appellant used to beat her daughter/the deceased for losing the gold nose-ring and she had seen the marks of beating on the body of her daughter while bathing the dead body of the deceased/her daughter. 46. PW-3 Ahmad Ali - is the brother of the deceased and informant of this case. He has deposed in his examination-in- chief that that the relationship between his sister(deceased) and brother-in-law(appellant) was good but in between a gold nose ring was lost and the accused used to beat her sister for the nose ring (lolo). He has deposed that when he went to Sirajudin's (his brother-in-law) house, Lalgarh for a compromise, then Sirajudin has beaten him also thereafter, Sirajuddin sent the deceased to maternal house and when P.W.3 assured Sirajuddin that he will get the nose ring then the appellant took her sister back. After two-four days 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 25 Sirajuddin’s uncle Shakur came and told that Magrum Bibi has died. After getting this news, he went to Lalgarh Nihar Basti where people in the colony said that Sirajuddin has killed Magrum Bibi. He has further deposed that his mother told there were marks of beating on the neck and on the urinary tract of Magrum Bibi. In his cross-examination, he has deposed that the married life of husband and wife i.e. Sirajuddin and his wife (his sister) was happy till the gold nose ring (lolo) was not lost. Earlier there was no fight or quarrel. He has deposed that he did not see the fight between the husband and wife with his own eyes. Some people from the neighbourhood told his mother. He has deposed that when Sirajuddin had sent my sister to her maternal home, my sister told us about the beating. He has further deposed that information about the incident was received from Shakoor Miya. 47. Thus, from the testimony of this witness it is evident that in his examination-in-chief, he had fully substantiated the testimony of P.W.2 and in his testimony, he categorically corroborated the fact after loss of the nose ring (lolo) accused/appellant used to beat her sister. He has deposed that when Sirajuddin had sent his sister to her maternal home, his sister told them about the beating. 48. PW-4 Amjad Ali has deposed that the incident is due to loss of golden Lolo (nose ring). He, has further deposed that when he heard the conversation between Sirajuddin and 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 26 Magrum Bibi, he asked them not to fight among yourselves and be relaxed. In his cross-examination, he has stated that he had not seen the gold nose ring (lolo) but he had heard that it was lost. He came to know about this incident from Sakur Mian in Godama village. 49. Thus, from the testimony of this witness it is evident that he fully substantiated the fact of strain relationship between the deceased and appellant due to loss of nose ring. 50. PW-8 Raghubans Narayan Singh is the Doctor who had conducted post mortem on the body of the deceased and found ante mortem injuries on her body i.e. Abrasion on upper lip 1/2" x 3/4" in diameter, Hematoma below chin about 1" diameter. On dissection he further found hematoma beneath the right temporal region of skull along with the fracture of the same bone and on opening the skull subdural hematoma was found present. In his opinion death was due to shock and hemorrhage following head injury caused by hard blunt substance. 51. Thus, this witness has specifically found that hematoma beneath the right temporal region of skull along with the fracture of the same bone and he categorically opined that death was due to shock and hemorrhage following head injury caused by hard blunt substance. 52. It needs to refer herein that hematomas can be caused by blunt force trauma, including assaults with hard and blunt 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 27 objects. When a blunt object strikes the body, it can damage blood vessels, causing them to leak blood into the surrounding tissues, which then collects and forms a hematoma. Generally, there is two types of hematomas, i.e. subdural hematoma and epidural hematoma. 53. A subdural hematoma is a type of bleeding near the brain that can happen after a head injury. An epidural hematoma (EDH) is a collection of blood that forms between the skull and the dura mater, the outermost protective membrane covering the brain. The cause is usually an artery that gets torn by a skull fracture. 54. PW-10 Kameshwar Thakur is the I.O. of the case has deposed that since in this case UD case number 3/94 was already registered in Bishrampur police station, the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem from the crime scene by sub-inspector Anup Kumar after the death review report. Later, this case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the informant at the police station. The UD case was registered on the basis of the application of the accused/appellant Sirajudin. This murder case was registered on the basis of the statement of the informant (P.W.3). He has deposed that he inspected the site of the incident and the site of the incident of this crime is the thatched house of Sirajudin Ansari (appellant) located in village Lalgarh. He was told that the dead body was found in the courtyard land adjacent to the north-east of the house. It 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 28 was told that the deceased had gone to the farm of the accused which is one kilometer away. 55. From testimony of this witness, it is apparent that a UD case number 3/94 was already registered in Bishrampur police station, the body of the deceased was sent for postmortem from the crime scene and the said UD case was registered on the basis of the application of the accused/appellant Sirajudin. It is further evident that later, this case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the informant at the police station and consequently, murder case was registered on the basis of the statement of the informant (P.W.3). From testimony of this witness, it is further evident that place of occurrence was thatched house of Sirajudin Ansari (appellant) located in village Lalgarh. 56. At this juncture. it needs to refer herein that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1972 speaks that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. For ready reference, Section 106 of the Evidence Act is reproduced 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. 57. The Hon’ble Apex Court in the judgment rendered in Joshinder Yadav Vs. State of Bihar reported in (2014) 4 SCC 42 has held at paragraphs 16 considering the implication of the provision of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, as under: 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 29 “16. In our opinion, the prosecution having established that the accused treated the deceased with cruelty and that they subjected her to harassment for dowry, the accused ought to have disclosed the facts which were in their personal and special knowledge to disprove the prosecution case that they murdered Bindula Devi. Section 106 of the Evidence Act covers such a situation. The burden which had shifted to the accused was not discharged by them. In this connection, we may usefully refer to the judgment of this Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 : 1956 Cri LJ 794] wherein this Court explained how - Section 101 and Section 106 of the Evidence Act operate. Relevant portion of the said judgment reads thus : (AIR p. 406, paras 10-11) “10. Section 106 is an exception to Section 101. Section 101 lays down the general rule about the burden of proof. „101.Burden of proof.—Whoever desires any court to give judgment as to any legal right or liability dependent on the existence of facts which he asserts, must prove that those facts exist.‟ Illustration (a) says— “A desires a court to give judgment that B shall be punished for a crime which A says B has committed. A must prove that B has committed the crime.‟ 58. 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. 59. In Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar [(1997) 9 SCC 338] the prosecution had established the cruel conduct 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 30 of the accused i.e. her husband and members of his family and the sufferings undergone by the deceased at their hands. The unbearable conduct of the accused ultimately resulted in her death by drowning in the well in the courtyard of the accused's house. The Hon’ble Apex Court observed that what happened on the fateful night and what led to the deceased's falling in the well was wholly within the personal and special knowledge of the accused. But they kept mum on this aspect. The Court observed that it is true that the burden is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. But once the prosecution is found to have shown that the accused were guilty of persistent conduct of cruelty qua the deceased spread over years as was well established from the unshaken testimony of father of the deceased, the facts which were in the personal knowledge of the accused who were present in the house on that fateful night could have been revealed by them to disprove the prosecution case. 60. Further, reference, in this regard be made to the judgment rendered in Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi & Anr Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2012) 10 SCC 373 at paragraph 22 held as under: “22. The evidence led in by the prosecution also shows that at the relevant point of time, the deceased was living with all the three accused. In other words, the appellants, their son A-3 and the deceased were the only occupants of the house and it was, therefore, incumbent on the appellants to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to their guilt. All the factors 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 31 referred above are undoubtedly circumstances which constitute a chain even stronger than the account of an eyewitness and, therefore, we are of the opinion that conviction of the appellants is fully justified.” The proposition of law as laid down in the cases referred hereinabove is regarding implication of the provision of Section 106 which clarifies that the burden which has shifted to the accused if not discharged by him he will be liable to be punished by drawing inference against the accused that he failed to explain that how the deceased was found dead. 61. In the backdrop of the settled legal position and the aforesaid discussed factual aspect it is a considered view of this Court that in the instant case prosecution evidence has two parts. First, part include all the transaction including the assault and torture prior to the death and secondly. the aspect of murder itself. The First part of torture and assault has fully been substantiated by the P.W.2, 3 and 4. From the testimony of P.W.2 which has been discussed in preceding paragraph it is evident that the accused/appellant used to beat her daughter/the deceased for losing the gold nose-ring and the said fact has been emphatically corroborated by P.W.3/informant. 62. Further the testimony of P.W.2 and 3 has well been supported by the medical evidence i.e. post-mortem report of the deceased wherein P.W.8 has categorically stated that found ante mortem injuries on her body i.e. Abrasion on upper lip 1/2" x 3/4" in diameter, Hematoma below chin about 1" diameter. On dissection he further found hematoma beneath the right temporal region of skull along with the fracture of the 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 32 same bone and on opening the skull subdural hematoma was found present. In his opinion death was due to shock and hemorrhage following the head injury caused by hard blunt substance. The aforesaid finding of the doctor i.e. P.W.8 has amply proved and substantiated the testimony of P.W.2 and P.W.3 wherein assault caused by the accused/appellant upon deceased for the nose-ring has been alleged. 63. So far, the second part is concerned i.e. murder of deceased, it is evident that the testimony of P.W.10 i.e. investigating officer of the case which has been discussed in the preceding paragraph, wherein he had stated that before lodging the case of murder of deceased, a UD case number 3/94 was registered in Bishrampur police station and the body of the deceased had already been sent for postmortem from the crime scene and the said UD case was registered on the basis of the application of the accused/appellant Sirajudin. Thus, it is evident that the instant case was registered on the basis of the statement given by the informant (P.W.3) at the police station and consequently, murder case was registered on the basis of the statement of the informant (P.W.3). 64. Admittedly for the second part i.e. murder of deceased there is no direct evidence available on record but at the same time it is pertinent to mention that prior to lodging the instant case, a UD case was registered on the basis of the application of the accused/appellant Sirajudin wherein he had stated that 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 33 his wife (deceased) has committed suicide by taking poisonous substance. But from the medical evidence it is evident that cause of death of the deceased was due to shock and hemorrhage following head injury caused by hard blunt substance. Thus, from the aforesaid evident that appellant/accused has tried to conceal the actual incident and tried to misleading the prosecution agency by saying that his wife/deceased has committed suicide. 65. Thus, the conduct of the accused/appellant after the occurrence is an important circumstance going further to complete the chain of event leading towards the irresistible conclusion regaling the guilt of the accused/appellant. Further from the statement of the appellant which has been recorded under section 313 Cr.P.C. it is evident that when the question about the lodging of UD case has been asked, he simply denied the said fact by saying that he had not lodged the said UD case. Thus, the simple and abrupt denial of the accused/appellant does not come in to the aid of him rather it creates more doubt/suspicion that he tried conceal the actual event. 66. It is apparent herein that the prosecution evidence on first part also substantiates the second part and the conduct of the accused prior to the death which manifested in the shape of assault and altercation for the nose-ring are relevant circumstances in the chain of events. Thus, the aforesaid circumstances unerringly point towards the guilt of the 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 34 accused/appellant and these circumstances incapable of any other explanation other than the guilt of the accused and the said circumstances formed a chain so complete that there is no other conclusion that the alleged crime was committed by the accused/appellant. Therefore, the charge of murder of the wife against the accused husband/appellant has fully been proved with the help of the evidence as aforesaid. 67. It needs to refer herein that it has been contended that prosecution witnesses are kith and kin of the deceased, as such their testimony is not fit to be fully reliable. 68. In the aforesaid context it needs to refer herein the settled proposition of law that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses cannot be brushed aside only because they are a relative of the deceased. It is well settled that evidence of relative witnesses should not be discarded merely on account of relationship. 69. This Court, after having discussed the factual aspect and legal position and considering the finding recorded by the learned trial Court, is of the view that the learned trial Court after giving its thoughtful consideration to the testimony of prosecution witnesses has come to the conclusion that the prosecution has been able to prove the charge beyond all shadow of doubt against the present appellant, therefore, order impugned requires no interference by this Court. 70. Accordingly, the instant criminal appeal stands dismissed. 2025:JHHC:17456-DB 35 71. Consequent upon dismissal of the appeal preferred by the appellant, since the appellant is enjoying the suspension of sentence after the order being passed by this Court directing to release him during pendency of the appeal, his bail bonds are cancelled and he is directed to surrender before the learned trial Court for serving out the sentence inflicted upon him. 72. Needless to say, that if the appellant will not surrender, the trial Court will take endeavors for securing custody of the appellant to serve out the sentence as inflicted by the learned trial court. 73. Pending interlocutory application(s), if any, also stands disposed of. 74. Let this order/judgment be communicated forthwith to the court concerned along with the Lower Court Records. (Sujit Narayan Prasad, J.) I agree. (Rajesh Kumar, J.) (Rajesh Kumar, J.) Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 1st July, 2025. Birendra /A.F.R.