1 2026:CGHC:13996-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 1725 of 2024 1 - Phool Singh Rathiya S/o Late Birsai Rathia Aged About 53 Years R/o Village - Baraud, Police Station - Gharghoda, District - Raigarh Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus 1 - State of Chhattisgarh Through Police Station - Gharghoda, District - Raigarh, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Ravi Kumar Bhagat, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Mr. Shailendra Sharma, Panel Lawyer. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, Judge Order on Board Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice. 24/03/2026 1. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under section 415 (2) of the Bhartiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (in short “B.N.S.S., 2023”), against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 05.08.2024, passed by learned Additional ALOK SHARMA Digitally signed by ALOK SHARMA Date: 2026.03.27 12:34:52 +0530 2 Sessions Judge, Gharghoda, District Raigarh, in Sessions Case No. 67/2019, whereby the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 01 month. 2. The case of the prosecution in brief is that 16.08.2019 the Kotwar Shaukilal Mahant PW-1, gave a merg intimation to the Police that at about -6:00 am., when he came out from his house he saw the appellant in the lane by hurling his guilt that yesterday night he committed murder of his wife by assaulting her by fist and kicks and axe and she is lying dead in the house. When he was being asked for the reason of assault, he disclosed that he had asked for money to drink liquor, but she refused, and therefore, he committed her murder. When he took the appellant to his house, he found the dead body of the deceased lying in the room in an injured condition. Merg initiation Ex.P-1 was recorded by the Police and started an inquiry. Inquest Ex.P/8 was prepared by the Police in the presence of the witnesses, and the dead body was sent for its post-mortem to the Community Health Centre, Gharghoda. Dr. S.R. Painkra PW-5 conducted the post-mortem of the dead body of the deceased, and gave his report Ex.P/10. While conducting the post-mortem, the doctor has noticed one lacerated wound on the scalp layer, another lacerated wound on the right leg interior aspect and swelling on the right cheek, multiple bruises present on the face, neck and back side. On 3 internal examination fracture of the scalp was found and haemorrhage on the occipital and left parietal region. Further fracture of the right side 3, 4, 5 and 6th ribs was also found. He opined that the mode of death is hypovolemic shock caused by excessive bleeding due to multiple injuries (deeply and it is homicidal in nature). Spot map Ex.P/2 was prepared by the Police, and PW-11 was prepared by the Patwari. Three broken teeth, blood-stained and plain soil and a broken piece of bangles were seized from the spot, vide seizure memo Ex.P/6. The broken piece of bangles was seized from the spot, and the bangle worn by the deceased was also taken out from her body by breaking it into pieces, and it has been compared and found that the pieces of bangles found on the spot match the bangles worn by the deceased, and a panchnama Ex.P/5 was prepared. FIR Ex.P/12 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. 3. The appellant was arrested on 16.08.2019, and his memorandum statement Ex.P/4 was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, one axe and one gamcha have been seized vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. The axe seized from the appellant was sent for its query report to the doctor whose query report, Ex.P/16, stated that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the said axe. He further referred it for chemical examination for confirmation of the presence of blood. The axe and gamcha seized from the appellant, broken teeth 4 blood stained and plain soil, broken piece of bangles seized from the spot and blouse of the deceased were sent for its chemical examination to regional FSL, Bilaspur from where report Ex.P/26 was received and as per the FSL report expect of the plaint soil Article-E, blood has been found on the other articles and except the article-A (axe) human blood was found. The origin of blood on Article A, could not be determined as the same was disintegrated. 4. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, and after completion of the usual investigation charge- sheet was filed for the offence under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant before the learned Judicial Magistrate First Class, Gharghoda. The case was committed to the learned Sessions Judge, Raigarh, from where the same has been transferred to the learned trial Court for its trial. 5. The learned trial Court has framed a charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant denied the charge and claimed a trial. In order to prove the charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 15 witnesses. Statement of the appellant under Section 313 of CRPC has also been recorded, in which he denied the circumstances appear against him, pleaded innocence and has submitted that he is innocent and has been falsely implicated in the offence. He further submitted that he had gone to village Tenda Nawapara along with his wife to appear in the 10th day ritual on the occasion of the death of his son-in-law. Thereafter, he 5 left his wife at village Faguram and again went to village Tenda Nawapara. His wife has stayed at Faguram from where she had gone to the village of Barode. At the time of the death of his wife, he was at village Tenda Nawapara, and when he received information of the death of his wife, he went to village Barode. His wife was in the habit of drinking liquor and used to quarrel with the villagers. One defence witness, DW-1 Savitri Rathiya, has been examined by the accused. 6. After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the learned trial Court has convicted and sentenced the appellant as mentioned in the earlier part of the judgment, hence this appeal. 7. Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt. There are material omissions and contradictions in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses. There is no eye witness of the case, and the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances is not complete. There is no evidence that at the relevant point in time, the accused was present in the house along with the deceased, but the accused has proved his presence that he was at village Tenda Nawapara in the house of his daughter. His daughter, Savitri Rathiya DW-1, has duly supported his case. None of the witnesses has stated that the appellant was present on the spot. The burden shifts upon the appellant only after successfully discharging the burden 6 upon the prosecution that the accused alone was present in the house with the deceased. There is no ground to draw a presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. 8. He would also submit that the so-called extrajudicial confession made before Shaukilal Mahant Kotwar PW-1, is a very weak type of evidence and is not admissible, and the same has not been proved. In such circumstances, the benefit of doubt goes in favour of the accused. It is further submitted that there is no cogent evidence with respect to the seizure of the axe and clothes on the instance of the accused. In such lack of evidence, the appellant cannot be convicted for the alleged offence, and he is entitled for acquittal. In support of his submission, he would rely upon the judgment of “Shivaji Chintappa Patil Vs. State of Maharashtra”, 2021 (5) SCC 626, “Nusrat Parween Vs. State of Jharkhand”, 2024 SCC Online SC 3683, “Manharan Rajwade Vs. State of Chhattisgarh” 2024 (16) SCC 32, and “Pooranmal Vs. State of Rajasthan and another”, 2026 SCC Online SC 344. 9. On the other hand, learned counsel for the State opposes the submissions made by learned counsel for the appellant and has submitted that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. But for minor omissions or contradictions, the. The appellant was present on the spot at the relevant point in time. He has taken a false defence that he was at village Tenda Nawapara and his wife has returned to village Barode. There is a very short distance between the village Barode Tenda Nawapara 7 and Faguram, and the plea of alibi could not be proved by the accused that he was not present on the spot at the time of relevant time. 10. The wife of the appellant was found dead in a seriously injured condition, having numerous injuries on her body, and the incident occurred at night; then the appellant is under an obligation to explain how his wife was found dead in an injured condition. Instead of giving a correct explanation, he has taken a false defence of alibi. From the evidence produced by the prosecution, it has clearly been established that the appellant was in the house along with the deceased at the relevant point in time, and blood has been found on the gamcha seized from the appellant, for which there is also no explanation. All the chains of circumstances are interconnected with each other, forming a complete chain of circumstances that points towards the guilt of the appellant that he committed murder of his wife; therefore, there is no merit in the appeal, and the same is liable to be dismissed. 11. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the record of the trial Court with utmost circumspection. 12. The first and foremost question that arises for consideration is the nature of the death of the deceased. 13. The dead body of the deceased was found inside the house, having numerous injuries on her body. The injuries have been proved by Dr S. R. Painkra (PW-5), who conducted the postmortem of the dead body. He stated in his evidence that while 8 conducting the post-mortem, he noticed various injuries on the dead body and opined that the cause of death of the deceased is hypovolemic shock caused by excessive bleeding due to multiple injuries, and it is homicidal in nature. Though he admitted in his cross-examination that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could also be possibly caused by accident, it depends upon the height and the object on which she falls. Nothing in his cross-examination makes his evidence inadmissible, and to hold that the death of the deceased was not homicidal but was accidental. 14. From the evidence of the doctor (PW-5) and also from the evidence of the witness to the inquest, Nepal Singh (PW-4), Tara Singh (PW-7) Damru Dhar (PW-10) Saeta Bai (PW-12) the prosecution has proved that the death of the deceased was due to the injuries found on her body, and she died in unnatural circumstances and as per the doctor’s evidence her death is homicidal in nature. 15. The next question involved in the present case would be the involvement of the appellant in the offence in question. 16. It is not disputed that the deceased is the wife of the appellant. Her dead body was found inside the house where the appellant and the deceased were residing. With respect to the presence of the appellant at his house at the relevant point of time has been proved by (PW-1) Shaukilal Mahant. He stated in his evidence that in the early morning on the date of the incident, the appellant 9 was claiming that he had committed the murder of his wife. He called the Panch and Sarpanch of the village, and when they had gone to her house, they found the dead body there. The appellant disclosed that his wife had not given money for drinking liquor, and then he committed her murder at 10.11 pm, in the night. In cross-examination, he stated that the distance between his house and the house of the appellant is about 100-150 meters. The appellant himself has informed him about the incident. He denied the suggestion that on the date of the incident, he had not met with the appellant. 17. PW-3, Ram Dulari, is the daughter of the deceased as well as the appellant. She stated in her evidence that after participating in the 10th day rituals in her brother-in-law’s house, her parents stayed at her house for a short while, and on 15.08.2019, they went back to the village Barode. The next morning, his sister Parvati informed her that the appellant had committed the murder of the deceased. She also went there and saw her dead body. In cross- examination, she further stated that the appellant and the deceased both went back to the village of Barode. The distance between Faguram and Barode is about 10 kilometres. 18. PW-10 Damru Dhar Rathiya is the son-in-law of the appellant. He stated in his evidence that on the date of the incident, he received information by telephone about the incident. When he was being cross-examined by the prosecution, he stated that on 14.08.2019, the appellant and the deceased had stayed in his house at Village 10 Fagrum and on 15.08.2019, both of them went back to their village, Barode. On 16.08.2019, his cousin sister-in-law informed him that the appellant had committed the murder of his wife. 19. From the evidence of these witnesses, it clearly comes on record that on 15.08.2019, the appellant and the deceased came back to the village Barode. These witnesses have not been cross- examined on the point that the deceased alone came back to village Barode and the appellant stayed at village Faguram or Tenda Nawapara as per the defence taken by him in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement. There is no suggestion given to these witnesses in their cross-examination that the accused had not returned along with the deceased to their village, Barode. It is also relevant to note here that the distance between these three villages is very short, i.e. within the periphery of 8 to 10 kilometres. As per the evidence of PW-1 Shaukilal, it is also proved that in the early morning, the appellant informed him about the commission of the offence and his presence at the early morning in the village nearby his house clearly demonstrated that he was present in his house in the night and committed the murder of the deceased. His presence on the spot could not be rebutted by the defence. 20. PW-2, Samarin Bai, has turned hostile and has not supported the prosecution’s case. 11 21. PW-4, Nepal Singh Rathiya, is the witness to the inquest Ex.P/8, seizure of axe Ex.P/5, and proved his signature over the document. 22. PW-6 Amarjeet Singh Sidar is the Patwari who prepared the spot map Ex.P/11. 23. PW-7, Tara Singh, is the witness of the inquest. Ex.P/8 memorandum Ex.p/4 and seizure memo Ex.P/5, though he has also not duly supported the prosecution’s case, but he admitted his signature over the documents. 24. PW-8, Chaman Sinha, Inspector of Police and investigating officer and PW-9 Krishnakant Singh, another inspector of Police who conducted part of the investigation, have duly supported the process of investigation which they conducted. They proved the documents that they prepared during the course of the investigation. 25. Upon hearing learned counsel for the parties and on a careful perusal of the entire record, it clearly emerges that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature. The dead body of the deceased was found inside her house bearing multiple injuries on vital parts of the body, which have been duly proved by the evidence of the doctor (PW-5), who conducted the postmortem examination and submitted a report (Ex-P/10). The doctor has categorically opined that the death was due to hypovolemic shock caused by excessive bleeding due to multiple injuries, and he has specifically ruled out the possibility of such injuries being caused 12 by an accidental fall. His testimony has remained unshaken in cross-examination. The inquest witnesses, Nepal Singh (PW-4), Tara Singh (PW-7), Damru Dhar (PW-10), and Saeta Bai (PW-12) have also supported the prosecution’s case regarding the condition of the dead body. Thus, from the medical as well as ocular evidence, it stands firmly established that the deceased died an unnatural and homicidal death inside her matrimonial home. 26. As regards the involvement of the appellant, the prosecution’s case rests on circumstantial evidence, and the chain of circumstances is found to be complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant. It is not in dispute that the deceased was the wife of the appellant and that both were residing together in the same house where the incident occurred. The presence of the appellant at the relevant point of time has been established by the evidence of (PW-1), (PW-3) Ramdulari and (PW-10) Damrudhar who categorically stated that on 15.08.2019 the appellant and the deceased went back together to their house at village Barode and in the next morning the appellant informed about the incident to PW-1 and the dead body of the deceased was found inside his house. The appellant has failed to offer any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. regarding the incriminating circumstances, particularly as to how the deceased sustained fatal injuries inside the house where he was present; rather, he gave a false explanation that he 13 stayed at village Tenda Nawapara. The recovery of the weapon (axe) at the instance of the appellant, coupled with the medical opinion that the injuries could have been caused by such a weapon, and the presence of blood stains on the seized articles, further strengthens the prosecution’s case. Taken together, these circumstances form a complete chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant, ruling out any hypothesis of innocence. 27. In the case of Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand, (2023) Live Law (SC) 861 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 33 and 34 has held as under: “33. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, states as under: "106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket, The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him. 34. Section 106 of the Evidence Act referred to above provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The word "especially" means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the Evidence Act. Section 101 with its illustration (a) lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden 14 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 the facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which, he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience". 28. In the case of Nagendra Sah v. the State Of Bihar (2021) 10 SCC 725 the Hon’ble Supreme Court in Para 23 has held as under: “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.” 29. From perusal of the evidence on record as well as the judgment passed by the learned trial Court, we do not find any perversity or illegality in the conviction and sentence of the appellant. The learned trial Court, while considering the case against the appellant and the evidence available on record, has rightly considered the five golden principles settled by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in the case of “Sharad Birdhi Chandra Sarda Vs. State of Mararastra” 1984 (4) SCC 116 and the provision of 106 of the Evidence Act, and held the appellant guilty of the alleged offence. We found no scope for interference in the appeal in view of the evidence available on record. 30. The judgment cited by the learned counsel for the appellant does not assist his case, as the facts and consideration on those cases 15 are different from the facts of the present case, and therefore, distinguishable. The case of “Shivaji Chintappa Patil” (supra) pertains to the issue of whether the death of the deceased was suicidal or homicidal, whereas the present case clearly involves a homicidal death, as evidenced by the numerous injuries found on the body of the deceased. The judgment of “Nusrat Parween” (supra) pertains to the availability of evidence regarding the presence of the accused on the spot and the existence of motive, whereas in the present case, both aspects stand established through the evidence of the witnesses. The judgment of “Manharan Rajwade” (supra) concerns the burden on the prosecution to establish the presence of the accused on the spot and the consideration of his explanation under Section 313 Cr.P.C. However, in the present case, the prosecution has successfully proved his presence, and the appellant has failed to offer any explanation regarding the incriminating circumstances in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The “Pooranmal” case (supra) relates to the acceptance of the DNA/FSL report, whereas in the present case, there is other evidence also apart from the FSL report; therefore, it is also distinguishable. 31. Consequently, the appeal filed by the appellant is dismissed. 32. The appellant is reported to be in jail since 16.08.2019, he shall serve the entire sentence awarded to him by the learned trial Court. 33. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the 16 concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is undergoing his jail sentence to serve the same on the appellant informing him that he is at 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. 34. The trial Court record along with a copy of this judgment be sent back immediately to the trial Court concerned for compliance and necessary action. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Alok