1 CGHC010092112025 2026:CGHC:31434-DB NAFR HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR CRA No. 612 of 2025 Dinesh Hiyal S/o Shri Mahendra Hiyal Aged About 24 Years R/o Tower Para Ward No. 8, Jhilmila, Thana- Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Appellant(s) versus State Of Chhattisgarh Through Officer-In-Charge, Police Station- Saraipali, District : Mahasamund, Chhattisgarh ... Respondent(s) For Appellant(s) : Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, Amicus Curiae For Respondent(s) : Mr. Soumya Rai, Dy. G.A. Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge Judgment on Board Per Ramesh Sinha , Chief Justice 23.07.2026 1. This criminal appeal filed by the appellant/accused under Section 415(2) of the BNSS is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 17.03.2020 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Saraipali, District- Mahasamund MANPREET KAUR Digitally signed by MANPREET KAUR Date: 2026.07.24 11:20:15 +0530 2 (C.G.) in Session Trial Case No. 37/2017 by which the appellant has been convicted for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with fine amount of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional rigorous imprisonment for 06 months. 2. Prosecution case, in brief, is that after the marriage, the accused used to suspect the character of his wife, Neetu Hiyal, and on that account frequently abused and assaulted her. Owing to such harassment, deceased had earlier started residing at her parental home. Even there, the accused allegedly went to her parental house and assaulted her. Thereafter, pursuant to the intervention of the community and a settlement arrived at in a social meeting, the accused brought her back to the matrimonial home. Subsequently, disputes again arose between them. On the date of the incident, while the accused was taking her to her parental house, he allegedly assaulted her on the way and abandoned her in an injured condition before returning home. He informed his mother that deceased had sustained injuries and thereafter absconded. The parents of the accused searched for her at her parental house but could not trace her. On the following morning, the villagers found her lying in an injured condition at the place of occurrence and informed her parental family. She was taken to Community Health Centre, Saraipali, where after primary treatment she was referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital (Mekahara), Raipur. During treatment, Neetu succumbed to the injuries. 3 3. On the report lodged by her brother, Chhotudas (PW-4), Crime No. 55/2017 was registered at Police Station Saraipali vide numbered merg/FIR (Ex. P-7). Neetu was medically examined at CHC, Saraipali and the medico-legal examination report is Ex. P-10. A query regarding the nature of injuries was sent vide Ex. P-11A and the query report was received as Ex. P-11. During investigation, the spot map (Nazri Naksha) was prepared (Ex. P-12) and a memorandum was sent to the Tahsildar for preparation of the Patwari map vide Ex. P-14. The memorandum statement of the accused was recorded vide Ex. P-1. The accused was arrested vide arrest memo Ex. P-2 and information of his arrest was furnished to his relative vide Ex. P-15. A memorandum was also issued to Mekahara Hospital for obtaining the CT Scan report of Neetu vide Ex. P-13. After the death of Neetu, notices were issued to the witnesses for conducting the inquest proceedings vide Ex. P-3, whereafter the inquest report was prepared as Ex. P-4. An application for postmortem examination was submitted vide Ex. P-5 and the postmortem report was obtained as Ex. P-6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was filed before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Saraipali, who committed the case to the Court of Session. Thereafter, the case was transferred to the Court of the Additional Sessions Judge for trial. 4. The trial Court framed charges against the accused under Sections 307 and 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The accused denied the charges and claimed trial. 5. In support of its case, the prosecution examined 20 witnesses and 4 exhibited the relevant documentary evidence. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the statement of the accused was recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, wherein he denied the incriminating circumstances appearing against him, claimed false implication, and did not lead any evidence in defence. 6. The learned trial Court, upon appreciation of oral and documentary evidence on record opining that it is the appellant who has committed the murder of his wife, convicted and sentenced him under Section 302 of the IPC, against which the instant appeal has been preferred. 7. Mr. Vaibhav A. Goverdhan, learned counsel for the appellant vehemently contended that the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence is contrary to the evidence available on record and is liable to be set aside. It was submitted that the present case is admittedly based entirely on circumstantial evidence, as there is no eyewitness to the alleged incident, and the settled principle of law is that every incriminating circumstance must be proved beyond reasonable doubt and the chain of circumstances must be so complete as to unerringly point only towards the guilt of the accused while excluding every other hypothesis consistent with innocence. According to the learned counsel, the prosecution has failed to establish such a complete chain of circumstances and, therefore, the conviction cannot be sustained. It was further argued that the prosecution has also failed to prove the foundational fact that the death of the deceased was homicidal. Drawing 5 attention to the evidence of Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-12), who conducted the postmortem examination, it was submitted that neither in the postmortem report nor in his deposition before the Court has the doctor opined that the death was homicidal. In the absence of proof regarding the homicidal nature of death, the essential ingredient for sustaining a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code remains unestablished. Learned counsel further submitted that despite examining as many as twenty prosecution witnesses, the prosecution has failed to establish any motive on the part of the appellant to commit the murder of his wife, Neetu Hiyal. It was also contended that, according to the prosecution’s own case, the appellant had assaulted the deceased only by hands and fists, no weapon or other incriminating article was recovered from his possession, and there is no material to suggest any prior preparation or premeditation to commit murder. It was further argued that the incident is alleged to have taken place on 20.02.2017, whereas the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 27.02.2017 during the course of treatment, indicating that the death was not the immediate or direct consequence of the injuries but occurred due to subsequent medical complications. Therefore, it cannot be said that the appellant intended to cause death or had taken undue advantage of the situation so as to attract the offence under Section 302 IPC. Learned counsel also submitted that the prosecution evidence itself shows that the appellant and the deceased were proceeding from the parental house of the deceased when the incident occurred on the way, and in such circumstances, the possibility of a sudden quarrel 6 arising out of grave and sudden provocation cannot be ruled out. It was, therefore, urged that the prosecution has failed to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt and he deserves to be acquitted. In the alternative, it was submitted that even if the prosecution case is accepted, the facts of the case would not constitute an offence punishable under Section 302 IPC but, at the highest, would fall within the ambit of Section 304 Part II IPC. It was lastly submitted that the appellant has already undergone approximately nine years and five months of incarceration, and, therefore, in the interest of justice, the conviction may be altered from Section 302 IPC to Section 304 Part II IPC with appropriate consequential relief. 8. On the other hand, learned Deputy Government Advocate appearing for the respondent/State supported the impugned judgment of conviction and sentence and submitted that the prosecution has succeeded in proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt by leading cogent, reliable and convincing evidence. It was contended that although there is no direct eyewitness to the occurrence, the prosecution case rests upon a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence, each circumstance having been duly established by the oral and documentary evidence on record, which unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellant and is inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. It was further submitted that the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the medical and scientific evidence, clearly establishes that the deceased sustained fatal injuries as a result of the assault committed by the appellant and 7 ultimately succumbed to those injuries during treatment. The prosecution has also proved the conduct of the appellant before and after the incident, which lends further assurance to the prosecution case. It was argued that the previous acts of cruelty and assault upon the deceased on account of suspicion regarding her character clearly establish the motive behind the offence. The learned State counsel further submitted that merely because the deceased died after a few days of treatment or because no weapon was used does not dilute the criminal liability of the appellant when the medical evidence clearly establishes that the injuries sustained by the deceased were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death. It was, therefore, submitted that the findings recorded by the trial Court are based on a proper appreciation of the evidence on record and do not suffer from any perversity or illegality warranting interference by this Court. Accordingly, it was prayed that the appeal, being devoid of merit, deserves to be dismissed and the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant be affirmed. 9. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and considered their rival submissions made herein-above and also went through the original records of the learned trial Court with utmost circumspection. 10. In order to appreciate the arguments advanced on behalf of the parties, we have to examine the evidence adduced on behalf of the prosecution. 11. The first question for consideration would be, whether the trial 8 Court was justified in holding that death of deceased to be homicidal in nature ? 12. In this regard, since the prosecution case rests entirely on circumstantial evidence, it is necessary to examine whether the prosecution has been able to establish that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and whether the chain of circumstances is complete so as to unerringly point towards the guilt of the appellant. 13. The trial Court, upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence, recorded a finding that the relations between the appellant and the deceased were strained even prior to the incident. Jitendra Das (PW-5), the brother of the deceased, deposed that the appellant used to assault the deceased on several occasions. Saraswati (PW-6), the mother of the deceased, also stated that because of repeated assaults by the appellant, the deceased had stayed at her parental house for about eleven months and was sent back to the matrimonial home only after intervention of the elders. She further deposed that the appellant had assaulted the deceased even at her parental house, compelling the appellant’s father to conceal the deceased in another house for her safety. Their testimony remained unshaken in cross-examination, thereby establishing that the appellant had been consistently assaulting the deceased and that their matrimonial relationship was far from cordial. 14. The evidence of Malima Hiyal (PW-8), the mother of the appellant, and Mahendra Hiyal (PW-9), the father of the appellant, assumes 9 considerable significance. Both witnesses categorically stated that on the date of the incident, at about 5:30 p.m., the appellant and the deceased had left together for Ichhapur, the parental village of the deceased. PW-8 further deposed that at about 10:00 p.m. the appellant returned home and informed her that Neetu had become unconscious, but when she enquired about the place, the appellant immediately fled away. PW-9 corroborated this version by stating that when he returned home from work at about 9:00-9:30 p.m., the appellant informed him that Neetu was lying unconscious near a lonely ghat and asked him to bring her before leaving the house. Their evidence remained unchallenged on the material aspect that the appellant and the deceased had left together and that the appellant alone first disclosed that the deceased was lying unconscious. No evidence whatsoever was led by the defence to suggest that after leaving with the appellant, the deceased had separated from him or was seen in the company of any other person. Consequently, the circumstance of the deceased being last seen alive in the company of the appellant stands firmly established. 15. The conduct of the appellant immediately after the incident also assumes significance. Being the husband accompanying the deceased, his normal conduct would have been to arrange medical assistance or seek help from passers-by. Instead, he abandoned the deceased at a secluded place, returned home, merely informed his parents that she was unconscious and thereafter absconded. The trial Court rightly observed that once it stood established that the appellant was last in the 10 company of the deceased and was the first person to know that she was lying unconscious, the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act shifted upon him to explain the circumstances in which the deceased sustained the injuries. The appellant, however, failed to furnish any explanation either during trial or in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., nor did the defence lead any evidence to probabilise any other cause for the injuries sustained by the deceased. 16. The prosecution further established that after receiving information from the appellant, his parents searched for the deceased and reached the parental village of the deceased, where they learnt that neither the appellant nor the deceased had reached there. Subsequently, information was received that a woman was lying unconscious near the Christian burial ground. Hari Prasad (PW-14) deposed that on reaching the spot he found the deceased lying unconscious with multiple injuries on her face, whereafter the police were informed and she was shifted to the Government Hospital, Saraipali. The evidence of Chhotudas (PW-4), Jitendra Das (PW-5), Narendri Das (PW-7) and Kanhaiya Lal (PW-11) consistently establishes that when they saw the deceased at the hospital, her face was swollen and she had multiple visible injuries on her eyes, nose, mouth and face. She was thereafter referred to Dr. B.R. Ambedkar Memorial Hospital, Raipur, for specialised treatment. 17. The medical evidence fully corroborates the ocular evidence regarding the injuries. Dr. H.L. Jangde (PW-16), who initially examined 11 the deceased at CHC, Saraipali, found a crushed wound on the forehead, crushed injury over the nose, swelling over both eyelids and eyebrows with bluish discolouration. He opined that all the injuries were within twelve hours in duration and were caused by a hard and blunt object. Considering the seriousness of the injuries, he referred the deceased to Medical College, Raipur. Though, during cross- examination, he stated that such injuries could occur by falling from a considerable height or while running in a graveyard, the spot map (Ex. P-12) does not disclose the existence of any elevated place at the place of occurrence. Moreover, the defence neither suggested to the Investigating Officer that there existed any elevated place near the scene nor offered any explanation as to why the deceased would have been running in the graveyard. Therefore, the suggestions put to PW-16 remain purely hypothetical and do not probabilise the defence version. 18. The prosecution further proved that despite treatment, the deceased succumbed to her injuries on 27.02.2017. This fact is corroborated by Vijay Kumar Mishra (PW-17), Shekhar Chandrakar (PW-10), Narendra Kumar Kurre (PW-15), as well as the relatives of the deceased, namely Chhotudas (PW-4), Jitendra Das (PW-5), Saraswati (PW-6), Narendri Das (PW-7), Kanhaiya Lal (PW-11) and Hari Prasad (PW-14). The inquest proceedings (Ex. P-4) and post-mortem requisition (Ex. P-5) were duly proved. 19. The postmortem was conducted by Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-12), who found multiple ante-mortem external and internal injuries, including 12 swelling around the right eye, contusions over the thigh, groin and forearm, ecchymosis over the scalp and temporal region, fracture of the 3rd, 4th and 5th ribs, and ecchymosis in the neck muscles. He categorically opined that all the injuries were ante-mortem, were within seven days in duration, and that their cumulative effect was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. He further opined that the deceased died due to cardio-respiratory failure resulting from complications arising out of the injuries sustained by her. His testimony remained substantially unshaken during cross-examination. 20. On the basis of the aforesaid evidence, the trial Court concluded that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased was last seen alive in the company of the appellant and that the appellant alone had knowledge of her unconscious condition and that he failed to offer any explanation as required under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The deceased sustained multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by a hard and blunt object which could not be attributed to a simple fall and that those injuries ultimately resulted in her death. Consequently, the trial Court held that the appellant was guilty of committing the murder of his wife and convicted him under Section 302 of the IPC while declining to record a separate conviction under Section 307 IPC, observing that the victim had succumbed to the injuries during treatment and the offence ultimately culminated into one punishable under Section 302 IPC. 21. The next question for consideration is whether the provisions of 13 Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 are attracted to the facts of the present case. 22. Section 106 embodies an exception to the general rule contained in Section 101 of the Evidence Act that the burden of proving the prosecution case always rests upon the prosecution. The provision merely casts a burden upon the accused to explain facts which are especially within his knowledge, once the prosecution has succeeded in establishing foundational facts. It is equally well settled that Section 106 cannot be invoked to relieve the prosecution of its primary burden of proving the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404, the Supreme Court held that Section 106 applies only to those exceptional facts which are pre-eminently within the knowledge of the accused and cannot be used to shift the general burden of proof. The said principle has been reiterated in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725, wherein it has been held that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, failure of the accused to explain facts within his special knowledge provides only an additional link in the chain of circumstances after the prosecution has first established the foundational facts. Similar principles have been reiterated in Gurcharan Singh v. State of Punjab, AIR 1956 SC 460, and Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 193, holding that Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution from proving its case beyond reasonable doubt. 23. Applying the aforesaid principles to the facts of the present case, 14 the prosecution has first established the foundational facts, namely, that the deceased was last seen alive in the exclusive company of the appellant, that the appellant himself informed his parents that the deceased was lying unconscious at a secluded place, that he abandoned her without making any attempt to provide medical assistance and absconded thereafter and that the deceased was found with multiple ante-mortem injuries which ultimately resulted in her death. These facts were especially within the knowledge of the appellant. In spite of such evidence, the appellant has failed to offer any plausible explanation either in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. or by leading defence evidence as to how the deceased sustained the fatal injuries while she was in his exclusive company. His failure to explain these incriminating circumstances constitutes an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence and lends assurance to the prosecution case. 24. The next question that arises for consideration is whether the prosecution has been able to prove the complete chain of circumstances so as to sustain the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. 25. It is well settled that in a case resting solely on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution is required to establish each incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt, and all the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain pointing only towards the guilt of the accused and excluding every other hypothesis consistent with his 15 innocence. The circumstances proved must be of a conclusive nature and tendency and should be incapable of explanation on any reasonable hypothesis other than that the accused alone is the author of the crime. 26. In the present case, the prosecution has successfully established the following incriminating circumstances: (i) The appellant and the deceased were not maintaining cordial matrimonial relations, as the appellant used to suspect the character of the deceased and had repeatedly assaulted her prior to the incident, compelling her to reside at her parental home for about eleven months. (ii) On the date of the incident, the deceased had left the matrimonial home in the exclusive company of the appellant for proceeding to her parental village, which fact has been consistently proved by Malima Hiyal (PW-8) and Mahendra Hiyal (PW-9). (iii) The appellant alone returned home during the night and informed his parents that the deceased was lying unconscious near a deserted place and immediately absconded without making any effort either to rescue her or to arrange medical assistance. (iv) The deceased was thereafter found lying unconscious with multiple injuries near the Christian cemetery and was shifted to the hospital. 16 (v) The medical evidence of Dr. H.L. Jangde (PW-16) and Dr. S.K. Bagh (PW-12) conclusively establishes that the deceased had sustained multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by a hard and blunt object, the cumulative effect of which was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death. (vi) The appellant failed to furnish any explanation regarding the injuries sustained by the deceased, although the facts relating to the occurrence were especially within his knowledge, thereby attracting the principle embodied under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. 27. The conduct of the appellant immediately after the incident is also a relevant incriminating circumstance. Instead of making any attempt to save the life of his wife or informing the police or the relatives of the deceased, he abandoned her in an injured condition at a secluded place, returned home only to inform his parents that she had become unconscious and thereafter fled away. Such conduct is wholly inconsistent with the conduct of an innocent person and lends further assurance to the prosecution case. 28. We also find no substance in the contention advanced on behalf of the appellant that the prosecution has failed to establish the motive for commission of the offence. Even otherwise, where the chain of circumstantial evidence is complete and points unmistakably towards the guilt of the accused, absence of proof of motive is not fatal to the prosecution case. In the present case, the evidence of PW-5 Jitendra 17 Das and PW-6 Saraswati clearly establishes that the appellant used to suspect the fidelity of the deceased and frequently assaulted her on that account. Thus, the prosecution has also succeeded in establishing the motive behind the crime. 29. In our considered opinion, the circumstances proved by the prosecution are fully consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the appellant and are wholly inconsistent with any other reasonable hypothesis. The chain of circumstances is complete, leaving no missing link, and clearly establishes that it was the appellant alone who assaulted the deceased and caused the injuries which ultimately resulted in her death. 30. A careful consideration of the entire evidence available on record and the findings recorded herein-above would clearly demonstrate that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all the incriminating circumstances beyond reasonable doubt. The evidence on record establishes that: (i) the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature, (ii) the appellant and the deceased were not maintaining cordial matrimonial relations and the appellant used to suspect the character of the deceased and assault her frequently, (iii) on the date of the incident, the deceased was last seen alive in the exclusive company of the appellant, (iv) the appellant alone had the earliest knowledge that the deceased was lying unconscious at the place of occurrence and failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding the circumstances in which she sustained the fatal injuries, though such facts were especially within 18 his knowledge, (v) the medical evidence conclusively establishes that the deceased sustained multiple ante-mortem injuries caused by a hard and blunt object and that the cumulative effect of those injuries was sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause her death, (vi) the conduct of the appellant in abandoning the deceased at a secluded place and absconding thereafter constitutes an additional incriminating circumstance, and (vii) the aforesaid circumstances form a complete and unbroken chain pointing unerringly towards the guilt of the appellant and are wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of his innocence. 31. Thus, there is unbreakable chain of circumstantial evidences against the accused-appellant, which clearly indicate the guilt of accused-appellant and the circumstances clearly indicate that it was the appellant alone who had committed the murder of the deceased. Therefore, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt and the trial Court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. Thus, we do not find any illegality or irregularity in the findings recorded by the trial Court. 32. For the foregoing reasons, the criminal appeal being devoid of merit and is liable to be and is hereby dismissed. 33. It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is in jail, he shall serve out the sentence as ordered by the learned trial Court. 34. Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the concerned Superintendent of Jail where the Appellant is undergoing the 19 jail term, 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. 35. Let a copy of this judgment and the original record be transmitted to the trial court concerned forthwith for necessary information and compliance. Sd/- Sd/- (Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha) Judge Chief Justice Manpreet