In a criminal prosecution based on circumstantial evidence, a conviction for murder cannot be sustained unless the prosecution establishes the homicidal nature of the death beyond reasonable doubt. The burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and mere unexplained death does not shift the liability to the accused.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201, 304-B, 306, 34 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 313 - Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Circumstantial evidence - Requirement of proof of homicidal death - Conviction under Sections 302/34 and 201/34 IPC - Failure of prosecution to establish homicidal death - Autopsy surgeon unable to categorize death as suicidal, homicidal, or accidental - Medical evidence showing no signs of violence or struggle - Inference of suicide not ruled out - Chain of circumstantial evidence found incomplete and inconsistent - Presumption under Section 106 of Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution from the primary burden of proof beyond reasonable doubt - Benefit of doubt extended to the appellants. (Paras 15, 27, 29, 30)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope - Re-evaluation of evidence in appeal - Appellate court entitled to interfere when findings are based on a series of erroneous deductions or failed to establish the foundational requirements of guilt. (Paras 24, 25, 30)

Facts of the case:
An appeal was preferred against a trial court judgment convicting the accused persons for murder and destruction of evidence following the death of a newlywed spouse by fire. The prosecution alleged physical and mental cruelty related to dowry demands. The defence contended that the incident was a suicide given the absence of any medical evidence suggestive of homicide, the admitted absence of the accused from the spot during the incident, and the lack of any incriminating recovery evidence.

Findings of Court:
The court observed that the autopsy report and the testimony of the medical examiner could not conclusively identify the nature of the death. The prosecution failed to provide evidence of cruelty or dowry demand, leading to acquittal of the accused on those specific charges. The circumstantial chain was found to be broken, as there was no proof of the accused's presence during the incident or their involvement in the destruction of evidence.

Issues: Whether the death of the spouse was homicidal or suicidal and whether the conviction for murder and destruction of evidence could be sustained solely on circumstantial evidence in the absence of a proved homicidal death.

Ratio Decidendi: The court held that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the burden of proving that the death was homicidal rests squarely on the prosecution. When medical evidence is inconclusive and the prosecution fails to establish a complete chain of events leading unerringly to the guilt of the accused, conviction cannot be sustained. The 'last seen' theory alone is insufficient to support a conviction for murder without additional links in the chain of evidence.

Result: Appeal allowed; the judgment of conviction and order of sentence is set aside; the accused-appellants are acquitted.

CAV Judgment

Per Rajani Dubey, J

1. This appeal is directed against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 16.10.2014 passed by learned Fast Track Court of Additional Session Judge, Kabirdham (Kawardha), C.G., in S.T. No.09/2014 whereby and whereunder appellants have been held guilty for commission of offence and sentenced as described below :-

2. The prosecution story, leading to conviction of the accused/appellants is that complainant Bhan Singh Thakur’s daughter, Pinky Thakur, was married to accused No. 01 - Tarun Thakur, on 14.07.2013. After the marriage, the deceased was allegedly subjected to taunts and harassment by the accused persons on the allegation that she had brought insufficient dowry. It was further alleged that accused Tarun Thakur (A-1), who used to speak with the deceased daily on her mobile phone prior to the marriage and after the engagement, discontinued regular communication after the marriage and thereafter maintained only formal interaction with her. It was also alleged that accused Tarun Thakur (A-1) demanded a sum of Rs.70,000/- from the deceased on the pretext that he had purchased land/plot at Raipur. He was also doubting chastity of the deceased and repeatedly threatened that her photographs would be circulated in Kawardha and that her mobile call details would be obtained, whereby her entire history would be revealed. According to the prosecution, whenever the deceased visited her parental home at Kawardha on festivals and family occasions, she disclosed that the accused persons were harassing and pressurizing her in connection with the demand of Rs.70,000/-. It was alleged that in this manner the accused persons subjected the deceased to continuous physical and mental cruelty and ultimately caused her death by setting her on fire. It was further alleged that thereafter the accused persons attempted to conceal the incident by cleaning and tampering the place of occurrence and, thereby causing disappearance of evidence. On the information of accused/appellant Tarun (A-1), merg No.46/2013 was registered vide Ex.P-14. Inquest on the body of deceased was prepared vide Ex.P-2 and dead body was sent for postmortem examination to District Hospital, Kabirdham, where postmortem examination was conducted by Dr. Santosh Luniya (PW-8) and gave his report under Ex.P-13 noticing following injuries/symptoms :-

(i) Body was supine in position, eyes were closed.

(ii) Kerosene smell was coming from body. Tongue bite in between teeth.

(iii) Extensive burn except sole (foot), more than 95%.

(iv) Cloths and garments were burnt and adherent to the body.

(v) Both the legs and hands were semi flexed, rigor mortis was present

(vi) Nasal froth was present. Skin was black in colour and peeled off.

(vii) Some parts of the body tissues were redish in colour.

The autopsy surgeon opined the cause of death of deceased to be shock due to extensive burn of body.

3. Police prepared spot map vide Ex.P-10. Some part of burnt skin, burnt wood, and empty box of kerosene were seized from the spot vide Ex.P-12. On24.09.2013, complainant Bhan Singh Thakur (PW-1) filed written report vide Ex.P-1, based on which, after due investigation, an FIR (Ex.P-15) was registered against the accused persons for the offence punishable under Sections 304-B , 306, 201, 34 of IPC. On 18.12.2013, Patwari prepared spot map vide Ex.P-8. During the course of investigation, complainant moved an application (Ex.P-3) for submitting bills of purchased articles in the marriage. The diary of deceased was seized vide Ex.P-9.

4. After completing usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the accused-appellants under Sections 302, 304-B, 306, 201, 34 of IPC ,to which the accused-appellants abjured their guilt and pleaded for trial.

5. After filing of the charge sheet, the learned Trial Court framed charges against the appellants under Sections 304- B/34 or 306/34, in alternate Sections 302/34 and 201/34 of the IPC.

6. So as to hold the accused-app

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 23302

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPURRAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJTarun Kumar – AppellantVersusState Of Chhattisgarh – RespondentCRA No. 1103 of 2014

Cases Referred (2)

IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
RAJANI DUBEY, AMITENDRA KISHORE PRASAD, JJ
Tarun Kumar – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 1103 of 2014