Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 11169
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Devendra Kumar Singh – Appellant
Versus
State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 219 of 2024
For the Appellants/Petitioners: K. Rohan
For the Respondents: Shailendra Sharma
In cases of spousal murder within the shared dwelling, if the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for the death and offers a false plea of alibi, the court may draw an adverse presumption of guilt under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Headnote:(A) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 - Section 374 - Burden of proof - Circumstantial evidence - Murder of wife in matrimonial home - Plea of alibi - Failure of accused to explain presence or cause of injuries - Adverse presumption. (Paras 18-22)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - Last seen theory - Appreciation of evidence - Absence of explanation for incriminating circumstances - FSL report confirming human blood on weapon and clothing - Chain of circumstances held complete. (Paras 13, 17, 20)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, whose body was found with multiple incised wounds in the veranda of their house. The appellant pleaded alibi, claiming he was at his relative's house during the incident. The prosecution sought conviction based on circumstantial evidence, including the recovery of a bloodstained axe and shirt linked via FSL reports.
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the trial court's finding of homicidal death. The appellant failed to substantiate his plea of alibi. The court held that since the deceased and appellant were residing together and the body was recovered from the premises, the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifted to the appellant to explain the death, which he failed to do.
Issues: Whether the prosecution successfully established the guilt of the appellant through circumstantial evidence and whether the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was met.
Ratio Decidendi: Where an accused is alleged to have murdered his wife within their dwelling, and the prosecution establishes they were together, the failure of the accused to provide a credible explanation for the injuries or the death, coupled with a false or unproven plea of alibi, allows the court to draw an adverse presumption under Section 106. Result : Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.
Judgment on Board
Per, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J.
1 Though the matter was listed for consideration on application for suspension of sentence and grant of bail, however, with the consent of the parties the appeal is being finally heard as the appellant is in jail since 06.07.2021.
2 The present appeal under Section 374 (2) CrPC has been filed by the appellant against the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 23.12.2023 passed by the Vth Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, in Sessions Case No.202/2021 whereby the appellant has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo Rigorous Imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.500/-, upon failure to pay which, additional RI for one month.
3 Brief facts of the case are that, on 06.07.2021 at about 07:30 AM, the complainant Laldev Singh, PW-4, father of the appellant, gave a merg intimation to the police that in the morning when he was proceeding to his new house, on the way, his neighbor Dhaneshwar Bargah informed him that his son Devendra (appellant) committed murder of his wife Radha by causing injury by an Axe and her dead body is lying in the house. The police recorded merg intimation Ex.P/8 and based on said merg intimation an FIR Ex.P/9 was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC. Inquest Ex.P./2 of the deadbody of the deceased was prepared in presence of witnesses and then the dead body was sent for its postmortem to Primary Heath Centre, Darima where PW-7, Dr. Janeshwar Singh conducted postmortem of the dead body and gave his report Ex.P/12. While conducting the postmortem of the dead body of deceased, he noticed three incised wound over occipital region and multiple incised wound over Neck at Back and all the structures were cut off. He opined the cause of death is hemorrhagic shock due to incised wound in Neck leading to cardio respiratory arrest and it is homicidal in nature. Spot map Ex.P/7 was prepared by the Patwari and P/10 by the Police. Bloodstained and plain soil was seized from the spot vide seizure memo Ex.P/4. The appellant was arrested on 06.07.2021 and his memorandum statement Ex.P/3 was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, one Axe and bloodstained Shirt was seized from appellant vide seizure memo Ex.P/5. Plain soil as well as bloodstained soil were seized from spot, Axe and Shirt seized from appellant were sent for its FSL to regional FSL, Ambikapur, from where report Ex.P/18 was received, according to which, human blood was found on the bloodstained soil, Axe and Shirt seized from the appellant.
4 The statement under Section 161 CrPC of the witnesses were recorded. After completion of usual investigation, charge sheet was filed against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC before the Judicial Magistrate First Class Ambikapur. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions Judge Ambikapur from where it has been transferred to the trial Court for its trial.
5 The trial Court has framed charge against the appellant for the offence under Section 302. The appellant abjured his guilt and claimed trial.
6 In order to establish charge against the appellant, the prosecution has examined as many as 8 witnesses. Statement under Section 313 CrPC of the appellant has also been recorded in which he denied the circumstances appears against him, plead innocence and have submitted that he is innocent and falsely implicated in the offence. He also stated that on the date of incident he had gone to village Sargawan to his elder father Tarkeshwar Singh’s house.
7 After appreciation of oral as well as documentary evidence led by the prosecution, the trial Court has convicted the appellant and sentenced him as mentioned in opening para of this judgment. Hence this appeal.
8 Learned counsel for the appellant would submit that the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. There are material inconsistencies in the evidence of witnesses which cannot be made
