Back
2026 Supreme(Online)(Chh) 12467
IN THE HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR
Ramesh Sinha, CJ, Ravindra Kumar Agrawal, J
Shiv Kumar Koshle – Appellant
Versus
State Of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
CRA No. 525 of 2025
For the Appellants/Petitioners: Rishi Rahul Soni
For the Respondents: S.S. Baghel
In a case of homicidal death occurring within a matrimonial home, where the accused is established to be present, the burden of proving facts within his special knowledge under Section 106 of the Evidence Act shifts to him, and his failure to explain the incident completes the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Headnote:(A) Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 - S. 415(2) - Indian Penal Code, 1860 - S. 302 - Criminal appeal against conviction for murder - Circumstantial evidence - Homicidal death - Burden of proof - Evidence Act - S. 106 - Applicability of statutory presumption when death occurs within the matrimonial home - Failure to provide explanation for incriminating circumstances.
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted by the Trial Court for the murder of his wife, whose body was discovered in their shared residence with multiple fatal injuries. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence, including testimonies from witnesses regarding the couple's strained relationship, the accused's presence at the scene, and recovered weapon analysis.
Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution successfully established the homicidal nature of the death and the exclusive presence of the accused at the crime scene. Under S. 106 of the Evidence Act, the burden shifted to the appellant to explain the circumstances of the death, which he failed to do.
Issues: Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete and whether the presumption under S. 106 of the Evidence Act was correctly applied to sustain the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: In cases of homicidal death within the private sphere of a matrimonial home where the accused is proven to be present, the failure of the accused to offer any reasonable explanation under S. 313 Cr.P.C. constitutes a vital link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction upheld.
| Table of Content |
|---|
| 1. overview of prosecution case and conviction sentencing. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7) |
| 2. appealing arguments concerning lack of eye-witnesses and completeness of circumstantial chain versus state's reliance on motive and site presence. (Para 8 , 9) |
| 3. court evaluates homicidal nature of death and appellant's presence and involvement. (Para 10 , 11 , 12 , 13 , 14 , 15 , 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22) |
| 4. application of section 106 evidence act regarding burden of proof. (Para 23 , 24) |
| 5. final confirmation of conviction based on established circumstantial evidence chain. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29) |
NAFR
Order on Board
Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice
1. Heard Mr. Rishi Rahul Soni, Advocate, appearing for the learned counsel for the appellant as well as Mr. S. S. Baghel, Govt. Advocate General for the Respondent/ State in the present criminal appeal.
2. The appellant has preferred this criminal appeal under section 415 (2) of the B.N.S.S.2023, against the judgement of conviction and sentence dated 26.11.2024, passed by learned 6th Additional Sessions Judge, Bilaspur, in Sessions Case No. 104/2022, whereby the appellant has been convicted Under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him for life imprisonment with fine of Rs. 500/-, in default of payment of fine additional RI for 01 month.
3. The case of the prosecution in brief is that on 01.11.2021, at about 11.20 AM, the complainant Umend Lal Bharati (PW/16) gave a merg intimation to the Police that he was being informed by his neighbour that Priti Koshle have been murdered and dial 112 Police took the accused to the Police Station and when he had gone to his house, he found her dead body in her house in injured condition. The accused suspected the fidelity of his wife and used to quarrel regularly. Based on the merg intimation (Ex-P/16), the Police started an inquiry. Inquest (Ex-P/7) was prepared, and the dead body of the deceased was sent for its postmortem to the District Hospital, Bilaspur. (PW/14) Dr. Katlam Singh Dhruve conducted the postmortem of the dead body of the deceased and gave the report (Ex-P/20). While conducting the postmortem, the doctor found following injuries on her body:-
1. Injury on the forehead, postauricular region left side,
2. Vertex region,
4. left ear post auricular region, the skull bone was found fractured,
5. Abrasion on the left hand and elbow,
6. Abrasion on the right side of the neck
7. Abrasion on the right scapular region
8. Hematoma on the left thigh
9. and left tibial region
And opined that according to the finding, death was due to cardio respiratory arrest.
4. Spot Map (Ex-P/5) was prepared by the Police, and (Ex-P/9) was prepared by the Patwari. Blood-stained and plain soil have been seized from the spot vide seizure memo (Ex-P/8). FIR (Ex-P/17) was registered against the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of the IPC. The appellant was arrested on 01.11.2021, and his memorandum statement (Ex-P/1) was recorded. Based on his memorandum statement, one spade, one half shirt, one half pant and one mobile phone have been seized from him vide seizure memo (Ex-P/2). The spade was sent for its query report to the doctor, who gave his report (Ex-P/21) and opined that the injuries found on the body of the deceased could have been caused by the said weapon. The seized articles, i.e. blood stain and plain soil, the spade seized from the appellant, his clothes and the clothes of the deceased were sent for their chemical examination to the Regional FSL, Bilaspur, from where a report (Ex-P/27) was received. According to the FSL report, in the blood stain soil and spade, “A” group of human blood was found, and in the clothes of the accused and the clothes of the deceased, blood was found; however, their origin could not be determined. Statement of the witnesses under Section 161 of Cr.P.C. has been recorded, and after completion of the usual investigation, charge sheet has been filed before the learned Judicial
