Husband's Absconding & Failure to Explain Circumstances Under S.106 Evidence Act Sufficient for Murder Conviction: Chhattisgarh High Court - 2025-08-01

Chhattisgarh High Court Upholds Life Sentence in Double Murder, Cites Failure to Explain Under S.106 Evidence Act

Bilaspur, Chhattisgarh – The Chhattisgarh High Court has upheld the conviction and life sentence of Sandeep Kumar Gupta for the 2016 murder of his wife, Anju Gupta, and their eight-year-old son, Prateek Raj Gupta. A division bench of Justice Rajani Dubey and Justice Amitendra Kishore Prasad ruled that the appellant's failure to explain the circumstances of the deaths, which occurred inside their home while he was present, coupled with his subsequent conduct, was sufficient to establish his guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

The court invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, emphasizing that when a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon them.

---

Background of the Case

The case dates back to November 12, 2016, when the appellant's mother, Meera Devi Gupta, was away at work. The prosecution established that she had left the appellant, her daughter-in-law Anju, and grandson Prateek at their rented home in Mahasamund.

Later that day, the appellant called his mother, telling her he was taking his family to Raipur and that she should meet them there. However, upon reaching Raipur, Meera Devi could not find them, and the appellant's phone was switched off. When she returned home the next day, she found the house locked. With the help of her landlord, she broke open the door to discover the blood-stained bodies of her daughter-in-law and grandson. The appellant was missing.

The trial court found Sandeep Kumar Gupta guilty on two counts of murder under Section 302 of the IPC and sentenced him to life imprisonment. He subsequently appealed this decision to the High Court.

Arguments Before the High Court

The appellant’s counsel argued that the conviction was based on circumstantial evidence and that the trial court had wrongly applied Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It was contended that the police failed to investigate an alternative suspect—one Chhabiram Manhare, with whom the appellant had a financial dispute. The defence claimed the appellant had fled out of fear of this person. It was also pointed out that a confessional letter, allegedly written by the appellant and found at the scene, was never presented as evidence in court, thus failing to establish a motive.

The State, however, supported the trial court's judgment, arguing that the evidence was meticulously appreciated and the conviction was justified.

Court's Rationale and Key Findings

The High Court dismissed the appeal, concurring with the trial court's findings. The bench methodically analyzed the chain of circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution.

1. Homicidal Nature of Death: The post-mortem reports and the testimony of Dr. Sanjay Dave (PW-17) conclusively proved that both Anju and Prateek Gupta died homicidal deaths due to asphyxia resulting from fatal neck injuries.

2. Last Seen Evidence: The Court noted that the appellant was last seen with the deceased by multiple witnesses, including his own mother (PW-2) and neighbours (PW-6 and PW-7).

3. Burden of Proof under Section 106: The most critical aspect of the judgment was the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court held that since the murders took place inside the house where the appellant was present with the victims, the circumstances leading to their deaths were "especially within the knowledge" of the appellant.

"The accused has failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding his absence from the house... When the accused was asked as to why he ran away from the place of occurrence, then he only replied that due to fear he fled away, but this explanation is not satisfactory at all," the bench observed.

4. Incriminating Conduct: The court highlighted several pieces of the appellant's conduct that formed a strong chain of incriminating circumstances:

* Deceiving his mother with a false story about going to Raipur.

* Absconding from the crime scene and remaining unreachable.

* Failing to explain the presence of human blood found on his pants and shoes, as confirmed by the FSL report.

* His absence from the funeral of his own wife and son.

Final Decision

The High Court concluded that the prosecution had successfully established its case beyond a reasonable doubt through a consistent chain of circumstantial evidence. The appellant’s "unsatisfactory" explanation for his flight and his failure to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act were fatal to his defence.

"The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court is based on the proper appreciation of oral and documentary evidence, which is neither perverse nor contrary to the record," the court stated while dismissing the appeal and confirming the life sentence.