1

CGHC010513622025 2026:CGHC:34473-DB

NAFR

HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH AT BILASPUR

CRA No. 2541 of 2025

Prem Singh Meshram S/o. Late Jay Meshram Aged About 32 Years R/o

Baksahi, Police Station - Pali, Distt - Korba, Chhattisgarh.

... Appellant

versus

State of Chhattisgarh Through District Magistrate - Korba, Distt - Korba,

Chhattisgarh.

... Respondent

(Cause-title taken from Case Information System)

For Appellant :Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, Advocate

For State/Respondent:Mr. Ashish Shukla, Additional Advocate

General

Hon'ble Shri Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

Hon'ble Shri Ravindra Kumar Agrawal , Judge

Judgment on Board

Per Ramesh Sinha, Chief Justice

06.08.2026

1.Heard Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel for the appellant as

well as Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate General,

appearing for the State/respondent.

2.Though the present criminal appeal has been listed for hearing on

I.A. No.01, an application under Section 430 of the Bharatiya

2

Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023 (for short, "BNSS") seeking

suspension of sentence and grant of bail to the appellant,

considering that the appellant has remained in custody since

14.08.2020, and with the consent of the learned counsel

appearing for the parties, this Court deems it appropriate to hear

and dispose of the appeal finally at this stage.

3.In view of the appeal having been taken up for final hearing and

disposal, I.A. No.01, seeking suspension of sentence and grant of

bail, does not survive for consideration and is accordingly

disposed of.

4.This criminal appeal is filed by the appellant/accused under

Section 415(2) of the Bharatiya Nagarik Suraksha Sanhita, 2023

(for short, ‘BNSS’) is directed against the impugned judgment of

conviction and order of sentence dated 03.11.2025 passed by the

learned First Additional Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba

(C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 50 of 2020, by which the appellant

has been convicted for the offence punishable under Sections 302

of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short, ‘IPC’) and sentenced to

undergo rigorous imprisonment for life with fine amount of

Rs.2,000/-, in default of payment of fine, additional rigorous

imprisonment for 06 months.

5.The case of the prosecution, as unfolded before the learned trial

Court, is that on 23.03.2020, an information was received at

Police Station Pali, District Korba, regarding the deceased Smt.

3

Kirti Meshram having sustained burn injuries and being admitted

for treatment. Subsequently, upon her death during treatment at

CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur on 27.03.2020, merg intimation under

Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was registered

and an inquiry was commenced. During the course of

investigation, on the basis of the statements of the relatives of the

deceased and other witnesses, as well as inspection of the place

of occurrence, the prosecution alleged that the death of the

deceased was homicidal in nature and was caused by the

appellant/husband Prem Singh Meshram. The criminal case was

registered as Crime No.189/2020 for the offence punishable

under Section 302 of the IPC.

6.According to the prosecution, the deceased Kirti Meshram was

married to the appellant about one and a half years prior to the

incident. It was alleged that the appellant was addicted to alcohol

and used to frequently quarrel with the deceased on account of

suspicion regarding her character and alleged relationship with

one Lakhan. On 23.03.2020, at about 11:00–12:00 noon, after

consuming alcohol, the appellant again entered into a dispute with

his wife and assaulted her inside the house. It was further alleged

that the appellant assaulted the deceased with household articles

including a belcha and tawa, tied her hands and legs, and

attempted to take her towards the well. When his brother and

neighbours intervened, the appellant brought the deceased back

inside the house, closed the doors, poured kerosene oil over her

4

and set her ablaze with an intention to cause her death.

7.It was the further case of the prosecution that on hearing the cries

of the deceased, the neighbours reached the spot and found the

deceased burning inside the room. The door was allegedly broken

open by the villagers, after which the fire was extinguished and

the deceased was shifted first to Community Health Centre, Pali

and thereafter to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur for further treatment.

However, owing to the severity of the burn injuries, she

succumbed to her injuries on 27.03.2020 at about 07:45 a.m. The

post-mortem examination revealed extensive burn injuries and the

cause of death was opined to be complications arising out of the

burn injuries.

8.During investigation, the statement of the appellant was recorded

under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act vide memorandum

(Ex.P-08). Pursuant thereto, at the instance of the appellant,

seizure of an old iron belcha, old iron tawa and a plastic jerican

containing smell of kerosene oil was effected vide seizure memo

Ex.P-07 in the presence of witnesses. The appellant was

thereafter arrested vide arrest memo Ex.P-06. The seized articles

were sent for forensic examination and the FSL report was

brought on record as Ex.P-32 and Ex.P-33.

9.After completion of investigation, the police filed the charge-sheet

against the appellant before the competent Magistrate Court for

the offence punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. The case

5

was thereafter committed to the Court of Sessions and registered

as Sessions Case No.50/2020 before the Court of First Additional

Sessions Judge, Katghora, District Korba. The learned trial Court

framed charge against the appellant under Section 302 IPC,

which was read over and explained to him. The appellant denied

the charge, pleaded innocence and claimed to be tried. In his

statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant

stated that he had been falsely implicated, though he did not lead

any evidence in defence.

10.In order to establish its case, the prosecution examined as many

as 28 witnesses before the learned trial Court. The witnesses

examined included Nain Singh God (PW-01), Fagni Bai (PW-02),

Dukala Bai (PW-03), Indrapal Singh Uikey (PW-04), Mahetter

Singh Maravi (PW-05), Purushottam Singh Tekam (PW-06), Kirti

Kumar Maravi (PW-07), Devesh Kumar Maravi (PW-08), Siyaram

Tekam (PW-09), Lalit Raj (PW-10), Hariom Meshram (PW-11), Dr.

R.K. Markam (PW-12), Shatrughan Das (PW-13), Patwari

Sandeep Kashyap (PW-14), Pyare Lal (PW-15), Dr. Anil Saraf

(PW-16), Dr. Sushma Mahajan (PW-17), Manoj Kumar Bhagat

(PW-18), Dr. Binesh Nayak (PW-19), Dr. Amit Singh (PW-20), Rati

Ram Dhruv (PW-21), Sub-Inspector Amit Sahu (PW-22), Sarjeet

Singh (PW-23), Ramgopal Maravi (PW-24), Investigating Officer

Liladhar Rathore (PW-25), Praveen Narde (PW-26), Amar Singh

(PW-27) and Investigating Officer Ashok Sharma (PW-28).

6

11.The prosecution also relied upon various documentary exhibits,

including the Patwari map (Ex.P-01), inquest notice (Ex.P-02),

spot panchnama (Ex.P-03), police statement of Fagni Bai (Ex.P-

04), nazri map (Ex.P-05), arrest memo (Ex.P-06), seizure memo

(Ex.P-07), memorandum statement (Ex.P-08), post-mortem report

(Ex.P-09), query report (Ex.P-10), merg intimation (Ex.P-17),

medical documents, FSL reports (Ex.P-32 and Ex.P-33), and the

First Information Report (Ex.P-35).

12.Upon appreciation of the oral and documentary evidence available

on record, the learned trial Court held that the prosecution had

succeeded in proving beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased

Kirti Meshram died on account of burn injuries caused by the

appellant. The learned trial Court, therefore, convicted the

appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 IPC and

imposed the sentence as recorded in the impugned judgment

dated 03.11.2025.

13.Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of conviction and

order of sentence, the appellant has preferred the present criminal

appeal before this Court, challenging the findings recorded by the

learned trial Court and seeking reversal of his conviction and

sentence.

14.Mr. Bhaskar Payashi, learned counsel appearing for the appellant

submits that the learned trial Court has committed a serious error

of law and fact in convicting the appellant for the offence

7

punishable under Section 302 of the IPC. It is contended that the

conviction is based upon conjectures and surmises and the

prosecution has failed to establish the chain of circumstances

beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel submits that there is

no direct evidence on record to prove that the appellant had set

the deceased on fire. The prosecution witnesses are admittedly

not the eyewitnesses to the actual occurrence of pouring

kerosene and setting the deceased ablaze, and their testimony is

based largely on hearsay and subsequent events.

15.Learned counsel further submits that the evidence of the

prosecution witnesses suffers from material contradictions and

inconsistencies with regard to the manner of occurrence,

particularly regarding the alleged assault, tying of hands and legs

of the deceased and the appellant taking her towards the well. It is

argued that the possibility of accidental fire while the deceased

was cooking cannot be ruled out, particularly in view of the

defence version and the circumstances emerging from the

evidence of certain prosecution witnesses. It is also contended

that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased was

cordial and they had entered into a love marriage, which belies

the allegation of motive based on suspicion regarding the

character of the deceased.

16.Learned counsel lastly submits that the learned trial Court has

failed to extend the benefit of doubt arising from the discrepancies

8

in the prosecution case. The alleged recovery of household

articles and kerosene container does not conclusively establish

the involvement of the appellant in commission of the offence.

Therefore, the impugned judgment of conviction and order of

sentence deserves to be set aside and the appellant is entitled for

acquittal.

17.Per contra, Mr. Ashish Shukla, learned Additional Advocate

General appearing for the State, vehemently opposes the

submissions advanced by learned counsel for the appellant and

submits that the learned trial Court, after detailed appreciation of

the entire oral and documentary evidence available on record, has

rightly convicted the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the IPC. It is submitted that the prosecution has

established beyond reasonable doubt that the deceased

sustained burn injuries inside her matrimonial house and the

appellant was the only person present with her at the relevant

time.

18.Learned Additional Advocate General submits that the testimony

of the prosecution witnesses, particularly the neighbours who

reached the spot immediately after hearing the cries of the

deceased, clearly establishes the conduct of the appellant before

and after the incident. It is submitted that the deceased was found

in a burnt condition inside the room, the door of which was closed

from inside, and the appellant was found present at the spot. The

9

conduct of the appellant in fleeing from the place of occurrence

after the incident is also a relevant incriminating circumstance

against him.

19.Learned Additional Advocate General further submits that the

medical evidence corroborates the prosecution version, as the

deceased had sustained extensive burn injuries along with injuries

caused by a hard and blunt object prior to her death. The recovery

of kerosene container and other articles pursuant to the

memorandum statement of the appellant further strengthens the

prosecution case. It is argued that the minor contradictions, if any,

in the statements of the witnesses are natural and do not affect

the core of the prosecution story. Hence, no interference is

warranted with the well-reasoned judgment of conviction and

order of sentence passed by the learned trial Court, and the

appeal deserves to be dismissed.

20.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 trial Court with utmost circumspection

and carefully as well.

21.The first question for determination in the present appeal is

whether the learned trial Court was justified in holding that

the death of the deceased Kirti Meshram was homicidal in

nature.

22.The learned Trial Court, while considering the aforesaid question,

10

has examined the entire medical and ocular evidence available on

record and recorded a categorical finding that the death of the

deceased was not accidental or suicidal, but was homicidal in

nature. The said finding of the learned Trial Court is based upon a

proper appreciation of the evidence led by the prosecution,

particularly the evidence of the medical witnesses, the post-

mortem report and the surrounding circumstances proved during

the course of trial.

23.At the outset, the learned Trial Court noticed that the deceased

was initially taken to the Community Health Centre, Pali in an

injured condition, where she was medically examined by Dr. Anil

Saraf (PW-16). The said witness deposed that on 23.03.2020, the

deceased was brought to the hospital in an unconscious condition

and was found to have sustained extensive burn injuries. As per

his examination, the deceased had suffered burns over her face,

eyes, chest, back, hair, both hands and legs, and approximately

90-95% of her body was burnt. He further noticed an injury on the

right eyebrow measuring approximately 2 cm × 1 cm and a blood

clot on the forehead. The said medical examination was recorded

in the MLC report vide Ex.P-15. The Trial Court, therefore, found

that the nature and extent of injuries sustained by the deceased

clearly indicated that the incident was not a simple case of

accidental burning.

24.The learned Trial Court further considered the evidence of Dr.

11

Binesh Nayak (PW-19), who examined the deceased after she

was referred to CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. The said witness stated

that the deceased had burn injuries over her entire body and

approximately 90-95% of her body was burnt. The medical

evidence further established that despite treatment, the condition

of the deceased deteriorated and she ultimately succumbed to the

injuries sustained by her. The Trial Court also noticed that the

death intimation was sent to the police vide Ex.P-21.

25.The most important evidence considered by the learned Trial

Court was the post-mortem report and the testimony of the post-

mortem doctors. Dr. Sushma Mahajan (PW-17), who conducted

the post-mortem examination along with Dr. R.K. Markam (PW-

12), stated that the deceased had sustained burn injuries over

approximately 62% of her body. In addition to the burn injuries,

two other injuries were noticed on the body of the deceased,

namely a contusion injury on the right side of the forehead

measuring 2 cm × 2 cm and another contusion injury over the left

hip measuring 5 cm × 2 cm. The doctors opined that both these

injuries were caused by hard and blunt objects and were ante-

mortem in nature. The internal examination also revealed black

coloured mucus in the respiratory tract, and the final opinion was

that the cause of death was due to complications arising out of the

burn injuries. The post-mortem report was exhibited as Ex.P-09.

26.Upon appreciation of the aforesaid medical evidence, the learned

12

Trial Court rightly concluded that the deceased had not died due

to any ordinary accidental burn injury. The presence of ante-

mortem injuries caused by a hard and blunt object, coupled with

extensive burn injuries, clearly indicated that physical assault had

preceded the burning incident. The Trial Court specifically

recorded that the evidence of Dr. Sushma Mahajan (PW-17) and

Dr. R.K. Markam (PW-12) established that the death occurred due

to burn injuries and the complications arising therefrom, and that

the deceased had sustained contusion injuries on her forehead

and left hip before death.

27.The learned Trial Court also considered the surrounding

circumstances proved through the prosecution witnesses. The

evidence of the witnesses disclosed that the deceased was found

in a burnt condition inside the house, and the door of the house

was found closed from inside. The witnesses further stated about

the condition of the deceased when they entered the room and

noticed that she had sustained severe burn injuries. The

circumstances surrounding the incident, when considered along

with the medical evidence, ruled out the possibility of a mere

accidental fire. The Trial Court, therefore, held that the death of

the deceased was the result of a deliberate act causing burn

injuries and was consequently homicidal in nature.

28.It is well settled that the nature of death has to be determined on

the basis of the cumulative effect of medical evidence, the injuries

13

found on the body, and the circumstances established during the

trial. In the present case, the deceased had sustained extensive

burn injuries, coupled with ante-mortem injuries caused by a hard

and blunt object. The medical evidence clearly established that

the death was caused due to burn injuries and their complications,

while the other circumstances indicated that such injuries were

not accidental in origin.

29.Therefore, this Court finds that the learned Trial Court has

correctly appreciated the evidence available on record and has

rightly held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in

nature. The finding recorded by the learned Trial Court does not

suffer from any infirmity and is accordingly affirmed.

30.The next question for consideration would be whether the

learned Trial Court was justified in holding that the appellant

is the author of the crime, on the basis of the following

circumstances:–

(i) That the death of the deceased Kirti Meshram was

homicidal in nature and not accidental, stands established

from the medical evidence available on record. The

evidence of Dr. Anil Saraf (PW-16), Dr. B.K. Nayak (PW-19)

and Dr. Amit Singh (PW-20) establishes that the deceased

had sustained extensive burn injuries to the extent of 90-

95% of her body and ultimately succumbed to the said

injuries during treatment at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. The

14

nature and extent of burn injuries, coupled with the

surrounding circumstances proved by the prosecution,

clearly establish that the death was not a result of any

accidental occurrence but was caused in suspicious and

unnatural circumstances.

(ii) That the incident occurred inside the residential house of

the appellant, where the appellant and deceased were

residing as husband and wife, and the presence of the

appellant at the place of occurrence at the relevant point of

time stands firmly established from the testimony of the

prosecution witnesses. The evidence of Fagni Bai (PW-02),

mother of the appellant, Nain Singh (PW-01), Mahattar

Singh Maravi (PW-05), Kirti Kumar Maravi (PW-07),

Devendra Kumar (PW-08) and Lalit Raj (PW-10) establishes

that immediately before the occurrence, the appellant was

present with the deceased inside the house and thereafter

the deceased was found in a burnt condition inside the room

of the appellant. The fact as to how the deceased caught fire

and the circumstances in which she sustained fatal burn

injuries were especially within the knowledge of the

appellant, who was the only person present with her inside

the house at the relevant time.

(iii) That the conduct of the appellant immediately before

and after the occurrence provides a strong incriminating

15

circumstance against him. The evidence of Nain Singh (PW-

01) reveals that the mother of the appellant, Fagni Bai,

came to call him stating that the appellant was taking his

wife towards the well after tying her. When Nain Singh

reached near the house of the appellant, he saw the

deceased burning in the verandah. Thereafter, when other

villagers reached the spot, the appellant closed the door

from inside, preventing them from entering the room. After

the door was broken open, the deceased was found lying in

a burnt condition and the appellant was present there. The

appellant, when questioned by Nain Singh as to what he

had done, replied that “a mistake had occurred”. Thereafter,

he again closed the door, threatened the persons who came

for rescue and attempted to escape from the rear side of the

house. Such conduct of the appellant immediately after the

occurrence is a relevant fact under Section 8 of the Indian

Evidence Act and forms a significant link in the chain of

circumstances.

(iv) That despite the aforesaid incriminating circumstances

being put to the appellant during his examination under

Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the

appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation regarding

the circumstances in which his wife sustained extensive

burn injuries inside their residential house. The appellant

merely denied the allegations and took a defence that the

16

deceased had accidentally caught fire while cooking.

However, the said explanation does not find support from

the evidence available on record, particularly the evidence

showing that the deceased was found with her hands tied,

the door of the room was closed from inside, a kerosene

container was found at the spot and the appellant attempted

to prevent the witnesses from entering the room.

(v) That in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act,

1872, the burden was upon the appellant to explain the

circumstances which were especially within his knowledge.

Since the deceased died an unnatural death inside the

house occupied by the appellant and the appellant was the

person who was admittedly present with her immediately

before the occurrence, it was incumbent upon him to explain

how such an incident occurred. His failure to furnish any

satisfactory explanation provides an additional link in the

chain of circumstances established by the prosecution.

31.The first circumstance relied upon by the prosecution relates to

the occurrence having taken place inside the house of the

appellant and the presence of the appellant at the relevant time.

The evidence available on record clearly establishes that the

deceased was residing along with the appellant in his matrimonial

home situated at village Baksahi. The incident occurred inside the

said house and immediately after the occurrence, the deceased

17

was found in a severely burnt condition inside the room of the

appellant.

32.Fagni Bai (PW-02), mother of the appellant, has deposed that on

the date of incident, she had gone to village Chepa and when she

returned after about two-three hours, she found her daughter-in-

law lying burnt. However, during her cross-examination by the

prosecution, she admitted that after returning from village Chepa,

her son informed her that the appellant was assaulting his wife.

She further admitted that she had gone to call Nain Singh and

when she returned, the neighbours had opened the door and she

saw her daughter-in-law lying burnt on the floor. She also

admitted that the appellant was pouring water over the deceased

to extinguish the fire.

33.The testimony of Nain Singh (PW-01) further establishes that on

receiving information from Fagni Bai, he reached the house of the

appellant. He stated that he saw the deceased burning in the

verandah of the house and thereafter called other villagers. He

specifically stated that the appellant closed the door of the

verandah from inside and the villagers had to break open the

door. After entering inside, they found the deceased lying burnt on

the ground. He further stated that when he questioned the

appellant, the appellant stated that a mistake had occurred. The

said conduct of the appellant immediately after the occurrence

clearly establishes his presence and involvement.

18

34.The evidence of Mahattar Singh Maravi (PW-05), Kirti Kumar

Maravi (PW-07), Devendra Kumar (PW-08) and Lalit Raj (PW-10)

also corroborates the fact that when they reached the house of

the appellant after receiving information, the door was closed from

inside and after breaking open the door they found the deceased

burnt near the door. These witnesses consistently stated that the

appellant was present inside the house and attempted to prevent

them from entering. They further stated that the deceased had

suffered burn injuries and her hands were tied with a rope. A

kerosene container was also found near the place of occurrence.

35.The testimony of these witnesses cannot be discarded merely

because they are neighbours or related to the parties. On the

contrary, they are natural witnesses who reached the spot

immediately after the incident and witnessed the condition

prevailing at the place of occurrence. There is no material on

record to suggest any previous enmity or motive on their part to

falsely implicate the appellant. Their evidence is consistent on

material particulars and has remained substantially unshaken

during cross-examination.

36.Thus, the prosecution has successfully established that:–

•the deceased was residing with the appellant in the same

house;

•the incident occurred inside the residential house of the

appellant;

19

•the appellant was present with the deceased immediately

before and after the occurrence;

•the deceased was found burnt inside the closed room of the

appellant; and

•no possibility of presence of any outsider at the relevant time

has been established.

37.The aforesaid circumstance assumes great significance because

the occurrence had taken place within the four walls of the

appellant's house. The appellant, being the husband of the

deceased, was expected to provide a satisfactory explanation

regarding the circumstances in which his wife sustained fatal burn

injuries. The prosecution evidence clearly establishes that the

deceased was last in the company of the appellant and thereafter

she was found in a burnt condition inside the house. In such

circumstances, the burden of explanation naturally lies upon the

appellant.

38.The next circumstance relates to the failure of the appellant to

explain the incriminating circumstances appearing against him

during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

39.From the record, it is evident that all material circumstances

appearing against the appellant were put to him during his

examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., including:–

•the deceased being found burnt inside his residential house;

20

•his presence at the place of occurrence;

•the evidence of witnesses regarding assault upon the

deceased immediately prior to the incident;

•the appellant closing the door from inside and preventing

villagers from entering;

•his conduct of threatening the witnesses and attempting to

flee;

•the recovery of belcha, tawa and kerosene container pursuant

to his memorandum statement; and

•the statement made by him that “a mistake had occurred”.

40.However, the appellant did not furnish any explanation as to how

the deceased sustained such extensive burn injuries inside the

house. His defence that the deceased accidentally caught fire

while cooking has remained a mere suggestion and is not

supported by any evidence. The said defence is also inconsistent

with the proved circumstances, particularly the deceased being

found with her hands tied and the presence of kerosene container

near the place of occurrence.

41.It is settled law that though an accused has a right to remain

silent, failure to explain circumstances which are especially within

his knowledge, after the prosecution has established foundational

facts, may provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances.

In the present case, the silence of the appellant regarding the

21

manner in which his wife sustained fatal injuries inside the house

assumes significance.

42.The last circumstance ‘Applicability of Section 106 of the Indian

Evidence Act’ - Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act provides

that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any

person, the burden of proving that fact lies upon him. Section 106

of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, states as under: -

“106. Burden of proving fact especially

within knowledge.—When any fact is

especially within the knowledge of any

person, the burden of proving that fact is

upon him.”

43.This provision states that when any fact is specially within the

knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon

him. This is an exception to the general rule contained in Section

101, namely, that the burden is on the person who asserts a fact.

The principle underlying Section 106 which is an exception to the

general rule governing burden of proof applies only to such

matters of defence which are supposed to be especially within the

knowledge of the other side. To invoke Section 106 of the

Evidence Act, the main point to be established by prosecution is

that the accused persons were in such a position that they could

have special knowledge of the fact concerned.

44.In the matter of Shambhu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer

1

,

their Lordships of the Supreme Court have held that the general

1AIR 1956 SC 404

22

rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the

prosecution and Section 106 of the Evidence Act is certainly not

intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to

meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or

at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution, to

establish facts which are “especially” within the knowledge of the

accused and which he could prove without difficulty or

inconvenience. The Supreme Court while considering the word

“especially” employed in Section 106 of the Evidence Act,

speaking through Vivian Bose, J., observed as under: -

“11.… The word "especially" stresses that

it means facts that are preeminently or

exceptionally within his knowledge. If the

section were to be interpreted otherwise, it

would lead to the very startling conclusion

that in a murder case the burden lies on the

accused to prove that he did not commit the

murder because who could know better than

he whether he did or did not. It is evident that

cannot be the intention and the Privy Council

has twice refused to construe this section, as

reproduced in certain other Acts outside

India, to mean that the burden lies on an

accused person to show that he did not

commit the crime for which he is tried. These

cases are Attygalle v. The King, 1936 PC 169

(AIR V 23) (A) and Seneviratne v. R. 1936-3

ER 36 AT P.49 (B).”

Their Lordships further held that Section 106 of the

Evidence Act cannot be used to undermine the well established

rule of law that save in a very exceptional class of case, the

burden is on the prosecution and never shifts.

23

45.The decision of the Supreme Court in Shambhu Nath Mehra

(supra) was followed with approval recently in the matter of

Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar

2

in which it has been held by

their Lordships of the Supreme Court as under: -

“22.Thus, Section 106 of the Evidence Act

will apply to those cases where the

prosecution has succeeded in establishing

the facts from which a reasonable inference

can be drawn regarding the existence of

certain other facts which are within the

special knowledge of the accused. When the

accused fails to offer proper explanation

about the existence of said other facts, the

court can always draw an appropriate

inference.

23.When a case is resting on

circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails

to offer a reasonable explanation in

discharge of burden placed on him by virtue

of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a

failure may provide an additional link to the

chain of circumstances. In a case governed

by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of

circumstances which is required to be

established by the prosecution is not

established, the failure of the accused to

discharge the burden under Section 106 of

the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When

the chain is not complete, falsity of the

defence is no ground to convict the

accused.”

46.Similarly, the Supreme Court in the matter of Gurcharan Singh v.

State of Punjab

3

, while considering the provisions contained in

Sections 103 & 106 of the Evidence Act, held that the burden of

2(2021) 10 SCC 725

3AIR 1956 SC 460

24

proving a plea specially set up by an accused which may absolve

him from criminal liability, certainly lies upon him, but neither the

application of Section 103 nor that of 106 could, however, absolve

the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary

burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt.

It was further held by their Lordships that it is only when the

prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a

conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the

question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof

may lie upon the accused. Their Lordships also held that the

burden of proving a plea specifically set up by an accused, which

may absolve him from criminal liability, certain lies upon him.

47.The principle of law laid down by their Lordships of the Supreme

Court in Gurcharan Singh (supra) has been followed with

approval by their Lordships in the matter of Sawal Das v. State of

Bihar

4

and it has been held that burden of proving the case

against the accused was on the prosecution irrespective of

whether or not the accused has made out a specific defence.

48.In the present case, it stands established from the evidence

available on record that the deceased Kirti Meshram suffered an

unnatural and homicidal death inside the residential house where

she was residing along with the appellant as his wife. The medical

evidence of Dr. Anil Saraf (PW-16), Dr. B.K. Nayak (PW-19) and

Dr. Amit Singh (PW-20), coupled with the surrounding

4AIR 1974 SC 778

25

circumstances proved by the prosecution, establishes that the

deceased had sustained extensive burn injuries to the extent of

90-95% of her body and ultimately succumbed to the said injuries

during treatment. The evidence of the prosecution witnesses

further establishes that at the relevant time the deceased was

inside the house of the appellant and the appellant was present

with her. No evidence has been brought on record regarding the

presence of any third person inside the house. Therefore, the

manner in which the deceased sustained such extensive burn

injuries and the circumstances leading to her death were facts

especially within the knowledge of the appellant.

49.Once the prosecution successfully established the foundational

facts, namely, (i) that the deceased suffered an unnatural death

due to burn injuries; (ii) that the incident occurred inside the

residential house of the appellant; (iii) that the appellant was

present with the deceased immediately prior to and after the

occurrence; and (iv) that the deceased was found in a burnt

condition inside the closed room of the appellant, the burden was

upon the appellant to furnish a plausible explanation regarding the

circumstances in which his wife sustained such fatal injuries.

However, in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the

Code of Criminal Procedure, the appellant failed to provide any

satisfactory explanation. He merely denied the allegations and

claimed false implication. His defence that the deceased

accidentally caught fire while cooking remained a bald assertion

26

unsupported by any evidence and was also inconsistent with the

circumstances proved by the prosecution.

50.It is well settled that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does

not relieve the prosecution of its primary obligation to prove the

guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. However, once the

prosecution establishes the foundational facts indicating the

involvement of the accused, the accused cannot avoid furnishing

an explanation regarding facts which are particularly within his

knowledge. In the present case, the appellant, being the husband

of the deceased and the person who was present with her inside

the house at the relevant time, was expected to explain the

circumstances in which the deceased caught fire and sustained

fatal injuries. His failure to offer any reasonable explanation,

coupled with his conduct immediately after the occurrence,

provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances against

him. Therefore, the learned Trial Court has rightly applied the

principle embodied under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.

51.Upon an overall, cumulative and holistic appreciation of the entire

oral, documentary and scientific evidence available on record, this

Court finds that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution

have been duly established and, when considered collectively,

they form a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances

pointing towards the guilt of the appellant.

52.Firstly, the unnatural death of the deceased Kirti Meshram stands

27

firmly established through the evidence of the medical witnesses.

Dr. Anil Saraf (PW-16), Dr. B.K. Nayak (PW-19) and Dr. Amit

Singh (PW-20) have consistently stated that the deceased had

suffered extensive burn injuries and was not in a condition to give

any statement. The deceased ultimately succumbed to the said

injuries during treatment at CIMS Hospital, Bilaspur. The nature

and extent of the injuries, coupled with the circumstances in which

the deceased was found, rule out the possibility of a normal or

accidental occurrence.

53.Secondly, it is established from the evidence of Fagni Bai (PW-

02), Nain Singh (PW-01), Mahattar Singh Maravi (PW-05), Kirti

Kumar Maravi (PW-07), Devendra Kumar (PW-08) and Lalit Raj

(PW-10) that the incident occurred inside the residential house of

the appellant. The evidence further establishes that immediately

before the occurrence, the appellant was present inside the house

with his wife and thereafter the deceased was found in a burnt

condition inside the said house. The appellant has failed to

explain the circumstances in which such an incident occurred

inside his own house.

54.Thirdly, the evidence of Nain Singh (PW-01) and other

independent witnesses establishes the conduct of the appellant

immediately before and after the occurrence. Fagni Bai (PW-02)

informed Nain Singh that the appellant was assaulting his wife

and was taking her towards the well after tying her. When Nain

28

Singh and other villagers reached the spot, the deceased was

found burning inside the house. The appellant had closed the

door from inside and prevented the witnesses from entering. After

the door was broken open, the deceased was found lying burnt on

the floor and the appellant was present there. Such conduct of the

appellant immediately after the occurrence is a highly

incriminating circumstance against him.

55.Fourthly, the prosecution has established that the appellant made

an incriminating admission immediately after the incident. Nain

Singh (PW-01) has stated that when he questioned the appellant

as to what he had done, the appellant replied that “a mistake had

occurred”. Similarly, Kotwar Shatrughan Das (PW-13) also stated

that while taking the appellant to the police station, the appellant

was repeatedly saying that “a mistake had occurred”. Such

statements made immediately after the occurrence by the

appellant himself lend further assurance to the prosecution case.

56.Fifthly, the evidence of the prosecution witnesses establishes the

conduct of the appellant after the occurrence. The appellant not

only closed the door from inside and attempted to prevent the

villagers from entering the house, but also threatened the persons

who came for rescue and subsequently attempted to escape from

the spot by breaking the roof of the house. Such conduct is wholly

inconsistent with the conduct of an innocent person and is a

relevant circumstance under Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act.

29

57.Sixthly, despite all these incriminating circumstances being

specifically put to the appellant during his examination under

Section 313 Cr.P.C., he failed to provide any plausible explanation

regarding the death of his wife inside the house. His mere denial

of the prosecution case and plea of false implication cannot be

accepted in view of the overwhelming circumstances established

against him. The defence version that the deceased accidentally

caught fire while cooking has not been substantiated by any

evidence and stands completely contradicted by the testimony of

the witnesses who immediately reached the spot and found the

deceased with her hands tied and a kerosene container lying

nearby.

58.Lastly, the present case squarely attracts the principle embodied

under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The circumstances

leading to the death of the deceased inside the residential house

were especially within the knowledge of the appellant, as he was

the husband of the deceased and was present with her

immediately before the occurrence. Once the prosecution

established that the deceased suffered an unnatural death inside

the appellant's house and no possibility of intervention by any

outsider was established, the appellant was required to explain

the manner in which the deceased sustained such fatal burn

injuries. His failure to do so constitutes an additional incriminating

circumstance against him.

30

59.Thus, when all the aforesaid circumstances are considered

collectively and in their cumulative effect, they form a complete,

coherent and unbroken chain of circumstances leading to the

irresistible conclusion that the appellant and none else was

responsible for causing the death of his wife Kirti Meshram. The

circumstances proved by the prosecution, namely, the presence

of the appellant at the place of occurrence, the deceased being

found burnt inside the appellant's house, the conduct of the

appellant in preventing the witnesses from entering the room, his

subsequent attempt to flee, his incriminating admissions, recovery

of articles pursuant to his memorandum statement and his failure

to explain the circumstances within his special knowledge, are

wholly inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant.

60.In view of the foregoing discussion and upon careful scrutiny of

the entire evidence available on record, this Court is of the

considered opinion that the learned Trial Court has correctly

appreciated the oral and documentary evidence in its proper

perspective and has rightly recorded the conviction of the

appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The

findings recorded by the learned Trial Court are based upon

proper appreciation of evidence and are neither perverse nor

contrary to the settled principles of law. No illegality, infirmity or

miscarriage of justice has been demonstrated so as to warrant

interference with the impugned judgment of conviction and order

of sentence in the present appeal.

31

61.Accordingly, the criminal appeal preferred by the appellant fails

and is hereby dismissed.

62.The judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated

03.11.2025 passed by the learned First Additional Sessions

Judge, Katghora, District Korba (C.G.) in Sessions Case No. 50 of

2020, convicting the appellant for the offence punishable under

Section 302 of the IPC, is hereby affirmed.

63.It is stated at the Bar that the appellant is presently lodged in jail,

he shall continue to remain in custody and shall serve out the

sentence as awarded to him by the learned trial Court.

64.Registry is directed to send a copy of this judgment to the

concerned Superintendent of Jail where the appellant is

undergoing his jail sentence 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.

65.Let a certified copy of this order alongwith the original record be

transmitted to trial Court concerned forthwith for necessary

information and action, if any.

Sd/- Sd/-

(Ravindra Kumar Agrawal) (Ramesh Sinha)

Judge Chief Justice

Anu