IN THE HIGH COURT OF UTTARAKHAND

AT NAINITAL

Criminal Jail Appeal No. 19 of 2019

Roshan Lal …… Appellant

Vs.

State of Uttarakhand

……Respondent

Presence:

Mr. Vishwa Prakash Bahuguna, learned Amicus Curiae for the

appellant.

Mr. Pankaj Joshi, learned AGA for the State.

Reserved on : 26.05.2026

Delivered on : 02.06.2026

Coram:

Hon’ble Ravindra Maithani, J.

Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.

(Per: Hon’ble Siddhartha Sah, J.)

Present Criminal Appeal has been preferred against the

judgment and order dated 28/29.11.2018, passed by the court of

learned 1

st

Additional Sessions Judge, Rishikesh, District Dehradun

in Sessions Trial No.19 of 2018, State vs. Roshan Lal, arising out of

Case Crime No.602 of 2017, P.S. Rishikesh, District Dehradun

under Section 302 IPC, whereby the appellant has been convicted

under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and has been sentenced with life

imprisonment and imposed a fine of Rs. 10,000/- and to undergo

2

additional four months simple imprisonment on failure to pay the

fine.

2. The facts of the case are being narrated hereinafter. FIR

dated 01.11.2017 was lodged by the PW1 Deepak Sarkar alleging

that he, along with his parents and family members, resides on rent

in the house of Govind Mandal at Mayakund. His younger sister,

Rupa, was residing along with her husband, the appellant Roshan

Lal, and their daughter in a rented house belonging to Harish

Khanduri at Chandeshwar Nagar. It was alleged that the appellant

regularly assaulted his sister. On the previous night, the appellant

allegedly murdered his wife Rupa by strangulating her neck. The

said report was registered as FIR No. 602 of 2017 at Police Station

Rishikesh, District Dehradun, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal

Code. The FIR was entered at Police Station Rishikesh vide GD

Entry No. 013 dated 01.11.2017 at 7:19 a.m. Following the

registration of the FIR, an inquest report dated 01.11.2017 was

prepared, wherein the opinion of the panch witnesses was that the

death of the deceased Rupa had occurred due to strangulation of

the neck. The police also arrested the appellant at 10:10 a.m., and

the arrest information memo was given to landlord Harish

Khanduri. The police also recovered a clutch/break wire from the

rented house of Harish Khanduri in Chandeshwar Nagar in which

the appellant and the deceased were residing. The appellant

confessed to having committed murder from that wire. The said

wire was taken into possession in the presence of witnesses, sealed,

and a recovery memo was prepared at 10:15 a.m.

3. It is pertinent to mention that, GD Entry No. 10 dated

01.11.2017 at 4:35 a.m. records the information given by the

appellant at Police Station Rishikesh that he had murdered his wife

3

Rupa by strangulating her with a wire. Vide G.D. Entry No. 031, the

appellant was entered in Thana on 01.11.2017 along with the sealed

bundle containing clutch wire, sample seal and arrest memo. The

post-mortem examination on the body of Smt. Rupa was conducted

at S.P.S. Government Hospital, Rishikesh, at 3:30 p.m. on

01.11.2017, wherein rigor mortis was found present all over the

body. Bleeding was found from the nose and right ear. Signs of

struggle were also found. Multiple contusions and lacerations were

present on the face and neck of the deceased. A ligature mark

extending around the entire neck was also found. The cause of

death was opined to be asphyxia due to strangulation.

4. Upon completion of the investigation, a chargesheet dated

18.12.2017 was submitted in the court under Section 302 IPC. The

case was registered as Sessions Trial No.19 of 2018 and charge

under Section 302 IPC was framed against the appellant vide order

dated 21.04.2018 passed by the learned Ist Additional District &

Sessions Judge, Rishikesh. The appellant denied the charge and

claimed trial.

5. In order to prove its case, the prosecution examined ten

witnesses, namely, PW1, Deepak Sarkar, PW2, Harish Khanduri,

PW3, Dr. Vijayesh Bhardwaj, PW4, Constable Shankar Singh, PW5,

Geeta Sarkar, PW6, Babu Ram, PW7, S.I. Mukesh Negi, PW8, T ipu

Sultan, PW9, S.I. Raghuvir Singh and PW10, S.I. Vijay Bharti.

6. After the prosecution evidence, the appellant was

examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure,

1973 (“the Code”). According to him, the prosecution case is false

and he is innocent and his wife has committed suicide. The

4

appellant examined himself as DW1 & deposed that deceased had

committed suicide.

7. After hearing the parties, by the impugned judgment and

order, the appellant has been convicted and sentenced, as stated

hereinbefore. Aggrieved, the appellant has preferred the instant

appeal.

8. Heard learned counsel for the parties and perused the

record.

9. Learned Amicus Curiae for the appellant submitted that

the prosecution has failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt

and that the learned trial court has erred in convicting and

sentencing the appellant. It was contended that the appellant has

been in custody since 01.11.2017 and has already undergone

approximately eight years of incarceration, including the period

during trial and pendency of proceedings. It was further argued that

the marriage between the appellant and the deceased was a love

marriage solemnized against the wishes of the deceased’s family

members, due to which they were hostile towards the appellant. On

account of such enmity, a false FIR has been lodged against him.

Learned Amicus Curiae further submitted that at the time of the

incident, only the minor daughter of the deceased was present in the

house and there is no direct evidence connecting the appellant with

the alleged offence.

10 It is further submitted by learned Amicus Curiae that

although the prosecution alleged that a quarrel had taken place

between the husband and wife prior to the incident, no reliable

evidence has been produced to substantiate the same. It was

contended that the circumstances do not conclusively establish

5

homicidal death and that the possibility of suicide has not been

ruled out. It was further argued that the prosecution has improperly

invoked Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (“the Evidence

Act”) and wrongly shifted the burden upon the appellant to explain

the circumstances of death. It has been further contended that mere

failure of the appellant to satisfactorily explain the death cannot by

itself form the basis of conviction. It was further submitted that

prior to the incident, the deceased had left the matrimonial home for

a long time and she returned only on 30.10.2017. The deceased had

committed suicide and the appellant is innocent.

11. The learned Amicus Curiae further argued that GD Entry

No. 10, allegedly recording the confession of the appellant, is

inadmissible in evidence. He emphasized that there is no eye-

witness of the occurrence and relied upon the testimony of PW-1,

the landlord, in support of the defence case. It was also contended

that the alleged weapon of offence, namely the wire allegedly used

for strangulation, was never sent for forensic examination to the

FSL. Therefore, the prosecution case, being entirely based on

circumstantial evidence, suffers from an incomplete chain of

circumstances and does not satisfy the settled principles governing

conviction in a case based solely on circumstantial evidence. On

these grounds, it was prayed that the appellant be acquitted and the

impugned judgment and order passed by the learned trial court be

set aside.

12. Per contra, learned counsel appearing for the State

supported the impugned judgment and order passed by the learned

trial court and submitted that the prosecution has successfully

established the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt. It

was contended that there existed a clear motive for the commission

6

of the offence. Referring to the testimonies of PW-1 and PW-5,

learned counsel submitted that the appellant used to suspect the

character of the deceased, which often resulted in quarrels between

them. PW-2, the landlord, has also categorically stated that frequent

quarrels used to take place between the husband and wife. Learned

counsel further submitted that although the deceased had gone to

her parental home, she had returned to the matrimonial home on

30.10.2017. Thereafter, in the early morning of 01.11.2017, the

police informed the landlord that the appellant had murdered his

wife by strangulating her with a wire. It was also argued that the

neighbours, including PW-6, have corroborated the prosecution

version regarding the regular quarrels between the husband and

wife. The medical evidence, particularly the ligature marks found on

the neck of the deceased, clearly establishes death by strangulation

and rules out the possibility of suicide.

13. Learned counsel for the State further submitted that since

the deceased and the appellant were residing together in the

matrimonial home, the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence

Act squarely lay upon the appellant to explain the circumstances in

which the deceased died. However, the appellant failed to discharge

the said burden or offer any plausible explanation regarding the

homicidal death of his wife inside the house. On the aforesaid

grounds, learned counsel for the State submitted that the

prosecution has proved a complete chain of circumstances pointing

only towards the guilt of the appellant and that the learned trial

court has committed no illegality or error in convicting the appellant

under Section 302 of the IPC.

14. Before appreciating the arguments, it would be

appropriate to examine the statements made by the witnesses. The

7

informant, Deepak Sarkar, was examined as PW1. He deposed that

Rupa was his younger sister, who had married the appellant of her

own free will about three years ago. From the wedlock, they had a

daughter and were residing together at Chandreshwar Nagar in the

house of Harish Khanduri. The appellant used to quarrel with Rupa,

as he was suspicious of her character. On 30.10.2017, at about

5:30 p.m., Rupa came to the house of PW1 and informed him that

the appellant had beaten her and was doubting her character.

Thereafter, Rupa returned to Chandreshwar Nagar on the same

evening. On the morning of 01.11.2017, at about 5:00–5:30 a.m.,

police officials from Police Station Rishikesh came to their house

and asked him to accompany them to Chandreshwar Nagar. He

went there along with the police. The police were present at the

house of Harish Khanduriji, PW1 went with the police to the room of

his sister Rupa and saw her lying dead with marks on her neck. The

appellant, who was present in Court, was also present there. When

PW1 asked the appellant why he had murdered his sister, the

appellant replied that Rupa was characterless and did not pay heed

to him. Thereafter, PW1 lodged the report of the incident against the

appellant at the police station and proved the FIR submitted by him,

which was marked as Ex. A-1. The police also took possession of the

wire from the spot at the instance of the appellant. PW1 identified

his signatures on the inquest report, which was marked as Ex. A-2.

The witness was cross-examined at length.

15. PW2, Harish Khanduri, the landlord of the house in which

the deceased and the appellant were residing at Chandeshwar

Nagar, was examined as PW2. He deposed that he had let out a

room on rent to the appellant, his wife, and their daughter.

According to the witness, on 30.10.2017, a quarrel had taken place

between the husband and wife. In the morning of 01.11.2017, the

8

police came to his house and woke him up. The police informed him

that the appellant had himself gone to the police station and

informed them that he had murdered his wife by strangulating her

neck. The witness further deposed that the police recovered a wire

from the room of the appellant at his instance and sealed the same

in his presence. He had signed the recovery memo and identified his

signatures thereon, which was marked as Ex. A-3. The police also

prepared the inquest report, which was signed by him, and he

identified his signatures on the same. The witness further identified

his signatures on the cloth bundle, which was opened in Court,

from which a wire was taken out. The witness stated that the said

wire had been recovered at the instance of the appellant. The wire

was marked as Material Ex-1, the white plastic bag (panni) as

Material Ex-2, the cloth bundle as Material Ex-3, and the sample

seal as Material Ex-4.

16 PW3, Dr. Vijesh Bhardwaj, who conducted the post-

mortem examination of the deceased, deposed that the body of the

deceased bore clear signs of strangulation and struggle. He stated

that the face of the deceased had turned blue, bleeding was present

from the nose and right ear, and multiple abrasions, bruises, and

cut injuries were found on the face, neck, chest, and other parts of

the body. A deep ligature mark was found encircling the neck, with

compression of the underlying arteries. In his opinion, the death

had occurred approximately 12 hours prior to the post-mortem due

to asphyxia caused by strangulation, and the probable time of death

was between 3:00 a.m. and 4:00 a.m. on 01.11.2017. The witness

proved the post-mortem report prepared by him which was marked

as Ex.A3 and further opined that the ligature mark could have been

caused by the wire marked as Material Exhibit-1.

9

17. PW4, Constable Shankar Singh, was posted at Thana

office from 20:00 hours (8:00 p.m.) on 31.10.2017 till 8:14 a.m. on

01.11.2017. He brought the printout of the GD entries recorded

from 20:00 hours on 31.10.2017 till 01.11.2017. The GD entries

had been made by him and were proved and marked as Ex. A4/1 to

Ex. A4/11. On 01.11.2017, the appellant came to the Police Station

and informed that he had killed his wife Rupa by strangulating her

neck. The said information was entered by the witness vide GD

Entry No. 10 at 4:35 a.m. in the computer. On the basis of the

report submitted by Deepak Sarkar, he registered Case Crime No.

602/17 under Section 302 IPC in the computer, which was signed

by In-charge Inspector Praveen Koshyari. The witness identified the

signatures of Praveen Koshyari, and the same was marked as Ex.

A5. The said case was entered in GD Entry No. 13 at 7:19 a.m., the

printout whereof was taken from the computer and signed by

Praveen Koshyari, and was marked as Ex. A6.

18. PW5, Geeta Sarkar, mother of the deceased Rupa,

reiterated the version of PW1 Deepak Sarkar.

19. PW6, Babu Ram, who was a tenant in the house of Harish

Khanduri, stated that the appellant and the deceased were residing

in the house of Hari sh Khanduri along with their daughter and that

quarrels frequently took place between them. He further stated that

whenever he returned from work in the evening, he used to hear

sounds of quarrelling from their room. Upon inquiry by the police

personnel, the appellant had stated that he had killed Rupa by

strangulating her neck with a wire.

20. PW7, SI Mukesh Negi, had prepared the inquest report

and also proved the photo nash, police Form No. 13, Paper 10 Kha,

10

and the application for sample seal prepared by him, which were

marked as Ex. 7, Ex. 8, Ex. 9, and Ex. 10 respectively.

21. PW8, Tipu Sultan another tenant of Harish Khanduri and

neibhour, deposed on similar lines as PW6. He too was a panch

witness of panchayatnama .

22. PW9, S.I. Raghuvir Singh was posted at Kotwali Roorkee

on the night intervening 31.10.2017 and 01.11.2017. At about 4:35

a.m., Munshi Rehan Lal came to him and informed him about the

commission of the murder of a woman by strangulation. Thereafter,

he proceeded to the place of occurrence along with other police

personnel.

23. PW10, SI Vijay Bharti, was posted as Sub-Inspector at

P.S. Rishikesh on 01.11.2017 and was the Investigating Officer in

the case. He deposed that, upon receiving the report, he commenced

the investigation and proceeded to the place of occurrence along

with the police party. At the instance of the informant, he prepared

the site plan, which was marked as Ex. 11. He also recorded the

statements of the neighbours and arrested the appellant at 10:10

hours, for which an arrest memo was prepared and was marked as

Ex. 12. The witness further deposed that the appellant pointed out

the wire allegedly used in the commission of the offence, which was

taken into possession in the presence of witnesses. Thereafter, the

clothes and other materials belonging to the appellant were seized,

and the statement of the appellant was recorded. On 02.11.2017,

the statements of witnesses were also recorded. The witness further

stated that he had recorded the General Diary entries, prepared the

panchayatnama/inquest report, and recorded the same in the case

diary. Nothing material could be elicited in the cross-examination.

11

24. It is apt to mention that in the case of Godabarish Mishra

vs. Kuntala Mishra and another, reported in (1996) 11 SCC 264, the

Hon’ble Supreme Court observed that suicide by self-strangulation

is ordinarily not possible unless some contrivance is used to

maintain pressure on the neck till death. The relevant paragraph of

the said judgment is extracted hereinunder:-

“26. It may also be indicated here that both in Modi's

book on medical jurisprudence and Taylor's book on

medical jurisprudence, it has been categorically stated

that for committing suicide by self-strangulation, the aid of

a contrivance to maintain force till death is got to be

taken, otherwise, it is not possible to maintain the force

required. The absence of such contrivance clearly rules out

any possibility of suicide by self-strangulation. In the

aforesaid fact, excepting the accused no other person had

any opportunity whatsoever to cause the murder of the

deceased. The circumstantial evidence in this case are

absolutely clinching in establishing the complicity of the

accused in committing the murder of the deceased. The

view taken by the High Court is clearly against the weight

of the evidence and cannot be held to be a possible view

which could have been taken.”

25. The medical evidence adduced by PW3 clearly proves that

the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The nature of

injuries and the ligature marks found on the neck of the deceased

negate the theory of suicide. In this regard, the law laid down by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court in Godabarish Mishra (supra) squarely

applies, wherein it was held that suicide by self-strangulation is not

possible in the absence of any contrivance to maintain force till

12

death. No such contrivance was found in the present case.

Therefore, the theory of suicide is wholly untenable.

26. Though the GD Entry No.10 would not be admissible

against the appellant but the evidence of PW2, PW4 and PW6

indicates that the appellant himself disclosed before the police and

witnesses that he had strangulated his wife with a wire. The

recovery of the wire at the instance of the appellant also stands duly

proved. Merely because the wire was not sent to the FSL does not

demolish the otherwise cogent and reliable prosecution case,

particularly when the medical evidence fully corroborates the

prosecution version.

27. The contention regarding inadmissibility of GD Entry

No.10 or absence of eye-witnesses is also of no assistance to the

appellant, as the present case is based on circumstantial evidence

and the circumstances proved by the prosecution form a complete

and unbroken chain leading only to the hypothesis of guilt of the

appellant. The appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation

regarding the homicidal death of his wife inside the matrimonial

home, especially when both were residing together. Consequently,

the presumption under Section 106 of the Evidence Act also

operates against the appellant.

28. The plea taken by the appellant that the deceased

committed suicide due to harassment by her parental family is not

supported by any reliable evidence. On the contrary, the consistent

testimony of the prosecution witnesses, coupled with the medical

evidence and the conduct of the appellant, clearly establish that the

deceased died a homicidal death at the hands of the appellant.

13

29. The contentions raised on behalf of the appellant that no

reliable evidence has been produced to substantiate the quarrel

between the husband and wife prior to the incident also cannot be

accepted, since the landlord and the other neighbours have made

consistent statements regarding quarrels between the husband and

wife. Thus, the contentions raised on behalf of the learned Amicus

Curiae are, by and large, not acceptable.

30. Thus, from the aforesaid, the following facts are clear and

evident:

(i). The appellant and the deceased along with daughter

were residing in the rented accommodation of Harish

Khanduri at Chandreshwar Nagar, Rishikesh.

(ii). The deceased had returned to the matrimonial home

on 30.10.2017.

(iii). In the early hours of 01.11.2017 the police reached

the matrimonial home at Chandreshwar Nagar, where the

dead body of the deceased was found lying in the rented

room where the appellant, the deceased, and their

daughter used to reside.

(iv). The wire, which was the mode of offence, was

recovered at the pointing out of the appellant and was

taken into possession in the presence of witnesses, and a

recovery memo was prepared.

(v). The FIR was lodged promptly on 01.11.2017 at 7:19

a.m. and clearly mentions the past quarrels between the

14

deceased and the appellant. It also mentions that the

appellant had murdered Rupa by strangulating her neck.

(vi). The postmortem examination was conducted on the

same day at 3:30 p.m. Inter alia, strangulation marks and

ligature marks extending around the entire neck were

found and marks of struggle were found on the body, and

the cause of death was opined to be asphyxia due to

strangulation.

(vii). The prosecution witnesses have been consistent in

their testimony regarding the appellant being found in the

matrimonial home after the incident and have also stated

that he admitted his guilt of committing the murder by

strangulation.

31. Thus, from the above, it is clear that though the present

case is based on circumstantial evidence, the chain of

circumstances is clinching and complete, and it points towards the

hypothesis that the crime was committed by none other than the

appellant. The said chain is complete and satisfies the five

Panchsheel principles as enunciated by the Hon’ble Supreme Court

in the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra,

(1984) 4 SCC 116.

32. Upon appreciation of the entire evidence available on

record, this Court finds no infirmity or illegality in the judgment and

order passed by the learned trial court convicting the appellant

under Section 302 IPC. The prosecution has successfully

established a complete chain of circumstances pointing unerringly

towards the guilt of the appellant. The testimonies of PW1, PW2,

PW5, PW6 and PW8 consistently establish that frequent quarrels

15

used to take place between the deceased and the appellant,

primarily on account of the appellant suspecting the character of

the deceased, thereby furnishing a clear motive for the commission

of the offence. The evidence further establishes that the deceased

and the appellant were residing together in the matrimonial home at

the relevant point of time and the deceased was found dead inside

the house with ligature marks on her neck.

33. Accordingly, this Court is of the considered opinion that

the prosecution has proved the charge against the appellant beyond

reasonable doubt. The findings recorded by the learned trial court

are based on proper appreciation of evidence on record and do not

warrant any interference by this Court. The appeal, being devoid of

merit, is liable to be dismissed and is accordingly dismissed.

34 The records be transmitted to the court concerned.

(Siddhartha Sah, J.) (Ravindra Maithani, J.)

02.06. 2026 02.06.2026

BS