2026:JHHC:30928-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 626 of 2016

[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated

21.11.2015 passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial

No.202 of 2012 (arising out of Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 11 of 2012)]

--------

Ugan Das, son of Prasadi Das, resident of Topchanchi, P.O.-Kathratand, P.S.-

Topchanchi, District-Dhanbad (Jharkhand)

... ... Appellant

Versus

The State of Jharkhand … … Respondent

-----

P R E S E N T

SRI ANANDA SEN, J.

SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.

--------

For the Appellant : Ms. Swati Shalini, Advocate

For the State : Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, A.P.P.

--------

JUDGMENT

C.A.V. on 28.09.2026 Pronounced on 15/10/2026

Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:

1. We have heard the arguments of Ms. Swati Shalini, learned counsel

for the appellant and Mr. Rajneesh Vardhan, learned A.P.P. for the

State.

2. The instant criminal appeal is preferred by above named sole

appellant challenging his conviction and sentence dated 21.11.2015,

passed by learned Sessions Judge, Dhanbad in Sessions Trial No.

202 of 2012 (arising out of Topchanchi P.S. Case No. 11 of 2012,

G.R. Case No. 406 of 2012) whereby and whereunder the appellant

has been convicted for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life along with fine of

Rs.20,000/- with default stipulation.

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

2

Factual Matrix:-

3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a narrow compass is that

Chinta Devi (deceased) was married with the present appellant prior

to 12 years from the date of lodging the F.I.R., i.e., on 04.02.2012.

Both were blessed with two sons out of their wedlock presently aged

about 10 years and 8 years respectively. It is alleged that on

04.02.2012 at about 06:00 A.M., brother of the accused, namely

Buddhan Das informed him that his son-in-law was quarrelling with

his daughter and they should come immediately. The informant

along with his family members went to the matrimonial home of his

daughter and saw her mutilated dead body lying inside the house.

The accused (son-in-law of the informant) was pacing there with a

blood stained axe. The elder brother of the accused, namely Buddhan

Das snatched away the axe then informant could manage to enter

inside the house. Subsequently, police was informed and arrived at

the place of occurrence, arrested the accused and seized the murder

weapon.

4. A written report of the occurrence was lodged by Raghu Das against

his son-in-law (appellant) for causing murder of his daughter.

Accordingly, F.I.R. was registered for the offence under Section 302

of the I.P.C.

5. After investigation, sufficient evidence was found against the

appellant and charge-sheet was submitted against him for the offence

under Section 302 of the I.P.C.

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

3

6. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of

Sessions, where Sessions Trial No. 202 of 2012 was registered. The

accused did not plead guilty and claimed to the tried.

7. In the course of trial, altogether seven witnesses were examined by

prosecution. P.W.1, Baidyanath Ravidas and P.W.6, Kritiwas

Pandey are witnesses of seizure list, P.W.2 Raghu Das is the

informant, P.W.3, Dinesh Kumar Das and P.W.4, Shanti Devi are

brother and mother of the deceased respectively, P.W.5, Dr.

Shailendra Kumar has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the

deceased and P.W.7, S.I., Ajay Kumar is the I.O. of the case.

Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following

documentary evidence has been adduced.

Exhibit-1-Signature of Baidyanath Ravidas on seizure list.

Exhibit-1/1-Signature of Kritiwas Pandey on seizure list.

Exhibit-2-Written report

Exhibit-2/1-Signature of Kritiwas Pandey on written report

Exhibit-3-Signature of Raghu Das on inquest report

Exhibit-4-Post mortem report

Exhibit-5-Formal F.I.R.

Exhibit-6-Inquest report

Exhibit-7-Seizure list

8. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been

adduced by defence. The case of defence is false implication and

plea of innocence.

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

4

9. The learned Trial Court evaluating the oral as well as documentary

evidence available on record arrived at definite conclusion that the

prosecution has proved that at the relevant time of occurrence, the

accused was quarrelling with the deceased. The information about

the occurrence was received through elder brother Buddhan Das at

early in the morning. The informant along with his family members

reached at the place of occurrence and saw the accused was pacing

with an axe which was snatched by his brother Buddhan Das and the

dead body of deceased under severe injuries was lying in the room of

the accused under pool of blood. The murder weapon was also

seized and proved by witnesses of seizure list. Therefore,

prosecution has been able to prove the foundational facts showing

culpability of the accused. The accused has offered no explanation as

to how his wife died homicidal death, while living with her in the

same room. Therefore, it was concluded that there are overwhelming

evidence against the accused that he has committed murder of his

own wife. Accordingly, the accused was convicted and sentenced for

the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C., which has been assailed

in this appeal.

Submissions on behalf of the appellant: -

10. Learned counsel for the appellant has strenuously argued, raising the

following main points:-

(i) The case is based on circumstantial evidence alone and no

eye-witness has been examined by prosecution. The chain of

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

5

events proved by the prosecution taken in totality do not point

towards the guilt of the accused.

(ii) The murder weapon was seized by the I.O. lying near the dead

body of deceased. Admittedly, the said weapon was not sent to

Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination to

connect the same with commission of the alleged murder. As

against it, the witnesses says that the same was snatched by

elder brother of the accused, but the said elder brother

Buddhan Das has not been examined by prosecution to prove

the aforesaid facts. The learned Trial Court has ignored the

vital contradictions appearing in the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, namely P.W.s-1, 2, 6 and 7 regarding the seizure

and manner of assault.

(iii) The ocular witnesses have stated that the deceased was

assaulted by using axe, which is a sharp cutting weapon, but

no sharp cut injury has been found on the body of deceased as

depicted in her post-mortem report conducted by P.W.-5, who

has categorically opined that the injuries were caused by

heavy hard and blunt substance.

(iv) The prosecution has failed to prove any motive behind the

occurrence, which is essential to be proved in a case based on

circumstantial evidence.

Therefore, impugned judgment of conviction and

sentence of the appellant is absolutely illegal, beyond the

weight of evidence and based on only suspicion, which never

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

6

culminated into legal proof. Accordingly, fit to be set aside

and appellant is entitled for acquittal from the charge levelled

against him.

11. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon following

reported judgments:-

(i) Ravi versus The State of Punjab SLP (2025) 3 SCC 584

(ii) Kanhaiya Lal versus State of Rajasthan (2014) 4 SCC

715

(iii) Anand Ramachandra Chougule versus Sidarai Laxman

Chougala and others (2019) 8 SCC 50

(iv) Babu versus State of Kerala (2010) 9 SCC 189

(v) Sharad Birdhichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra

(1984) 4 SCC 116

(vi) Nusrat Parween versus State of Jharkhand 2024 SCC

OnLine SC 3683

(vii) Manoj @ Munna versus State of Chhattisgarh 2025

SCC OnLine SC 2858

(viii) Anees versus State Government of N.C.T. (2024) 15

SCC 48

12. In the case of Ravi versus The State of Punjab, the material

witnesses of facts were declared hostile by the prosecution and the

prosecution case was left with the formal witnesses, namely doctor

who conducted autopsy (P.W.5), D.S.P. Bagla Ram (P.W.6), who

registered the Zero F.I.R. and Inspector Rachhpal Singh (P.W.4),

who registered the formal F.I.R. and Inspector Amolak Singh

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

7

(P.W.-7), who carried out the investigation. It was also held in that

case that the cause of death as per opinion of the doctor was also

doubtful inasmuch as ligature marks found on the dead body could

be on account of long journey of the dead body and also due to

chronic tuberculosis from which the deceased was suffering.

Therefore, in the instant case, the facts and circumstances as well as

evidence adduced stands on differing footing and does not tally with

the facts and question of law involved in the above case.

13. The case of Kanhaiya Lal versus State of Rajasthan is based on

circumstantial evidence particularly on last seen theory as such also

not helpful in the facts and circumstances of the present case.

14. In the case of Anand Ramachandra Chougule versus Sidarai

Laxman Chougala and others relied upon by the appellant at para

10 of the judgment, Hon’ble Apex Court has held as under:-

“10. The burden lies on the prosecution to prove the allegations

beyond all reasonable doubt. In contradistinction to the same,

the accused has only to create a doubt about the prosecution

case and the probability of its defence. An accused is not

required to establish or prove his defence beyond all reasonable

doubt, unlike the prosecution. If the accused takes a defence,

which is not improbable and appears likely, there is material in

support of such defence, the accused is not required to prove

anything further. The benefit of doubt must follow unless the

prosecution is able to prove its case beyond all reasonable

doubt.

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

8

It was further held that the fact that a defence may not have been

taken by an accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. again cannot absolve the

prosecution from proving its case beyond all reasonable doubt. If there are

materials which the prosecution is unable to answer, the weakness in the

defence taken cannot become the strength of the prosecution to claim that

in the circumstances it was not required to prove anything. The

prosecution must stand or fall on its own feet. It cannot draw support from

the weakness of the case of the accused, if it has not proved its case

beyond reasonable doubt.

15. Babu versus State of Kerala is also based upon circumstantial

evidence wherein the husband was indicted for murder of his wife by

administration of poison. The factual aspect of this case is also not

inconsonance with the facts and circumstances of the present case.

The appellant has relied upon this citation showing importance of

motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence which is a

factor that weighs in favour of the accused.

16. Sharad Birdhichand Sarda versus State of Maharashtra is also

based upon circumstantial evidence where death was caused by

poison.

Submissions on behalf of the State: -

17. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. for the State has submitted that

prosecution has proved the foundational facts leading to reasonable

inference about commission of murder of his own wife by the

appellant. Therefore, the principles of law under Section 106 of the

Indian Evidence Act, corresponding to Section 109 of the Bharatiya

Sakshya Adhiniyam is squarely applicable in this case. The appellant

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

9

has offered no explanation at all as to how and under what

circumstances his wife died homicidal death in her own room, while

in presence of the appellant at the time of occurrence. The

prosecution has established that just prior to occurrence, the

appellant was quarrelling with his wife and thereafter, inflicted

injuries to her. The matter was immediately communicated by none-

else, but the elder brother of the appellant to the informant, who

arrived along with his family members at the place of occurrence.

The dead body of the deceased was found sustaining severe injuries

and the appellant was also pacing with tangi inside the house. The

cause of death is also proved to be fatal injuries given by hard object.

Mere non-examination of elder brother of the appellant, namely

Buddhan Das is not sufficient to discard the evidence of prosecution

witnesses, who arrived at the place of occurrence upon his

information. The defence has not cross-examined the witnesses on

the point that they were not informed by Buddhan Das about the

occurrence or Buddhan Das was also not present in the house at the

relevant time. Under such circumstances, the learned Trial Court has

very wisely and aptly held the appellant guilty for the offence of

murder of his own wife, which suffers from no illegality or infirmity

calling for any interference in this appeal, which is devoid of merits

and fit to be dismissed.

18. We have gone through the record of the case along with the

impugned judgment and order in the light of contentions raised on

behalf of the both side.

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

10

19. The only point for determination in this appeal is that “as to

whether the impugned judgment and order of conviction and

sentence of the appellant passed by learned trial court suffers

from any error of law calling for any interference in this

appeal?”

Analysis, discussions and reasons:-

20. Before delving upon to adjudicate the above point, it appears

pertinent to take brief resume of evidence available on record.

P.W.1-Baidyanath Ravidas is the uncle of the deceased.

According to his evidence, he, after receiving information about

murder of his niece, went to her matrimonial home and saw the dead

body lying in the house in severe injured condition at different parts

of her body and the accused was wondering in the house with the

tangi. He further states that Ugan Das (appellant) was apprehended

with the assistance of local villagers and was handed over to the

police. He is also witness of seizure list of blood stained axe and has

proved his signature as Ext.1.

In his cross-examination, he admits the cordial relationship

between the accused and his wife and both were blessed with two

children.

P.W.2-Raghu Das is the informant. According to his

evidence, on 04.02.2012 at about 6:00 A.M., the elder brother of the

appellant, Buddhan Das has informed him that his son-in-law, Ugan

Das and his daughter, Chinta Devi are quarrelling with each other,

then he rushed towards the matrimonial home of his daughter and

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

11

saw the crowd of people at the door. He saw that the accused, Ugan

Das was walking with an axe, which was snatched by Buddhan Das,

then he went inside the house and saw the dead body of his daughter.

He states that his daughter was killed by her husband Ugan Das by

means of axe blows. There were injuries on her neck and blood was

oozing. The village chowkidar has informed at the police station,

then the police arrived at the place of occurrence. This witness has

submitted written report scribed by his cousin, Lalit Das before the

police, which is proved as Ext.2. The accused, Ugan Das was

handed over to the police. The inquest report was also prepared at

the place of occurrence, which bears his signature marked Ext.3.

In his cross-examination, he admits that he went to the place

of occurrence by his motorcycle, which is at a distance of 6 kms

from his house and reached there at about 6:30 am.

P.W.3-Dinesh Kumar Das is brother of the deceased. He has

also consistently stated that on 04.02.2012 in the morning, Buddhan

Das, the elder brother of the appellant came to his house and told

that Ugan Das is quarrelling with his wife. Thereafter, he along with

his mother and father went to the matrimonial home of his sister

where he saw Ugan Das (appellant) wondering with an axe in his

house, which was snatched by the elder brother of the appellant and

then they went inside the house and saw the dead body of his sister,

Chinta Devi @ Indri Devi. The police also arrived at the place of

occurrence. He further admits that he cannot tell the reason for

commission of murder of his sister by her husband. He further

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

12

admits that the deceased has two children, one is residing with him

and another has gone to his parental house.

In his cross-examination, he reiterates that he does not know

the reason behind the occurrence.

P.W.4-Shanti Devi is mother of the deceased. She has also

reiterated the same thing and stated that after getting information

from Buddhan Das, the elder brother of the appellant, she along with

her husband and son went to the matrimonial home of her daughter

where her son-in-law was pacing with an axe and her daughter was

laying dead sustaining injuries on her neck. She has also failed to

disclose any reason for the incident.

P.W.5-Dr. Shailendra Kumar, who has conducted post-

mortem on the dead body of the deceased, Chinta Devi, has found

following ante-mortem injuries:-

(I) Lacerated wound:-

1/2" x 1/4" bone deep on the left side of lower jaw, where the

jaw was found broken.

(II) Abrasions:-

(a) 5" x 2" on left side of neck just below the lower jaw.

(b) 2" x 1" on the left side of collar bone

(III) Swelling with bruise of red color 10" x 6" on the left

side of face and neck.

Dissection:-

Ecchymosis was found all over the left side of neck with

deposition of blood clots over cervical vertebrae in huge amount.

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

13

Fourth and fifth cervical vertebrae were found fractured,

dislocation of joints, third, fourth, fifth and sixth cervical vertebrae

with laceration of spinal cord at the side blood clots were found on

the spinal cord.

He has opined that the death has occurred due to aforesaid

injuries caused by hard and blunt substance. He has proved the post-

mortem report marked as Ext.4.

P.W.6-Kritiwas Pandey is another seizure list witness.

According to his evidence, on 04.02.2012 at about 06:00 am, the

blood stained axe was seized by the police from the house of Ugan

Das (appellant) and the seizure list was prepared in his presence at

the place of occurrence, which bears his signature marked Ext.1/1.

He has also proved the signature on written report as Ext.2/1.

In his cross-examination, he admits that the seized axe has not

been produced before him. He resides at a distance of 2 kms from

the place of occurrence. He has denied the suggestion of defence that

nothing was seized in his presence and he has signed on seizure list

in police station.

P.W.7-S.I. Ajay Kumar is the Investigating Officer of this

case. He assumed the charge of investigation of this case on

direction of Officer-in-Charge of Topchanchi P.S., namely, Shankar

Kamto. He has proved the formal FIR as Ext.5. Inquest report of the

deceased was prepared in presence of the witnesses as Ext.6. In

course of investigation, he has recorded the restatement of the

informant and visited the place of occurrence. He has further proved

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

14

the place of occurrence, which is situated in village Kharni, Kathal

Tand. The house of Prasadi Das is consisting of two rooms and in

the eastern side room, the dead body of the deceased was found lying

on earth. He has also seized the blood stained tangi from the room of

the accused, where the dead body was lying and prepared the seizure

list in presence of two independent witnesses, which is marked

Ext.7. He has recorded the statement of other witnesses, namely,

Shanti Devi, Dinesh Das, Baidhnath, Ravi Das, Kriti Das, Amrit

Gope, Gehlal Das, Budhan Das etc. and they have supported the

contents of FIR. He arrested the accused, Ugan Das on 04.02.2012

and sent him to judicial custody. After finding sufficient evidence

against the appellant for commission of murder of his own wife, he

has submitted charge-sheet against him for the offence under section

302 of IPC.

In his cross-examination, he admits that the seized blood-

stained tangi was not produced in the court at the time of his

evidence. He also admits that the seized tangi was not sent for

forensic test. He has denied the suggestion of defence that his

investigation is defective and perfunctory and without any evidence,

he has submitted charge-sheet.

21. The accused (appellant) in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C.

has simply denied the circumstances appearing against him and

pleaded his innocence. No any defence has been cropped up in the

cross-examination of the witnesses. The defence has also not

adduced any oral or documentary evidence.

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

15

22. From the aforesaid discussion of evidence of material witnesses,

namely P.W.-1, Baidyanath Ravidas (uncle of the deceased), P.W.2

Raghu Das (informant-cum-father of deceased), P.W.3, Dinesh

Kumar Das (brother of the deceased) and P.W.4, Shanti Devi

(mother of the deceased) it appears that they have consistently stated

that information about the occurrence was given by Buddhan Das

(brother of the appellant) at about 06:00 A.M., on 04.02.2012 and

they proceeded to matrimonial home of the deceased and reached

there at about 06:30 A.M. in the morning.

23. The following facts have been proved by the aforesaid witnesses,

which have not been impeached in their cross-examination.

(i) Information was received from Buddhan Das early in the

morning that a quarrel is going on between appellant and his wife.

(ii) It was also learnt that appellant has assaulted his wife by

means of a tangi.

(iii) The village chowkidar informed about the occurrence at the

police station. The police arrived at the place of occurrence, where

written report of the informant was submitted. The police seized the

weapon of offence (tangi) from the very room, where the dead body

of deceased was lying under pool of blood along with blood stained

soil in presence of witnesses.

(iv) The police also prepared inquest report of the deceased on the

spot.

(v) The accused was arrested by the police on the spot.

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

16

(vi) The presence of the appellant in the intervening night till the

occurrence of murder of his wife in his house is not rebutted nor

there is any plea of the accused that he was not present in his house

on the relevant date and time of occurrence for any reason

whatsoever.

(vii) The accused (appellant) has also not offered any explanation

as to how his wife has died in her matrimonial home, a homicidal

death by inflicting brutal assault on her body, while she was in

custody of the appellant and residing with him.

24. From the aforementioned proved facts and circumstances a

reasonable inference can be drawn against the culpability of the

appellant in commission of murder of his wife.

25. In the case of Anees versus State Government of N.C.T. 2024 SCC

OnLine 757, the Hon’ble Apex Court has elaborately considered the

principles of law governing the applicability of Section 106 of the

Evidence Act and has held that the Court should apply Section 106

of the Evidence Act in the criminal cases with care and caution. The

ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials places the onus on the

prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused, does not, in any way,

stand modified by the provisions contained under Section 106 of the

Evidence Act. The said provision cannot be invoked to make up the

inability of the prosecution to produce the evidence of circumstances

pointing to the guilt of the accused. The said provision cannot be

used to support a conviction unless the prosecution has discharged

the onus by proving all the elements necessary to establish the

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

17

offence. In other words, the prosecution does not stand absolved

from its initial liability to prove the offence and it is only when such

an onus is discharged, a prima facie case of guilt is made out that the

provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act may come into play.

26. In the instant case, the circumstances discussed above appear to be

sufficient to establish a prima facie case of guilt of the appellant for

causing murder of his own wife. Therefore, he cannot keep mum and

explain nothing as to under what circumstances the occurrence took

place and his wife was murdered in his presence.

27. The provision of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act with

illustrations is extracted hereunder :-

“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.

Illustrations

(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than

that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the

burden of proving that intention is upon him.

(b) A is charged with travelling in a railway without a ticket.

The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.”

In the instant case, since the occurrence has taken place in presence

of the appellant and he was also seen with axe which was snatched

from him and produced before the I.O. has not been rebutted by him

by offering any explanation which provides additional link in the

chain of circumstances fortifying the guilt of the appellant. In the

facts and circumstances of the case proving motive behind the

2026:JHHC:30928-DB

18

occurrence is not an essential link of chain to arrive at conclusive

conclusion about guilt of the appellant and not sufficient to cast any

doubt on prosecution story.

28. In view of the totality of circumstances brought on record, we are of

the definite opinion that the prosecution has proved the guilt of the

appellant beyond all shadow of reasonable doubt.

29. We don’t find any error of law in the impugned judgment and order

of conviction and sentence passed by learned Trial Court against the

appellant. The citations relied upon on behalf of appellant are also

not helpful to his defence. Therefore, we don’t find any merit in this

appeal which stands dismissed.

30. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of.

31. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court record be sent

back to the concerned court for information and needful.

(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)

Ananda Sen, J: I Agree

(Ananda Sen, J.)

Jharkhand High Court

Dated 15/10/2026

Arpit/ N. A. F. R.

Uploaded on 15/10/2026