BUDHU PURTY ALIAS BUDHRAM PURTY vs THE STATE OF JHARKHAND

2026:JHHC:31174-DB

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI

Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No.420 of 2019
------
( Arising out of judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated
29.06.2018 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge-III, West
Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S. T. No.60 of 2014 )

------
Budhu Purty @ Budhram Purty, S/o Late Muniram Purty, R/o Village-
Temra, PO-Manoharpur, P.S-Manoharpur (Chiria), District West
Singhbhum
… … … Appellant(s)
Versus
The State of Jharkhand. … … … Respondent(s)

------
PRESENT : SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
: SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
------

For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Shiv Prasad Singh, Advocate
For the State : Mr. Rajesh Kumar, AddI. PP
------

J U D G M E N T
By Court, :
th
26 October, 2026

This Criminal Appeal is preferred on behalf of the appellant
being aggrieved by the impugned judgment of conviction and order
of sentence dated 29.06.2018, passed by learned Additional Sessions
Judge-III, West Singhbhum at Chaibasa, in S.T. No.60 of 2014,
whereby and wherein the appellant has been convicted for offences
under Section 302 of I.P.C. He was sentenced to undergo
imprisonment for life and fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under
Section 302 of I.P.C. and in default of payment of fine, he will
undergo simple imprisonment of one year.
2. We have heard, learned counsel representing the appellant and
1

2026:JHHC:31174-DB

learned AddI. P.P. representing the State and perused the material
available on record.
3. Learned counsel representing the appellant, submits that there
is no eye-witness to the said occurrence and there are no materials to
convict this appellant in this case. He submits that the appellant was
not in the house at the relevant point of time and has gone to the
jungle, which is apparent from his statement recorded under Section
313 of the Cr.P.C. He also submits that none of the person have seen
the appellant assaulting the deceased and there are three children of
this appellant, but none of them have been produced as prosecution
witnesses. He submits that no confessional statement was recorded by
the police nor there was any recovery of the murder weapon. He
submits that the deceased after consuming liquor had fell down which
resulted in the injury and the death, for which, the appellant cannot be
held guilty for committing offence under Section 302 of IPC. He
submits that the date of occurrence on 17.12.2013 at 2:00 PM and the
post-mortem was conducted on 19.12.2013 at 10:30 AM and thus
timing of the death mentioned by the doctor within 30 hours is not
matching, which creates a doubt in the prosecution case.
4. Learned AddI. P.P. representing the State, oppose and submits
the deceased was the wife of this appellant. The dead body was found
in the house of the appellant. The I.O. who is PW-7 found evidence
of violence in the house. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem
also found several fatal injuries, which cannot be the result of fall after
drinking excess liquor. He submits that the appellant has not proved
his defence that he was at the jungle during the relevant time. He also
submits that the appellant would have easily produce his children as
a defence witness in support of his statement, but he fails to do so. He
lastly submits that the prosecution has proved the guilt of this
2

2026:JHHC:31174-DB

appellant beyond all reasonable doubt.
5. The prosecution case as per the FIR, which is at the instance of
PW-1 is that they received information over phone that his sister has
been killed by the appellant. On receiving the said information, the
informant and other went to the house of this appellant and saw the
dead body lying on a cot and this appellant was sitting beside the
same. They got information that it is this appellant who had
mercilessly assaulted the deceased and committed her murder after
consuming liquor.
6. After registering FIR, investigation was carried out and the
charge-sheet was submitted under Section 302 of IPC against the
appellant and case was committed to the Court of Sessions where
charge was framed.
7. The prosecution has altogether examined eight (8) witnesses,
who are as follows:-
P.W.-1 Lakhand Singh Champia @ Lakhan Champia
P.W.-2- Dr. Mahavir Prasad Gopalika, M.O.
P.W.-3- Muni Champia
P.W.-4- Samu Champia
P.W.-5- Ladura Champia
P.W.-6- Amar Singh Purty
P.W.-7- Pravu Sahay Ekka, I.O.
P.W.-8 Gaji Surin
8. Some documents were also exhibited in this case, which are as
follows:-
Exhibit-1- Signature of PW-2 on the fardbeyan.
Exhibit-1/1- Fardbeyan
Exhibit-1/2- Forwarding in written report of fardbeyan
Exhibit-1/3 Endorsement of Fardbeyan
3

2026:JHHC:31174-DB

Exhibit-2 Inquest report.
Exhibit-2/1 Signature of P.W.-8 on inquest report.
Exhibit-3 Postmortem report.
Exhibit-4 Formal F.I.R.
9. After closure of the prosecution evidence, the appellant was
examined under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., wherein he shown ignorance
about the cause of death and stated that as he had gone to the jungle
at that particular time, as such, he is unaware as to how the death had
occurred. In support of his defence, he did not produce any witnesses.
The Court thereafter convicted the appellant by the impugned
judgment.
10. After hearing the parties, we find that admittedly there are no
eye-witness to the said occurrence.
11. Exhibit-3 is the postmortem report, which has been proved by
P.W.-2 (Doctor). As per the postmortem report, the Doctor found
following injuries:-
Rigor Mortis present in all upper and lower limbs. Eye closed and
hands half closed.
External injuries:-
1. Lacerated wound at right forehead above right eye of 2” x 1” X deep
bone. Blood clot at right ear.
2.Lacerated wound on right upper limb near elbow 4” X ½” X deep
bone.
3. Bruise 5” X 1 ½” at right and left chest.
4.Abrasion 3” x 2” left arm.
On Dissection: Fracture of skull bone at right forehead. Hemorrhagic
th
spot at brain and blood clot present. Fracture at right and left ribs 6
th
to 7 . Causing laceration of lung and blood in chest cavity.
Heart: right empty, left blood.
Liver pale. Spleen & Kidney: Pale.
Uterus: Normal,
Stomach: contain semi digested food ie. Smell of Haria.
Bladder: empty.


The doctor opined that cause of death is Haemorrhage and shock
due to head injury and chest injury caused by hard and blunt object.
Time since death - within 30 hours.
4

2026:JHHC:31174-DB

12. In Paragraph No.3 of the cross-examination, the Doctor has
admitted that the skull bone fracture is possible by fall on hard
surface, but he specifically states that but all the injuries are not
possible by one fall. The evidence of the doctor clearly proves that the
death is homicidal in nature.
13. The place of occurrence is admittedly the house of the deceased.
The body was found in the house of the deceased which has been
supported by PW-1, PW-3, PW-5 and P.W.-7 (I.O.) also. They all
stated that when they reached the place of occurrence and they saw
the dead body in the house of the appellant which was covered. They
also stated that they have seen mark of violence on the body of the
deceased.
14. PW-8 is the inquest witness who also had seen the dead body of
the deceased in the house of the appellant.
15. PW-7, the Investigating Officer in paragraph 4 has stated that he
had inspected the place of occurrence which is house of the appellant
and specifically stated that it is in the courtyard of the appellant’s
house. He had found mark of dragging and mark of struggle in the
courtyard. This clearly establishes that the occurrence had taken place
in the house of this appellant and within the four corners of the wall.
Finding mark of dragging and struggle suggest that there was assault
before death.
16. Thus, the fact which has been proved by the prosecution is that
the death of the deceased is homicidal and this appellant is the
husband and the occurrence had taken place within the house of this
appellant.
17. The appellant has tried to make out a defence that at the relevant
time, he had gone to the forest. This is evident from his statement
under Section 313 of the CrPC. Admittedly, statement made under
5

2026:JHHC:31174-DB

Section 313 of CrPC is not a substantive piece of evidence. The
appellant has tried to create a defence in his favour, but the said
statement cannot be a proof of fact. Once, he has taken a defence that
he was in the forest, the burden lies upon him to prove that he had
gone to the forest. None of the witnesses have supported the aforesaid
statement of the appellant. The appellant also has not produced any
person in support of his contention that he had gone to the forest at
the relevant time, when the occurrence had taken place.
18. When an occurrence takes place within the four walls of the
house, it is the duty of the resident of the house to explain as to how
the occurrence had taken place. In this case, it is murder of the wife
of the appellant. In the FIR, it has been stated that the appellant was
present when the informant had gone to the place of occurrence and
had seen the dead body. Presence of the appellant has been proved. In
terms of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, it is the duty of the
appellant to explain, but in this case, he has failed to explain the
circumstances which led to the death of the deceased.
19. The Hon’ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Madhya
Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh , reported in ( 2025) 8 SCC 545 has held
that in a scenario where the occurrence had taken place within the four
walls of a house and the prosecution has established foundational
facts, it is the duty of the person residing there to offer a cogent
explanation regarding how the occurrence took place.
20. In this case, we find that the appellant has miserably failed to
explain the cause. It is true that the primary duty is upon the
prosecution to prove the facts and in this case, the prosecution has
successfully proved the fact of homicidal death of the deceased, the
cause of the death which is assault and the place of occurrence i.e.
inside the house of the appellant and also presence of the appellant in
6

2026:JHHC:31174-DB

the house.
21. The doctor’s evidence clearly negates the defence of the
appellant that the deceased died after consuming liquor and falling.
22. Thus, the foundational facts have been proved by the
prosecution leading to reasonable inference that this is this appellant,
who has committed murder of the deceased by mercilessly assaulting
her.
23. Considering what has been held above, we find that the
prosecution has been able to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond
all reasonable doubt. The judgment of the Trial Court needs no
interference; thus, this appeal stands dismissed .
24. Pending I.A.(s) if any, stands dismissed.
25. Trial Court Record be transmitted back to the Court concerned.


(ANANDA SEN, J.)


( PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA , J.)

HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND, RANCHI
th
Dated:- 26 October, 2026
R.S. /S.K.D.
Uploaded on 28/10/2026.

7