Amrus Dang vs The State Of Jharkhand
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OFJHARKH AND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 1531 of 2017
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
06.02.2017/25.02.2017 respectively passed in S.T. No.25 of 2014 by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega]
---------
Amrus Dang, S/o-Cyril Dang, R/o-village-Banki, Pahantoli, P.O. and P.S.-
Bano, Dist.-Simdega ……Appellant
Versus
The State of Jharkhand …. Respondent
----------
For the Appellant : Ms. Amrita Banerjee, Advocate
For the Resp.-State : Mr. Pankaj Kumar, P.P.
---------
PRESENT
SRI ANANDA SEN, J.
SRI PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA, J.
JUDGMENT
-----------
CAV On 06/10/2026 Pronounced On 06 /11/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard Ms. Amrita Banerjee, learned counsel for the appellant and
learned P.P.
2. The appellant has preferred this appeal challenging his conviction and
sentence for the offence under sections 302/201 of IPC passed by
learned Additional Sessions Judge, Simdega in S.T. No.25 of 2014
dated 06.02.2017/25.02.2017 respectively whereby and whereunder the
appellant has been held guilty and sentenced for the offence under
sections 302/201 of IPC and directed to undergo life imprisonment
along with fine of Rs.10,000/- for the offence under section 302 of IPC
and R.I. for 5 years along with fine of Rs.5,000/- for the offence under
Page 1 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
section 201 of IPC with default stipulation. Both the sentences were
directed to run concurrently.
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal is that the informant, Agatha
Dang village Chaukidar 4/5 in Bano Police station got information
through rumor on 23.07.2013 that one Amrus Dang of village Banki
Pahan Toli was working in Delhi where he got marriage with a lady and
brought to his house about two years ago and started residing with her
but in the night of 17.07.2013, he killed the said lady and buried her in
his own house. The informant verified the above facts from the mother
of the accused, Amrus Dang, who also confirmed the said news to be
true and admitted that her son has committed murder of his own wife
and the dead body has been buried in a room of the house. She also
shown burial place in her house and also disclosed that her son Amrus
Dang after committing murder has fled away to Delhi.
4. On the basis of above information, Bano P.S. Case No.42 of 2013 dated
23.07.2011 was registered for the offence under sections 302/201 of
IPC.
5. The charge of investigation was assumed by S.I. Sri Nivas Officer-in-
Charge, Bano police Station, who visited the place of occurrence, which
is house of the accused having main doors towards south and roof with
mud tiles. Just entrance door, there is a room and just adjacent to this
room, there was another room whereby a burial place 5ft x 3 ft and 2 ft
Page 2 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
deep was found and the dead body of the deceased was exhumed in the
presence of witnesses and inquest report (Ext.5) was prepared. The
dead body was sent by him for post-mortem. The accused Amrus Dang
was also arrested on 02.08.2013 and his confessional statement was
recorded on the same day at about 12:45 pm at his house. After finding
sufficient evidence against the accused, he has submitted charge-sheet
for the aforesaid offence.
6. After taking cognizance, the case was committed to the court of
Sessions where S.T. No. 25 of 2014 was registered.
7. The accused has denied the charges leveled against him and claimed to
be tried.
8. In course of trial, altogether 11 witnesses have been examined by the
prosecution, namely:-
P.W.1 -Bijay Bahadur Singh
P .W.2 -Agatha Dang
P.W.3 -Silna Dang
P.W.4 -Dr. Sudheshwar Ohdar
P.W.5- Dr. Prabhu Sahay Linda
P.W.6 -Dr. Sagar Tirky
P.W.7- Nirmal Dang
P.W.8- Silvanus Dang
P.W.9 -Oscar Dang
P.W.10 -Inosent Dang
Page 3 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
P.W.11 -Peter Dang
9. The Investigation Officer S.I. Sri Niwas Kumar of this case has been
examined as court witness i.e. C.W.1.
10. Apart from oral testimony of the witnesses, following documentary
evidence has been examined by the prosecution:-
Ext.1 -Signature of Bijay Bahadur on the inquest report
Ext.2 -Post-mortem report
Ext.3- Formal FIR
Ext.4- Fardbeyan
Ext.5 -Inquest report
Ext.6 -Confessional Statement of accused.
11. On the other hand, the accused in his statement under section 313 of
Cr.P.C. has denied from the occurrence and pleaded his innocence. No
oral or documentary evidence has been adduced by the defence.
12. Learned trial court after apprising with the oral as well as documentary
evidence and hearing the argument of the prosecution and defence has
relied upon following circumstances proved by the prosecution leading
towards the conclusive inference about the guilt of the accused:
(i) Admittedly, the deceased was living as wife of the
accused.
(ii) On the previous night of the occurrence, both the
husband and the wife were inside the house and the
Page 4 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
deceased and the accused were last seen together in
their house.
(iii) The accused was alone with his wife in his house when
she was murdered inside the house.
(iv) The presence of any other person has not been
ascertained by the accused.
(v) The dead body of the deceased was recovered buried
in a room of the house belonging to the accused.
(vi) The dead body was exhumed by the police and inquest
report was prepared of the deceased (Ext.5).
(vii) The post-mortem report of the deceased (Ext.2) slitting
of her throats was found and the cause of death is
opined to be homicidal death due to above injuries
leading of cardiorespiratory failure
(viii) The accused after commission of murder and burying
the dead body of his wife fled away from the house.
(ix) The accused has completely failed to offer any
reasonable explanation to the aforesaid incriminating
circumstances appearing against him in his statement
under section 313 of Cr.P.C., which provides an
additional link in the chain of evidence against him
(x) Under the aforementioned circumstances, the burden
of proof shifts upon the accused under section 106 of
Page 5 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
Evidence Act to prove the circumstances which was
exclusively within his knowledge as to how and under
what circumstances, his wife has died homicidal death
in his own house while she was under custody of her
husband and was residing with him.
13. In view of the above clinching circumstantial evidence, learned trial
court has held the appellant guilty for the offence under sections
302/201 of IPC and sentenced as stated above.
14. 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.
Submission on behalf of appellant:-
15. Learned counsel for the appellant assailing the impugned judgment has
strenuously argued that in a case based on circumstantial evidence alone
motive plays a vital role. The prosecution has miserably failed to prove
any motive behind the occurrence or for what reason the appellant was
intending to eliminate his wife. Learned trial court has formulated very
scattered circumstances and tried to synthesize the same forming the
complete chain of circumstances but failed to consider that without
proving the foundational facts and motive behind the occurrence, the
principle under section 106 of Evidence Act cannot be invoked and
prosecution cannot be absolved from its initial burden of proof of the
guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It is further submitted
Page 6 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
that in the instant case, out of 11 witnesses P.W.3, P.W.7, P.W.8,
P.W.9, P.W.10 and P.W.11 have been declared hostile by the
prosecution and failed to prove a single incriminating circumstance
against the appellant. Learned trial court has also failed to appreciate
that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence claiming to have last seen
the deceased with the appellant and the FIR was lodged after a week
without offering any reasonable explanation. It is also evident that no
incriminating articles like weapon of offence, blood stained clothes,
blood stained soil or any kind of incriminating articles have been
recovered and seized in this case. Mere confessional statement of the
accused recorded by the police without leading to any
discovery/recovery is inadmissible in evidence. Learned trial court has
committed serious illegality by accepting insufficient circumstances to
be conclusive proof of the guilt of the appellant and arrived at wrong
conclusion. Therefore, the impugned judgment and order of conviction
and sentence of the appellant is liable to be set aside and this appeal
may be allowed.
Submission on behalf of State:-
16. On the other hand, learned P.P. controverting the aforesaid arguments
has contended that the circumstances formulated by the learned trial
court are very the basic foundational facts, which have been proved by
the prosecution leading a prima facie inference about the guilt of the
accused. Learned trial court has very wisely and aptly applied the
Page 7 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
principles of section 106 of Evidence Act and relying upon the
judgment pronounced by the Hon’ble Apex Court in the case of
Gajanan Dashrath Kharate vs. State of Maharashtra (2016) 4 SCC
604 and other rulings relevant to conviction based on circumstantial
evidence, has rightly recorded the offence of the guilt of the appellant
and sentenced him adequately. Hence, there are no merits in this appeal
and no legal substance in the points of argument raised on behalf of the
appellant. This appeal is devoid of merits and fit to be dismissed.
17. 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.
18. 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, Reasons and Decision:-
19. Before imparting over verdict on the above point, we have to apprise
with oral and documentary evidence adduced by the prosecution.
20. It appears that altogether 11 witnesses were examined by the
prosecution.
Out of total 11 witnesses, P.W.7-Nirmal Dang, P.W.8-
Silvanus Dang, P.W.9-Oscar Dand, P.W.10-Inosent Dang and
Page 8 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
P.W.11-Peter Dang have been declared hostile by the prosecution and
expressed their complete ignorance about the facts of the case.
P.W.1-Bijay Bahadur Singh is the Block Agricultural
Officer of Bano Block Office. According to his evidence on 23.07.2013,
he was appointed for exhuming the dead body of the deceased from her
matrimonial home. He along with police personnels went to village
Banki inside the house of Amrus Dang in a room, the dead body was
exhumed and brought out the same was identified as wife of Amrus
Dang. The inquest report of the deceased was prepared in his presence
and appears his signature marked Ext.1. He also states that at the time of
preparing inquest report and examining the dead body, Amrus Dang
was not present.
P.W.2- Agatha Dang is the informant-cum-village
chaukidaar . She has consistently corroborated her initial statement that
she came to know through rumor about the commission of murder of a
lady by her husband in village Banki. She went to the place of
occurrence where the mother of the accused namely Silna Dang told
that no one is present in the house, which was locked. The house was
identified by the villagers also, who disclosed that Amrita Dang, the
wife of the Amrus Dang has been killed and her dead body has been
buried and her husband has fled away. She informed at the police
station and proved her signature on her beyan given before officer-in-
charge.
Page 9 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
In her cross-examination, she has categorically stated that the
house of the accused was not really locked rather in that house itself, the
mother of the accused, Amrus Dang was residing in another room.
P.W.3-Silna Dang is the mother of the accused. According
to her evidence, on the date of occurrence, she was not present in the
house rather she had gone to her daughter’s house. She also admits that
her son Amrus Dang had kept a concubine, namely, Amrita Dang, who
committed the murder of Amrita Dang. She has been declared hostile by
the prosecution.
In her cross-examination, she has categorically admitted that
Amrita Dang was brought by her son from Punjab and both were
residing together under cordial relationship.
P.W.4-Dr. Sudheshwar Ohdar has conducted the post-
mortem on the body of the deceased, Amrita Dang and found
following:-
External Examination:-
(i) Built average, nutrition average, body was decomposed
and swollen, skin, sloughed off here and there, mud was
adherent in all over body, eyes and mouth were covered with
mud.
(ii) There was a cut mark in front of neck with margin
irregular due to sloughing off of surrounding skin.
(iii) Trachea was cut deeply beyond its diameter with
damaged under lying structure.
Internal Examination:-
Page 10 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
(i) All the internal organs of thorax and abdomen were
decomposed to the extent that the exact nature of colour and
appearance could not be elicited.
(ii) Uterus was non-gravid
(iii) Brain matters were decomposed.
He has opined that the nature of weapon used was sharp cutting weapon
and the death has caused due to cardio respiratory failure and slitting of
throat. He has proved the post-mortem report as Ext.3.
P.W.5-Dr. Prabhu Sahai Linda and P.W.6 - Dr. Sagar
Tirki were also members of Medical Board constituted by the Civil
Surgeon, Simdega and in their presence, the post-mortem of the
deceased, Amrita Dang were conducted. They have also proved their
signature on post-mortem report Ext.3.
21. The Investigating Officer of this case is S.I. Shri Nivas Kumar , who
has been examined as court witness i.e. C.W.1. According to his
evidence, on 23.07.2013, the charge of investigation has been handed
over to him and he has recorded the restatement of the informant as well
as statement of other witnesses and also visited the place of occurrence
and inspected the same. The place of occurrence is Bandi, Pahan Toli
under Bano Police Station. The house, which has a tiled roof, faces
south and at the entrance of the house, there was a room wherein the
deceased Amrita Dang was buried at a particular area measuring 5 ft
long, 2 feet wide and 3/2 feet deep. He further states that the dead body
of the deceased was exhumed from that place in the presence of
Page 11 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
witnesses and inquest report was prepared. He received the post-mortem
report and recorded the confessional statement of the accused, Amrus
Dang marked Ext.6. He has proved the fardbeyan marked as Ext.3 and
FIR as Ext.4 and has also proved the inquest report marked as Ext.5.
After finding sufficient evidence against the appellant, he submitted
charge-sheet against the appellant.
In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion of
defence that his investigation is defective and perfunctory and without
any evidence, he has submitted charge-sheet.
22. We have given thoughtful consideration to overall aspects of the case as
testified by the prosecution witnesses during trial and also examined the
evidence available on record.
23. From the aforesaid discussion of evidence, it transpires that there is no
dispute that the deceased was residing with the appellant as a husband
and wife and on the date of occurrence, they were last seen together in
the house. The death of deceased was caused by cardio respiratory
failure and slitting of throat with the sharp cutting weapon, which has
been proved by the doctors i.e. P.W.4, P.W.5 and P.W.6. It further
appears that the appellant has failed to offer any explanation to the
aforesaid incriminating circumstances appearing against him in his
statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C that also provides an additional
link in the chain of evidence against him. For the aforesaid proved
foundational circumstances, reasonable inference about commission of
Page 12 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
murder of the deceased by the appellant can be drawn. Therefore,
corresponding burden of prove shifts on the shoulder of accused to
prove the facts specially within his knowledge under section 106 of
Indian Evidence Act to explain the facts and circumstances under which
the deceased died when the deceased was under the custody of the
appellant.
24. In his statement under section 313 of Cr.P.C., the appellant has simply
denied the occurrence and pleaded his innocence. He failed to explain
under what circumstances, the deceased died, which also provides an
additional link in the chain of evidence against him.
25. It is trite that provision of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act is not
intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the
prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable
inference can be drawn regarding existence of certain other facts, unless
the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts,
offer any explanation which might driver the Court to draw a difference
inference.
26. In the case of State of "State of Madhya Pradesh vs. Balveer Singh"
reported in (2025) 8 SCC 545 , wherein the accused was charged with
killing his wife in night in his house. The accused neither claimed that
deceased was suffering from any ailment nor there found any evidence
worth the name to suggest the possibility of her death occurring due to
Page 13 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
any health issue. In the case of non-explanation of circumstances,
specially within the knowledge of the accused, the Hon’ble Apex Court
has held at paras 77, 80 and 81 as under:-
“77. Section 106 of the Evidence Act provides that when any fact is especially
within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon
him. The word "especially" means facts that are or exceptionally within the
knowledge of the accused. The ordinary rule that applies to the criminal trials
that the onus lies on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused is not in
any way modified by the rule of facts embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence
Act. Section 106 of the Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of the
Evidence Act. Section 101 with its Illustration (a) lays down the general rule
that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section
106 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 the
facts which are, "especially within the knowledge of the accused and which,
he can prove without difficulty or inconvenience".
80. In Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra [Tulshiram
Sahadu Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra, (2012) 10 SCC 373 : (2013) 1
SCC (Cri) 193] , this Court observed as under: (SCC pp. 381-82, para 23)
“23 [Ed.: Para 23 corrected vide Official Corrigendum No.
F.3/Ed.B.J./58/2012 dated 9-10-2012.] . It is settled law that
presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise
doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When
inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the
court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical
conclusion as the most probable position. The above position is
strengthened in view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It
empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it
thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the courts shall have
regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct, etc.
in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, the
principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act can also be
utilised. We make it clear that this section is not intended to relieve
Page 14 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond
reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution
has succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can
be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the
accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding such facts,
failed to offer any explanation which might drive the court to draw a
different inference. It is useful to quote the following observation in
State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar [State of W.B. v. Mir
Mohammad Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382 : 2000 SCC (Cri) 1516] : (SCC
p. 393, para 38)
‘38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section 106 of the
Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it
would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts
which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. In
Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer [Shambu Nath Mehra v. State
of Ajmer, (1956) 1 SCC 337 : AIR 1956 SC 404] the learned Judge
has stated the legal principle thus: (SCC OnLine SC para 9)
“9. This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the
burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 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 word
“especially” stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or
exceptionally within his knowledge.”’”
(emphasis supplied)
81. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [Trimukh Maroti
Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 : (2007) 1 SCC (Cri) 80]
, this Court was considering a similar case of homicidal death in the confines
of the house. The following observations are considered relevant in the facts
of the present case: (SCC pp. 690-91 & 694, paras 14-15 & 22)
“14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house
and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the
opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in
circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the
Page 15 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the
strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is
insisted upon by the courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal
trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also
presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public
duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions [Stirland v.
Director of Public Prosecutions, 1944 AC 315 (HL)] — quoted with
approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh
[State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh, (2003) 11 SCC 271 : 2004 SCC
(Cri) 135] .) The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to
lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led
or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the
prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading,
having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is
necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says
that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person,
the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended
to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this
provision and it reads:
‘(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without ticket.
The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.’
15. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy
inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would
undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of
evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same
degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The
burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of
Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden
on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the
crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by
simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed
premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the
prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any
explanation.
*
22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his
wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that
Page 16 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017
2026:JHHC:32621-DB
shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the
offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also
normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused
does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers
an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance
which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.”
(emphasis supplied)
27. In view of the above discussion and reasons and settled principles of
law as discussed, we don’t find any error of law in the impugned
judgment. There is no substance in the point of arguments raised on
behalf of the appellant and no merits in this appeal. Therefore, the
conviction and sentence passed by the learned Trial Court against the
appellant is hereby confirmed and upheld.
28. Accordingly, this appeal is dismissed .
29. Pending I.A(s), if any, is also disposed of, accordingly.
30. The appellant is in custody. Let a copy of this judgment be furnished
forthwith to the appellant through learned P.P.
31. Let a copy of this judgment be sent back to the court concerned for
information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Per Ananda Sen, J. : I agree
(Ananda Sen, J.)
High Court of Jharkhand, Ranchi
Dated:-06/11/2026
Pappu /-N.A.F.R.
Uploaded on 06/11 /2026
Page 17 of 17
Cr. Appeal (DB) No.1531 of 2017