Chamtu Giri vs The State Of Jharkhand
- Court
- Jharkhand High Court
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI
Cr. Appeal (D.B.) No. 251 of 2017
[Against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated
19.11.2016 & 23.11.2016, respectively passed by learned District &
Additional Sessions Judge, Ghatshila in Sessions Trial No.71 of 2016]
--------
Chamtu Giri, son of Late Ramesh Giri, resident of Village-Pathra Tola,
Dhatkidih, P.O. & P.S.-Barsole, District-East Singhbhum, 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 : Mr. Sankalp Goswami, Advocate
For the State : Md. Azeemuddin, A.P.P.
--------
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 28.09.2026 Pronounced on 05/11/2026
Per- Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J:
1. Heard the arguments of Mr. Sankalp Goswami, learned counsel for
the appellant and Md. Azeemuddin, learned A.P.P. for the State.
2. The instant criminal appeal is directed against the judgment and
order of conviction and sentence dated 19.11.2016 & 23.11.2016
respectively, passed by learned District & Additional Sessions Judge,
Ghatshila, in Sessions Trial No.71 of 2016, whereby and whereunder
the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Sections 302
of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life
along with fine of Rs.10,000/- with default stipulation.
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
Factual Matrix:-
3. Factual matrix giving rise to this appeal as per fardbeyan of the
informant, Rabindra Nayak (PW-5), is that his daughter, Shivani Giri
(deceased), had been married to Chamtu Giri, resident of Village-
Pathra Tola, Dhadkidih, P.S. Barsol, District East Singhbhum, about
three months prior to the occurrence and had been residing at her
matrimonial home. On 08.09.2015, at about 5:00 p.m., he along with
his two daughters went to Village Manusmuria to attend a fair and
thereafter proceeded to the house of Shivani, where Chamtu Giri
started abusing them. Thereafter, he along with his two daughters,
went to the house of Shailendra Giri (PW-2), situated in the same
village and stayed there for the night. On the following morning, i.e.,
on 09.09.2015, at about 6:00 a.m., they returned home. At about 7:00
a.m., Shrishti Giri, the elder brother of Chamtu Giri, informed him
about the death of Shivani. Thereafter, he along with his wife and
some villagers went to Village Pathra Tola, Dhadkidih, where he saw
the dead body of Shivani and noticed injuries on her neck and
scratches on her body along with bloodstains. He has specifically
alleged that Shivani Giri has been killed by her husband.
4. Accordingly, Bahragora (Barsol) P.S. Case No. 61 of 2015 was
registered for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. against the
above-named accused.
5. The investigation of the case was taken up by Karampal Bhakat
(PW-9). On 09.09.2015, he was posted as the Officer-in-Charge of
Barsol P.S. Nikhil Chandra Digar, the Chowkidar, informed him
2
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
about a murder in Village Pathra, whereupon he entered the
information in the Station Diary and proceeded to the place of
occurrence. He recorded the statement of Rabindra Nayak (PW-5) in
the presence of two independent witnesses, prepared the inquest
report of the dead body of Shivani Giri and sent the dead body for
post-mortem examination. He inspected the place of occurrence,
recorded the statements of Patit Nayak, Shailendra Giri, Surendra
Giri, Sukhlal Hembram and others and arrested the accused.
On 09.09.2015, the accused made a confessional statement,
pursuant to which an iron pipe and rope were recovered from a
concealed place on the roof of the verandah of his house and in the
presence of Sarpanch Mohan Lal Hembram, Deputy Head Prakash
Bhol and Sukhlal Hembram, the iron pipe and rope were seized and a
seizure list (Ext.-7), was prepared. The Investigating Officer recorded
the statements of Uday Hembram and Mohan Lal Hembram, received
the post-mortem report and sent the viscera to the SFSL, Ranchi, for
chemical examination.
6. After completion of investigation, charge-sheet was submitted
against the accused for the aforesaid offence. Accordingly,
cognizance was taken and the case was committed to the Court of
Sessions, where Sessions Trial No.71 of 2016 was registered. The
accused denied the charge leveled against him and claimed to be
tried.
7. In the course of trial, altogether nine witnesses were examined by
prosecution including the I.O. and doctor.
3
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
Apart from oral testimony of witnesses following documentary
evidence as well as material exhibits has been adduced.
Exhibit-1-Signature of Sukhlal Hembram on seizure list
Exhibit-1/1-Signature of Uday Hembram on seizure list
Exhibit-2-Signature of Sukhlal Hembram on confessional
statement of Chamtu Giri
Exhibit-2/1-Signature of Prakash Bhol on confessional
statement of Chamtu Giri
Exhibit-2/2-Signature of Mohan Lal Hembram on
confessional statement of Chamtu Giri
Exhibit-3-Post Mortem report of Shivani Giri
Exhibit-4-Signature of Rabindra Nayak on his fardbeyan
Exhibit-4/1-Signature of Patit Nayak on fardbeyan of
Rabindra Nayak
Exhibit-4/2-Fardbeyan of Rabindra Nayak
Exhibit-5-Formal F.I.R.
Exhibit-6-Relevant part of confessional statement of
accused
Exhibit-7-Seizure list
Exhibit-8-S.F.S.L. Report No.1282 of 2015
Exhibit-X-Xerox copy of inquest report of Shivani Giri for
identification
Material Exhibit-I-One piece of cycle frame of iron
Material Exhibit-II & II/1 Two pieces of rope
4
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
8. On the other hand, no oral or documentary evidence has been
adduced by defence. The case of defence is denial from occurrence,
plea of innocence and false implication.
9. After conclusion of trial, the appellant was held guilty for the offence
under Section 302 of the I.P.C and sentenced as stated above which
has been assailed in this appeal.
Submissions on behalf of the appellant: -
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has vehemently argued that the
entire prosecution case is falsified by the medical evidence, although
the witnesses have claimed to notice several bodily injuries caused to
the deceased, but in the P.M. report, the doctor has not found any
bleeding injury on her body. The prosecution story as depicted by
witnesses disclosing the circumstances about some altercation having
taken place between deceased and the appellant due to which the
deceased might have got enraged and committed suicide by
consuming poison. It is further submitted that the Forensic Science
Laboratory report (Exhibit-8) has not been properly proved by
examination of the expert witness. This case is based on
circumstantial evidence and the prosecution has miserably failed to
prove the chain of circumstances conclusively leading towards guilt
of the appellant for committing murder of his wife. The learned Trial
Court has failed to properly appreciate the evidence of witnesses
which suffers from material contradictions, discrepancies and
infirmities shaking their veracity. The impugned judgment of
conviction and sentence is based on conjectures and surmises in
complete ignorance of principles of law propounded by Hon’ble
5
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
Apex Court in several cases for basing conviction on circumstantial
evidence. Therefore, impugned judgment is liable to be set aside and
this appeal may be allowed.
Submissions on behalf of the State: -
11. On the other hand, learned A.P.P. has submitted that there is specific
evidence of witnesses and not denied by the appellant that on
intervening night of 08/09.09.2015 the appellant was residing with
his wife (since deceased) and after assaulting her with iron pipe
which was recovered at the instance of accused on the basis of his
confessional statement, he hanged the body with a rope on the beam
of his house. The recovery of rope and iron pipe at the instance of
appellant on the basis of his disclosure statement further fortifies
commission of murder by him of his own wife. 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.
12. We have gone through the record of the case along with the
impugned judgment in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the
both side.
13. 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?”
6
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
Analysis, discussions and reasons:-
14. Before delving upon to adjudicate the above point, it appears
pertinent to take brief resume of evidence available on record.
P.W.1, Sukhlal Hembram is a witness of seizure list and
proved his signature as Exhibit-1 as well as signature of another
witness Uday Hembram as Exhibit-1/1 , which was prepared at the
house of Santosh Giri at Village-Pathra and specifically states that
one iron pipe and rope was recovered by police on the disclosure
statement of Chamtu Giri. He has also stated that wife of Chamtu,
who was married about three months prior to her death, died in her
sasural. He admits to be not an eye-witness of the occurrence.
P.W.2, Shailendra Giri is the co-villager of the accused.
According to his evidence, Chamtu Giri was residing along with his
wife in Village-Pathra in Indira Awas allotted to him. He was
married about three months ago with Shivani, who died in her
aforesaid matrimonial home. This witness has been declared hostile
by the prosecution and has expressed no knowledge as to how the
deceased died. Although, he has admitted that at the relevant time of
occurrence Manusmuria fair was organized in Village-Chandwa and
informant of this case along with his two daughters stayed in his
house. His attention has been drawn towards his statement under
Section 161 Cr.P.C. which he has denied.
P.W.3, Surendra Giri is brother of P.W.-2. According to him,
wife of Chamtu Giri died in the same year of her marriage. He also
admits that Manusmuria fair was organized in his village, but at that
time he was not present and he heard that informant had stayed at
7
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
that time in the house of his brother Shailendra Giri. This witness has
also been declared hostile by the prosecution.
P.W.4, Dr. Lalan Choudhary has stated that on 10.09.2015 at
about 03.40 P.M., he conducted post-mortem examination on the
dead body of Shivani Giri, aged about 19 years, wife of Chamtu Giri,
resident of Village Pathra, Tola Dhatkidih, P.S. Barsol, District-East
Singhbhum.
On examination : - He found that rigors mortis was absent.
Dried blood was present over neck and upper chest, perennial region
and the eyeball, haemorrhagic blood in the oral cavity and frothy
blood over face. No ante-mortem external injury found over body.
On dissection occipital scalp was found to be contused 3 c.m.
x 3 c.m. Brain soft and congested. Larynx-trachea congested and
contused and contains blood-stained froth. Lung soft and congested.
Viscera congested. Uterus small. Stomach contains light brown
(biscuit colour) oily pasty food 300 gms. Mucosa of stomach
congested at places. Viscera preserved for chemical analysis.
Opinion : - Cause of death reserved till the chemical analysis
of viscera come. Occipital scalp injury was ante-mortem and caused
by hard and blunt object.
Time since death was approximately 36 to 48 hours. The post-
mortem report is marked as Exhibit-3 .
P.W.5, Rabindra Nayak is the informant-cum-father of the
deceased. According to his evidence, his daughter (since deceased)
was married with Chamtu Giri (appellant) about three months prior to
occurrence. He has further deposed that he had gone to see
8
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
Manusmuria fair along with his two daughters and also visited to the
house of his son-in-law Chamtu Giri, but he did not permit him to
enter into his house and also abused and scolded him. He has also
stated that his daughter Shivani was frequently assaulted by her
husband. Thereafter, he returned back and stayed in the house of
Shailendra Giri (P.W.-2) in the night. On the next day morning, elder
brother of Chamtu Giri namely, Shrishti Giri came to house of this
witness and told that Shivani has died. Thereafter, this witness along
with his elder brother Patit Nayak and wife went to the house of
Chamtu Giri, where they saw the dead body of Shivani in the house
of Chamtu Giri sustaining injuries on her neck, stomach and hand.
Police also arrived at the place of occurrence, where his statement
was recorded and he has proved his signature on his fardbeyan as
Exhibit-4 .
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that there was
cordial relationship between his daughter and the accused Chamtu
Giri. He has not seen the occurrence himself. He has not stated before
police that Chamtu Giri was frequently assaulting his daughter. His
fardbeyan was also not read over to him. Hence, he can’t tell what
was written in his fardbeyan .
P.W.6, Patit Nayak is the brother of informant. He has also
testified that Shivani was married about three months prior to
occurrence with the present appellant. His brother Rabindra informed
him in the morning that Shivani has died at her sasural . He also
disclosed that Shrishti (elder brother of accused) has informed about
the occurrence. Thereafter, he along with his brother Rabindra Nayak
9
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
went to matrimonial home of Shivani and found her dead body lying
in the matrimonial home sustaining injuries on hand, stomach and
leg. He has also proved his signature on the fardbeyan of his brother
Rabindra Nayak marked as Exhibit-4/1 . He has also deposed that
Shivani used to come to her parental home and about 3-4 times she
has disclosed him that her husband used to assault her due to her poor
cooking.
In his cross-examination, he also reiterates that Shivani had
come thrice at her parental home after marriage and on all occasions,
she disclosed him about ill-treatment and scuffle with her husband.
P.W.7, Uday Hembram is a witness of seizure list and proved
his signature as Exhibit-1/1 . He further states that one iron pipe and
piece of rope was recovered from the house of Chamtu Giri, while he
was in police custody and seizure list was prepared. Except above
facts, he has no knowledge about the occurrence.
P.W.8, Mohan Lal Hembram is another witness of seizure
list. He has also proved his signature as Exhibit-2/2 . One iron pipe
and rope were recovered by police. He also states that Chamtu Giri
has killed his wife and he is in jail custody, but he has not seen the
occurrence himself.
P.W.9, S.I., Karampal Bhagat is the I.O. of this case.
According to his evidence, on 09.09.2015, he was posted as Officer-
in-charge of Barsole P.S., the village chowkidar Nikhil Chandra
Digar came to police station and in the morning informed through
telephonic message that in village Pathra, one woman has been
murdered. He made entry in the station diary and for verification went
10
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
to the place of occurrence, where Rabindra Nayak, father of the
deceased was present. He recorded the fardbeyan (Exhibit-4/2) of
Rabindra Nayak in presence of witnesses and made endorsement for
registration of FIR and assumed the charge of investigation himself. He
has further proved the formal FIR as Exhibit-5 . After preparing inquest
report of the deceased, sent the dead body for post mortem. He
inspected the place of occurrence, which is house of the accused
situated in village Pathra Tola, Dhatkidih allotted under Indira Aawas.
He saw the dead body of Shivani lying on a cot in the room sustaining
cut injuries on her neck from all side and other part of the body. He
recorded the statement of witnesses Patit Nayak, Shailendra Giri,
Surendra Giri and Sukhlal Hembram, arrested the accused on
09.09.2015 and recorded his confessional statement at about 07:00
P.M. Relevant part of confessional statement of accused marked as
Exhibit-6 . The relevant part leading to recovery of iron pipe and rope
used for hanging the dead body was recovered and seizure list was
prepared in presence of witnesses. He also recorded statement of
Sukhlal Hembram, Uday Hembram, Mohal Lal Hembram etc., who
supported the prosecution case and also received the post-mortem
report of the deceased and also sent the viscera of the deceased to
F.S.L., Ranchi for chemical examination and after finding sufficient
evidence against the accused, submitted charge-sheet for the offence
under Section 302 of the I.P.C.
In his cross-examination, this witness admits that the informant
in his fardbeyan has not levelled any allegation of frequent assault by
the accused to his daughter. Seized material has not been produced
11
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
before the Court. He has also not recorded the statement of Shrishti
Giri and Gurwa Murmu. He also admits that there is no eye-witness
of the occurrence. Witness Sukhlal Hembram (P.W.1) has stated
before him that he knows about the occurrence. He has not seized the
blood-stained soil from the place of occurrence. He has denied the
suggestion of defence that his investigation is defective and he has
submitted charge-sheet against the accused without sufficient
evidence. This witness has also proved material exhibits, piece of
Atlas cycle frame made of iron as Material Exhibit-1 and two small
pieces of rope as Material Exhibit-2 and 2/1 .
15. On the other hand, the case of defence is simple denial from
occurrence and plea of innocence as well as false implication.
16. We have gone through the impugned judgment passed by learned
Trial Court and find that the learned Trial Court has relied upon
following proved circumstances leading to conclusion of guilt of the
appellant.
(i) Deceased was married with the present appellant just
three months prior to her death.
(ii) She was found dead in her matrimonial home, while she
was residing along with her husband (present appellant) in a house
provided Indira Awas Scheme.
(iii) The dead body of deceased was found in her
matrimonial home sustaining head injury caused by hard and blunt
object which was ante-mortem in nature as well as dried blood over
her body.
12
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
(iv) Just after the marriage, the deceased was frequently
abused and assaulted by her husband, therefore, there was tense
relationship between them.
(v) On 08.09.2015 after fetching Manusmuria fair in
matrimonial village of deceased, the informant, Rabindra Nayak
(P.W.5) along with his two daughters went to matrimonial home of
deceased, but the accused abused and not allowed them to enter into
the house.
(vi) The informant in the night of 08.09.2015 stayed in the
son-in-law’s neighbour’s house, as admitted by one Shailendra Giri
(P.W.2).
(vii) In the very next day early morning when informant
along with his two daughters returned to his home, elder brother of
the accused, namely Shrishti Giri informed about death of Shivani at
her matrimonial home, then again informant along with his family
members went to place of occurrence and saw the dead body of his
daughter lying in injured condition at her matrimonial home and his
fardbeyan was recorded by police.
(viii) On the basis of confessional statement of accused one
iron rod and two pieces of rope were recovered, allegedly used in
commission of murder of the deceased.
(ix) The seizure list witnesses Sukhlal Hembram (P.W.-1)
and Uday Hembram (P.W.-7), who have proved the discovery of iron
pipe and two pieces rope on disclosure statement of the accused.
(x) S.F.S.L. report (Exhibit-8) also shows that in the viscera
of deceased pesticide was found.
13
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
The above circumstances propounded and proved by
prosecution were asked in the statement under Section 313 of the
Cr.P.C. to the accused wherein he has admitted that he was residing
with his wife in the matrimonial home and not disputed any of the
aforesaid circumstances except the frequent scuffle and dispute with
his wife.
17. In this view of the matter, the learned Trial Court invoked the
principles of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, shifting the burden to
explain the aforesaid circumstances, which were especially within the
knowledge of the accused and due to non-offering of any valid and
reasonable and convincing the explanation from the accused found
additional link towards the chain of circumstantial evidence, which
conclusively prove the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable
doubt for committing murder of his wife accordingly, convicted and
sentenced him.
18. We have also meticulously examined the evidence available on
record and find that aforesaid circumstances, as propounded by
learned Trial Court has been categorically proved by the ocular
testimony of witness examined by prosecution as well as
documentary evidence like recovery of weapon and seizure list
(Ext.-7), P.M. report of the deceased (Ext.-3) and S.F.S.L. report
(Ext-8).
19. In the case of Ram Niwas versus State of Haryana, reported in
( 2022) 15 SCC 306, relied upon by the learned counsel for the
appellant, the Hon’ble Apex Court has propounded principles of law
14
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
for basing conviction on the basis of circumstantial evidence as
under:-
The law with regard to conviction on the basis of
circumstantial evidence has very well been crystallised in the
judgment of Hon’ble Supreme Court in Sharad Birdhichand
Sarda versus State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116,
wherein the panchsheel of circumstantial evidence was
propounded the circumstances concerned must indicate that
the accused must be guilty and not may or should be. There is
not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between “may
be proved” and “must be or should be proved”. The mental
distance between “may be” and “must be” is long and divides
vague conjectures from sure conclusions.
(2) the facts so established should be consistent only
with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except
that the accused is guilty,
(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive
nature and tendency,
(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis
except the one to be proved, and
(5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as
not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show
that in all human probability the act must have been done by
the accused.
15
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the
panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
It was further observed that it is settled law that the suspicion,
howsoever strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond
reasonable doubt. An accused cannot be convicted on the ground of
suspicion, no matter how strong it is. An accused is presumed to be
innocent unless proved guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
20. In the case of Rajendra versus State (NCT of Delhi) reported in
(2020) 1 SCC (Cri) 63 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has held that Section
106 of the Evidence Act, 1872, provides that the burden of proof of
any fact, i.e., specially within the knowledge of a person lies upon
such person. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must
offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company with the
deceased. In other words, he must furnish an explanation that appears
to the Court to be probable and satisfactory, and if he fails to over
such explanation on the basis of the facts within his special
knowledge, the burden casts upon him under Section 106 of the
Evidence Act is not discharged. Particularly, in cases resting on
circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable
explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, such failure by
itself can provide an additional link in the chain of circumstances
proved against him. It, however, does not mean that Section 106
shifts the burden of proof of a criminal trial on the accused. Such
burden always rests on the prosecution. Section 106 only lays down
the rule when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which
are specially within his/her knowledge and which cannot support any
16
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can
consider his failure to adduce an explanation as an additional link
which completes the chain of incriminating circumstances.
21. In the case of State of Madhya Pradesh versus 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 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 as under:-
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”. (para-77)
17
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 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. (para-80)
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 prosecution to lead
evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of
circumstantial evidence 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. 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 Section 106 of the Evidence Act throws some light
on the content and scope of this provision. (para-81)
Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of
his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show
that 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
18
2026:JHHC:32467-DB
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. (para-81)
22. In view of the above discussion and reasons, we do not find any error
of law in the impugned judgment warranting interference with the
conviction and sentence of the appellant. There is no substance in the
point of arguments raised on behalf of the appellant and no merits in
this appeal which stands dismissed .
23. Appellant is in custody.
24. Let a copy of this judgment be furnished forthwith to the appellant
through A.P.P.
25. Pending I.A., if any, stands disposed of, accordingly.
26. Let a copy of this judgment along with the Trial Court record be sent
to the concerned trial court for information and needful.
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
I agree.
Ananda Sen, J.
(Ananda Sen, J.)
Jharkhand High Court
Dated 05/11/2026
Arpit/ N. A. F. R.
Uploaded on 06/11/2026
19