Husband convicted of murdering his wife by strangulation based on circumstantial evidence: strained marital relations over alleged illicit relationship with his bhabhi, failed panchayati over property separation, body found in his room, and his failure to explain or report her homicidal death. High Court upheld conviction and life sentence.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
Criminal Appeal (D.B.) No. 44 of 1999 (R)
[ Against the Judgment of conviction and Order of sentence dated 10.12.1998 passed by learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Giridih, in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 1996 ]
Birju Yadav, Son of Late Madhav Mahto, resident of Village – Mahuari, P.S. – Gawan, District - Giridih.
… … Appellant Versus
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) … Respondent
P R E S E N T
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE RONGON MUKHOPADHYAY HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PRADEEP KUMAR SRIVASTAVA
For the Appellant : Ms. Srishti Mishra, Amicus . For the Respondent : Mrs. Priya Shrestha, Spl.P.P.
JUDGMENT
C.A.V. on 22.10.2024 Pronounced on 11.12.2024
Per Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.
1. Heard learned counsel for the parties.
2. The present appeal is directed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.12.1998 passed by learned 5th Additional District & Sessions Judge, Giridih in Sessions Trial No. 256 of 1996, whereby and whereunder, the appellant has been held guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life.
FACTUAL MATRIX
3. The factual matrix giving rise to this appeal in a nut shell is that the informant’s daughter Guddi Devi was
Page 1 of 20
married with the present appellant. It is alleged that the present appellant had illicit relation with his bhabhi , which was frequently protested by his wife and she returned to her parental home. Informant Prayag Mahto (P.W.-6) along with his daughter Guddi Devi went to her matrimonial home on 16.06.1996 and on the next day i.e. 17.06.1996 at about 12 O’ Clock, there was a Panchayati and in Panchayati, Guddi Devi has told her husband to get separate from his brother and bhabhi and asked for share in the property, but her husband, brother of husband and bhabhi did not agree to above proposal and asked her to go back. It is further alleged that the husband of Guddi Devi also started abusing her and due to that reason, no decision could be taken in the Panchayati and the informant returned back to Village – Khutta and stayed there in the night and Guddi Devi was left at her matrimonial home. On the next day i.e. 18.06.1996 at about 7 O’ Clock, informant again went to the matrimonial home of his daughter Guddi Devi and found her dead. The dead body was lying on a Cot. He also noticed that there was black spot on the neck and it seems that she has been killed by strangulation. He asked about the reason of death of his daughter from her husband and brother of the husband, but no satisfactory reply was given.
Page 2 of 20
4. On the basis of fardbeyan of the informant, Gawan P.S. Case No. 35 of 1996 was registered against the present appellant, his brother Barho Yadav and Munwa Devi, wife of Barho Yadav for the offence under Sections 302 / 34 of the I.P.C. and after conclusion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted against the accused Birju Yadav and Barho Yadav.
5. After cognizance, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions vide order dated 16.10.1996; where Sessions Trial No. 256 of 1996 was registered. The accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.
6. In course of trial, altogether 10 witnesses have been examined by the prosecution including the I.O. and the Doctor. Apart from oral testimony of witnesses, following documentary evidences were also adduced by the prosecution:-
Page 3 of 20
7. The learned trial court, after appraisal and evaluation of evidence led by the prosecution, found it is a case based upon circumstantial evidence and relied upon following circumstances against the appellant:-
8. The trial court has also considered the following Panchsheel principles for proving the case based on circumstantial evidence:-
Page 4 of 20
9. After scrutinizing the evidence led by prosecution, the learned trial court held the appellant Birju Yadav guilty for the offence under Section 302 of the I.P.C. and at the same time, it was also found that another co-accused Barho Yadav has no motive to eliminate the deceased. Hence, he was acquitted from the charges leveled against him.
10. Learned counsel for the appellant has assailed the impugned judgment and order on the following grounds:-
Page 5 of 20
working in Kolkata and he occasionally used to visit his home. The allegation of illicit relationship between the appellant with his bhabhi has not been proved by any cogent and reliable evidence.
(ii) The informant himself has deposed that he has never inquired about such illicit relationship of the appellant with his bhabhi at any point of time.
Page 6 of 20
Page 7 of 20
Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be applied in this case.
11. The learned trial court has failed to take into notice the above glaring infirmities and defects in the prosecution evidence and arrived at erroneous finding while recording the guilt of the appellant for the offence of murder of his own wife. The appellant is innocent. Hence, he deserves acquittal. Accordingly, the impugned judgment and order is liable to be set aside by allowing this appeal.
12. Learned counsel for the appellant has placed reliance upon the reported judgment of Ram Pratap Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2023) 2 SCC 345 and Raja Naykar Vs. State of Chhattisgarh reported in (2024) 3 SCC 481 .
13. Per contra, learned Spl.PP appearing for the State while refuting the aforesaid contentions raised on behalf of the appellant has submitted that the learned trial court has very meticulously and in threadbare manner appraised and evaluated the testimony of ocular witnesses particularly, the informant, who is unfortunate father of the deceased and other circumstances available on record conclusively proved by prosecution and get the same explained by the accused in his statement recorded under Section 313
Page 8 of 20
Cr.P.C., but the accused has failed to offer any reasonable explanation against the incriminating circumstances appearing against him. There is no defence plea at all even by way of suggestion to the prosecution witnesses to cast any doubt in the prosecution version. The conviction and sentence of the appellant does not suffer from any illegality or infirmity calling for any interference. The points of argument raised on behalf of the appellant have no legal force to stand in the way of impugned judgment. Therefore, this appeal has got no merits and fit to be dismissed.
14. We have gone through the record of the trial court as well as the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence of the appellant in the light of contentions raised on behalf of the learned counsel for respective parties.
15. For better appreciation of the points raised on behalf of the appellant, we have to appraise the evidence of material witnesses at first.
16. P.W.-6 – Prayag Mahto is the informant-cum-father of the deceased. The relevant para of his evidence reads as follows:-
Page 9 of 20
vkSj equ;k nsohA rhuksa eqnky; us feydj mldks ekj fn;kA bl ?kVuk dk Ms<+ lky gks jgk gSA ,rokj dks eSaus viuh yM+dh dks mlds llqjky egqojh igqapk;k vkSj lkseokj dks iapk;rh gqvkA iapk;rh esa esjh csVh us ifr dks dgk viuh HkkStkbZ vkSj HkkbZ dks NksM+ nks vkSj esjk fgLlk ckaVdj gekjs lkFk jgksA blij esjk nekn cksyk fd fgLlk ugha feysxk vkSj rqedks thou ls mBk nsxsaA iapk;rh esa ;g lHkh ckrsa esjs lkeus gqb Z A esjk nekn fcjtw ;kno gedks ekjus nkSM+k vkSj xkyh xykSt fd;kA blij ge vius le/kh ds ;gka [kwaVk xkao esa pys x, vkSj jkr esa ogha jgsA fcgku Hkksjs eSa viuh csVh ds llqjky vk, rks xqMMh dks ejk ns[ksaA xyk esa jLlh dk nkx ns[kk vkSj mldks VV~Vh gks x;k FkkA
2- ge xkao x, vkSj iqfyl dks ykdj yk”k ds ikl yk, vkSj ge iqfyl dks nks ckj c;ku fn,A
3- mijksDr rhuksa eqnky; us feydj e s jh csVh dk gR;k dj fn;kA
10- esjh yM+dh ?kVuk ds nl&iUnzg jkst igys ls vius uSgj esa FkhA Lor% ,rokj dks mls llqjky igqapk;k FkkA uSgj esa Fkh mlds rhu lky igus og llqjky esa gh FkhA
14- ?kVuk ds pkj fnu fd vkB fnu igys fcjtw dydÙkk ls vk;k FkkA fcjtw dydÙkk ls vk;k lks [kcj esjs ;gka Hkh pyk x;kA
16- Tkc [kcj gks x;k rks yM+dh dks ge igqapkus ys x,A ckjg cts fnu ,rokj dks igqapk;kA nksuksa xksruh esa ckrk&ckrh gksus yxkA fQj dgrs gS rqjar yM+kbZ ugha gqvkA ,rokj dks yM+kbZ ugha gqvkA
18- fcjtw dgk fd iapk;rh gksxk vkSj gedks lkseokj dks lqcg esa ugha tkus fn;kA fdl dkj.k iapk;rh dj jgk gS lks ugha dgkA eqnky; ds ?kj esa gh iapk;rh gqvkA pkj&ikp xk a o ds yksx Fks mudk uke ugha tkurkA
20- iapk;rh ,d&Ms<+ ?kaVk gqvkA xqM~Mh pkgrh Fkh fd og vius ifr ds lkFk vyx jgsA iapk;rh esa dksbZ fy[kk i<+h ugh gqvkA fcjtwq ifjokj dk pkj vkneh gh FkkA fcjtw] ck<+s vkSj nksauksa dh L=hA eqnky; yksx fd rqedks fgLlk ugha nsx s A
21- iqfyl dks c;ku ugha ns lds fd esjk nekn cksyk fd rqedks thou ls mBk nsaxsaA
25- ?kVuk ds igys gh gedks csVh xksgkj djrh Fkh fd mlds ifr dk HkkStkbZ ls uktk;t laca/k gSA
Page 10 of 20
17. P.W.-1 Bandhu Mahto is a local villager, who has seen the dead body of the deceased lying on a Cot at her matrimonial home. He has also stated that there was tense relation between Guddi Devi with husband Birju Yadav (appellant) and bhaisur Barho Yadav. He has also stated that there was no partition of landed property between two brothers.
18. P.W.-2 Birju Prasad Yadav , who is also a local villager. He saw the dead body of the Guddi Devi lying on a Cot in the Courtyard of house of accused. He has also stated about tense relationship and scuffle between deceased and her gotni, bhaisur and husband.
19. P.W.-3 Kishun Yadav - He is also a local villager and a witness of inquest report of the deceased and proved his signature on inquest report, which was prepared at the house of accused. He has also stated that the deceased was saying that she will not reside with her husband, bhaisur and gotni and asking for partition. In this regard, a Panchayati was also held.
20. P.W.-4 Indo Mehta has been declared hostile by the prosecution and has denied any statement recorded by police.
21. P.W.-5 Balram Prasad Yadav - He is also a local villager, who come to know about death of the
Page 11 of 20
deceased on the next day morning and went to the house of Birju Yadav, where he saw the dead body lying on the Courtyard. He is also a witness of inquest report and proved his signature. In his crossexamination, he admits that partition of property was taken place between Birju and his brother about 5-6 years ago through Panchayati.
22. P.W.-7 Dr. Rajendra Choudhary has conducted autopsy on the dead body of the deceased on 19.06.1996 and found followings:-
“Rigor mortis present in lower limb. Hair, black and loosening. Foul smelling. Whole body was swollen. Body was in process of decomposed. Face-blue and swollen. Mouth – partially open. Tongue - protruded and placed in between teeth. Both eyes – closed. Left eye – congested conjunctive. Discharge of faces. Bruise on upper part front of the chest left side.
On dissection – Extra vesation of clotted blood into subcutaneous tissue of neck. Larynges and trachea in process of putrefaction. Hyoid bone – fractured. Lungs in process of putrefication. Heart - left side oupty, rigor side full of dark blood. Liver, spleen, kidney – in process of putrefication, stomach – empty. Uterus – NAD Urinary bladder – empty, scalp bone – intact. Brain – Liquefied.
The cause of death, according to Doctor’s opinion, was throttling leads to cordiosespirating failure. However, following viscera’s were preserved for chemical analysis. Pieces of heart, lung, spleen, stomach and it contains, one kidney and portion of intestine were preserved.
Page 12 of 20
Time elapsed since death to P.M. examination 60 to 72 hours.
23. P.W.-8 Kunj Bihari Singh was the then Officer-in-
Charge of Gawan P.S. According to his evidence, on 18.06.1996 at 11:30 A.M. he came to know through rumor that a lady has been killed in Village – Mohobari. He recorded SD Entry at about 11:30 A.M. No. 304 dated 18.06.1996 and proceeded for verification of information along with other police personnel. He reached to the house of the accused Birju Yadav and Barho Yadav, who are real brothers and found dead body of one lady in the Courtyard of the house. Father of the deceased was also present there. He recorded the statement of father of the deceased in presence of witnesses and marked endorsement of registration of the case, which are proved Exhibit-3 & 4 respectively and signature of witness Chandrika Yadav the marked Exhibit – ½. He assumed the charge of investigation by himself,
Page 13 of 20
inspected the place of occurrence, which is the house belonging to the accused persons Birju Yadav and Barho Yadav. The house is consisting of four rooms. In a room within 6” x 7”, the dead body of the deceased found on a Cot, in which the deceased was residing with her husband. He also prepared inquest report of deceased (Exhibit-5) in presence of witnesses. The accused persons were present at the house. He arrested Birju Yadav and Barho Yadav and Munwa Devi was not present in the house. He has further stated that the witnesses interrogated during investigation told him that in the night of 17/18.06.1996 the deceased was killed by her husband, bhaisur and gotni by throttling due to domestic dispute. He sent the dead body of the deceased for post-mortem examination. Thereafter, he was transferred and charge of investigation was given to another Investigating Officer.
24. P.W.-9 Dinesh Kumar Rana is the second I.O. of the case, who perused the earlier investigation conducted by previous Investigating Officer, got post-mortem report of the deceased, obtained memo of supervision from Senior Officer and submitted charge sheet against the accused Birju Yadav and Barho Yadav, continuing the investigation against Munuwa Devi, who was absconding.
Page 14 of 20
25. P.W.-10 has proved the formal F.I.R., which was scribed by literate Constable Shiv Kumar Singh as Exhibit-6.
26. On the basis of testimony of witnesses, as discussed above, following incriminating undisputed circumstances appear against the appellant:-
Page 15 of 20
massage, the informant along with his daughter (deceased) came to her matrimonial home on Sunday i.e. on 16.06.1996, on Monday i.e. 17.06.1996 in the morning, a Panchayati was held and the deceased asked for separation of property from her gotni and bhaisur and separate residence, which was heavily protested by her husband with a threatening.
Page 16 of 20
27. In the case of Sarad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of Maharastra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116 , the Hon’ble Apex Court has laid down the following panchseel principles for a case based on circumstantial evidence:-
"Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and 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.
(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.
These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.
28. In the instant case, we find that there was tense relationship between the appellant and his wife due to his illicit relationship with his bhabhi and also for separation in mess and property. The appellant was residing at Kolkata and frequently used to come to his
Page 17 of 20
native place and reside with his wife, but under continuous tense relationship, his wife went to her parental home just few months before the occurrence. It is also proved that the deceased returned to her matrimonial home with his father on 16th June, 1996 and Panchayati was held on 17th June, 1996, which was not reduced into writing, rather it failed due to demand of deceased for separation in mess and property with her gotni and bhaisur and her husband, who desist from illicit relationship from his bhabhi which provoke the appellant. The local villagers examined in this case have categorically stated that the deceased was killed in the night due to dispute with her husband, gotni and bhaisur and in the very next day morning i.e. 18th they have seen the dead body of the deceased lying on the Cot in the house of the appellant. The death of the deceased is also homicidal caused by throttling while she was under custody of her husband / appellant. If the deceased had died an unnatural death in any abnormal circumstances in the house of the appellant, he has not reported the matter to the police. It was within the knowledge of the appellant as to how and under what circumstances, his wife has died homicidal death in his own house / room. Nothing has been brought on record that any other person has any animus to kill
Page 18 of 20
the deceased and entered into her room and fled away causing her death by strangulation. By not offering any reasonable explanation to the aforesaid clinching
incriminating circumstances by the appellant furnishes an additional link in the chain of
circumstances leading to conclusion that it is none else, but the appellant himself, who has caused the death of his own wife in his house by strangulation due to strained relationship.
29. The principles propounded in the judgment relied upon by the appellant in the case of Ram Pratap (Supra) and Raja Naykar (Supra) that the suspicion, however strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof beyond reasonable doubt is not applicable in the factual background of this case, wherein the incriminating circumstances has been proved beyond all reasonable doubt against the accused – appellant, for which, he has offered no explanation.
30. In view of aforesaid discussion and reasons, we are of the firm view that the learned trial court has very wisely and aptly appraise and appreciated the evidence available on record against the appellant and in view of concrete prove available against the appellant, the trial court has rightly convicted and sentenced him. We have no valid reason for
Page 19 of 20
interference in the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentence of the appellant. Therefore, this appeal appears to be devoid of merit and accordingly, dismissed.
31. Pending I.A., if any, stand disposed of.
32. Let a copy of this judgment along with trial court record be sent back to the court concerned for information and needful.
(Rongon Mukhopadhyay, J.)
(Pradeep Kumar Srivastava, J.)
Jharkhand High Court, Ranchi Dated, the 11th December, 2024. Sunil / N.A.F.R.
Page 20 of 20
1 issue framed by the court
Whether the circumstantial evidence proved guilt under Section 302 IPC for throttling death of the appellant's wife beyond reasonable doubt.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Ram Pratap Vs. State of HaryanaDistinguished¶29
(2023) 2 SCC 345 · Who else cites this
Raja Naykar Vs. State of ChhattisgarhDistinguished¶29
(2024) 3 SCC 481 · Who else cites this
Sarad Birdhi Chand Sharda Vs. State of MaharastraRelied on¶27
(1984) 4 SCC 116 · Who else cites this
4 provisions across 3 enactments
Birju Yadav
The State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand)
Rongon Mukhopadhyay
Pradeep Kumar Srivastava
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
