Page 1

NON-REPORTABLE

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA

CRIMINAL APPELATE JURISDICTION

CRIMINAL     APPEAL     No.     1323     of     2008   

BUDHURAM … Appellant  

Versus

STATE OF CHHATTISGARH … Respondent

J      U      D      G      M      E      N     T   

RANJAN     GOGOI,     J   

The appellant who has been convicted under Section  

302 IPC and sentenced to undergo the imprisonment for life  

by the learned trial court  seeks to challenge the order of  

affirmation passed by the High Court of Chhattisgarh by  

means of the present appeal.

Page 2

2. The relevant facts, in brief, may be noted at the outset:

According to the prosecution, on 1.8.1998 the accused-

appellant had attacked his wife Shantibai in his own house  

with the backside of an axe resulting in her death.  In the  

next morning, PW 2 (Ramchandra) informed PW 5  

(Bandhanram),  who was the Sarpanch of the village, that  

the wife of the accused was not to be found.  Thereafter,  

along with some other persons PW 2 and PW 5 had inquired  

from the accused-appellant the whereabouts of his wife.  

According to the prosecution, initially, the accused had  

disclosed that his wife had gone to her sister’s place but  

subsequently, on insistence, the accused disclosed that he  

had committed the murder of his wife by attacking her with  

an axe and that he had thrown the dead body in the  

Dhawraghat Nala.  It is the further case of the prosecution  

that the accused took PW 2, PW 5 and the other persons to  

the place where he had thrown the dead body and that the  

same was recovered from the spot pointed out by the  

accused.  Thereafter, PW 2 lodged the report of the incident  

2

Page 3

in the Police Station at Kamleshwarpur at 9.00 PM on  

2.8.1998, on receipt of which a case was registered and  

investigation was undertaken by PW 4 (Ranjit Ekka), Sub-

Inspector of Police.  In the course of investigation, the police  

visited the house of the accused and seized therefrom the  

broken bangles of the deceased, plain soil and bloodstained  

earth as well as some blood stained clothes of the deceased.  

Furthermore, on the basis of the statement made by the  

accused, the police recovered an axe from the house of the  

accused and also a T-shirt belonging to the accused which  

was also bloodstained.  The dead body was sent for post-

mortem examination which confirmed injuries on the front  

side of the head caused by a blunt weapon.  The recovered  

articles were also sent for chemical examination, the report  

of which confirmed the presence of human blood.   

3. On the basis of the aforesaid materials the accused was  

tried for the offence of murder and was found guilty by the  

learned trial court.  The aforesaid conviction and sentence  

3

Page 4

has been affirmed in appeal by the High Court.  Aggrieved,  

the appellant has instituted the present appeal.   

4. We heard Sh. Naresh Kumar, learned Amicus Curiae  

and Sh. Atul Jha, learned counsel for the State.  We have  

carefully considered the contentions advanced by the  

learned counsel for the parties and the evidence and  

materials on record.

5. PW 1, Dr. Vedprakash Patel had conducted the post-

mortem of the deceased, Shantibai, in the course of which  

he found two lacerated wounds on the right side of the  

head.  There were some other injuries on the head of the  

deceased.  According to PW 1, all the injuries were caused  

by a hard and blunt weapon and the same were sufficient  

to cause death in the ordinary course.  PW 2  

(Ramchander Yadav) had deposed that he was informed  

by one Baburam that the accused-appellant had killed his  

wife Shantibai, whereafter, PW 2 went to the house of the  

accused. On being asked about his wife the accused had  

4

Page 5

informed PW 2 that he had killed her and thrown her dead  

body in the Dhawraghat Nala.  According to PW 2, the  

accused had also informed him that he had killed his wife  

in his house.  PW 2 had further deposed that he found  

blood scattered all over in a room of the house of the  

accused.  Thereafter, according to PW 2, he had informed  

PW 5 (Bandhanram), who is the  Sarpanch of the village,  

about the incident and along with PW 5 and some other  

persons they had gone to the Dhawraghat Nala from  

where they recovered the dead body of the deceased,  

Shantibai, as pointed out by the accused.  PW 2 had  

further deposed that the accused had killed his first wife  

in July 1986 and that he had just come out of jail after  

serving the sentence in connection with the said offence.  

PW 3, who is the sister-in-law of the accused, did not  

support the prosecution case.  However, a reading of the  

evidence of PW 3 discloses that the  death of Shantibai  

had occurred a day after the husband of PW 3 had died  

and soon after the cremation of her husband had taken  

5

Page 6

place.  A reading of the evidence of the said witness also  

discloses that at the time of cremation of her husband the  

deceased was present in her house.  PW 4 is the  

Investigating Officer of the case who had deposed with  

regard to the recovery of the broken bangles and blood  

stained clothes of the deceased from the house; the  

taking of samples of bloodstained earth and plain soil  

from the same  place  as well as the recovery of an axe  

from the house of the accused and a  bloodstained T-shirt  

of the accused from the Dhawraghat Nala.  PW 4 had also  

deposed that the accused had admitted carrying the dead  

body of his wife from his house to the Dhawraghat Nala.  

PW 5 is the Sarpanch of the village whose deposition is on  

lines, similar to that of PW 2.  Both PW 2 and PW 5, in  

their cross-examination, had denied the suggestions put  

on behalf of the defence that they had previous enmity  

with the accused.

6. The above recital of the core of the evidence tendered  

by the prosecution  witnesses in the present case would  

6

Page 7

go to show that there are no eye-witnesses to the  

occurrence and that the  prosecution has sought to bring  

home the guilt of the accused on the basis of  

circumstantial evidence.  PW 2 and PW 5 have proved and  

established the extra-judicial confessions made by the  

accused  before them to the effect that he had killed his  

wife and had thrown the dead body in the Dhawraghat  

Nala.  The aforesaid piece of evidence is corroborated by  

the recovery of the dead body from the Dhawraghat Nala  

which was witnessed amongst others by PW 2 and PW 5.  

From the evidence of PW 2 it clearly appears that the  

accused had admitted that he had killed his wife in his  

house whereas from the evidence of PW 4 it transpires  

that the accused had admitted carrying the dead body of  

his wife from the house to Dhawraghat Nala.  PW 2 had  

deposed that on going to the room of the accused where  

the crime was committed he saw blood scattered all over  

in the room.  The evidence of PW 2 in this regard stands  

corroborated by the evidence of PW 4 (the Investigating  

7

Page 8

Officer) who had deposed that bloodstained earth and the  

bloodstained clothes belonging to the deceased were  

recovered from the place of occurrence. In addition to the  

above, the prosecution has established that, at the  

instance of the accused, an axe (Tangi) was recovered  

from the house of the accused and a bloodstained T-shirt  

of the accused was recovered from the Dhawraghat Nala.  

The evidence of PW 1 (the doctor who had performed the  

post-mortem of the deceased) as well as his opinion  

dated 13.8.1998 (Exhibit P-3) clearly establishes that the  

fatal injuries found on the body of the deceased were  

capable of being caused by the blunt side of the axe  

(Tangi) which was sent to him for his opinion.  The  

presence of human blood in the specimens of earth,  

clothes etc. sent for forensic examination also stands  

established by the evidence adduced by the prosecution.   

7. The law relating to proof of a criminal charge by means  

of circumstantial evidence would hardly require any  

reiteration, save and except that the incriminating  

8

Page 9

circumstances against the accused, on being proved,  

must be capable of pointing to only one direction and to  

no other, namely, that it is the accused and nobody else  

who had committed the crime.  If the proved  

circumstances are capable of admitting any other  

conclusion inconsistent with the guilt of the accused the  

accused must have  the benefit of the same.

8. In the present case the circumstances that the  

prosecution had succeeded in proving beyond all  

reasonable doubt, in our considered view, are not only  

highly incriminating but, read together, the said  

circumstances constitute a complete chain of events  

which unerringly point to the culpability of the accused.  

No other conclusion save and except it is the accused  

who had committed the crime can be reached on the  

proved and established circumstances of the case.  We,  

therefore, do not find any reason to doubt the correctness  

of the view taken by the learned trial court as well as by  

the High Court.  

9

Page 10

9. Consequently, we dismiss the appeal and affirm the  

judgment of the High Court.

…………………………………J.

  [P. SATHASIVAM]

         ………………………………..J.

   [RANJAN GOGOI]

New Delhi,

September 20, 2012

1