Bombay High Court
Manoj Shivajrao Patil vs The State Of Maharashtra. on 15 January, 2013
Author: Sadhana S. Jadhav
Bench: V.K. Tahilramani, Sadhana S. Jadhav
1 apeal802.07.sxw
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 802 OF 2007
1) Manoj Shivajrao Patil )
Age -31 yrs. Occ. Business, )
2) Shivajirao Sahebrao Patil )
Age -68 yrs. Occ. Business, )
3) Sou. Shakuntala Shivajirao Patil )
Age - 59 yrs, Occ. Household. )
All residing at -Shelgaon(Ma)
ig )
Taluka Barsi, Dist. Solapur. )... Appellants.
Versus
The State of Maharashtra. )
Through Pangari Police Station )
Taluka- Barsi, District - Solapur. )... Respondent.
---
Mr. B.R. Patil i/b. Shri Amol Patankar, Advocate for Appellants.
Mr. D.P. Adsule, APP for State.
---
CORAM : SMT.V.K. TAHILRAMANI AND
SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, JJ
DATE : JANUARY 15, 2013
JUDGMENT :(Per Smt. Sadhana S. Jadhav, J) 1 The Appellants herein are convicted by I Ad-hoc Sessions Judge, Solapur in Sessions Case No. 74 of 2006 by Judgment and Order dated 21st July, 2007 for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 2 apeal802.07.sxw to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/- i.d. to suffer S.I. for 3 months. They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 498A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and are sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.
1000/- i.d to suffer S.I. for 3 months. They are also convicted for the offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced to suffer R.I. for 3 years and to pay fine of Rs.
1000/- i.d to suffer S.I. for 3 months. Being aggrieved by the said Judgment and Order, the appellants have filed the present Appeal.
2 Such of the facts which are necessary for the decision of this Appeal are as follows :
(i) Manoj(hereinafter referred as Accused No. 1) was married to Trupti (since deceased), daughter of Keshavrao Bhaurao Deshmukh on 15/7/2005 at village Kallamb. Initially Trupti was treated well. On 10/12/2005 Sudarshan, son of Manik Bargule, resident of village Shelgaon had informed Pangari Police Station that on 10/12/2005, he had returned from Barshi at about 5.30 p.m. and at that time he learnt that Trupti, wife of Manoj Patil had died due to burn injuries in her residential house. He therefore, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 :::
3 apeal802.07.sxw visited the said house. The members of Patil family were not at home. He saw the dead body of Trupti and reported the matter to the police station. On the basis of his report A.D. No. 50 of 2005 was registered by Pangari Police Station under Section 174 of Cr.
P.C., 1973.
(ii) On 11/12/2005 Keshavrao Bhaurao Deshmukh lodged the report at Pangari Police Station alleging therein that deceased Trupti was his daughter. On 15/7/2005 she was married to Manoj Patil. The marriage was performed at Shelgaon in Vithal Rukmini Temple. At the time of marriage, he had given Rs. 51,000/- to Manoj in cash and had also given five tolas of gold. He further alleged that since 15 days prior to 11/12/2005 Trupti was being harassed by her husband as he was coercing her to fetch Rs.
50,000/- from her parents as he had recently opened a shop of motor spare parts. Trupti had informed her father telephonically on the phone of Mohan Saste. She had disclosed to him that the accused No. 1 was demanding Rs. 50,000/- and was ill-treating her on that count. She had also disclosed that her father-in-law and mother-in-law were ill-treating her on the same count. They also harassed her on the ground that she was not performing her ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 4 apeal802.07.sxw daily domestic chores. On 10/12/2005 at about 6 p.m. his daughter-in-law Archana informed him that one Manikrao Deshmukh had informed them telephonically that Trupti had sustained burns and was in a serious condition and therefore, they were called urgently. Keshavrao, his wife, his daughter-in-law and other relatives immediately hired jeep and went to village Shelgaon. They went to the house of their daughter and saw that dead body of Trupti was lying in the bed room and it was completely charred. At that time, Manoj was not at home, but his parents were at home. Keshavrao enquired with them and upon enquiry they informed him that on that day there was some quarrel between the husband and wife and when they went to the bed room they saw that Trupti was completely burned and Manoj had left the house. He disclosed to the police that Manoj and his parents had caused homicidal death of Trupti.
(iii) On the basis of his report, Crime No. 97 of 2005 was registered at Pangari Police Station against the accused for offence punishable under Sections 302, 201, 304B, 498A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code. The investigation was set in motion. The accused were arrested on 11/12/2005. After completion of investigation, ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 5 apeal802.07.sxw charge-sheet was filed on 7/3/2006. The case was committed to the Court of Sessions and registered as Sessions Case No. 74 of 2006. The prosecution examined ten witnesses to bring home the guilt to the accused. The accused have examined four witnesses as defence witnesses.
3P.W.1 Jabar Kazi is the panch for seizure panchanama of the pillow at the instance of accused No. 1. P.W. 1 has admitted his signature on the memorandum as well as seizure panchanama which are at Exh. 21 and 22. However, he has not supported the prosecution and has been declared hostile.
3 P.W. 2 Tanaji Vidhate is the cousin of the complainant Keshavrao Deshmukh. He has deposed before the Court that on 10/12/2005 the brother of the complainant had requested him to go to Shelgaon. Accordingly, he reached Shelgaon at about 8 p.m. to the house of the accused persons. He saw that Trupti was lying on floor in burnt condition in her bed room. He enquired with the accused No. 2 about the death of Trupti. Accused No. 2 disclosed to him that a quarrel had taken place between the Accused No. 1 ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 6 apeal802.07.sxw and Trupti in the morning. P.W. 2 is also a panch to the spot panchanama. He has proved the contents of the spot panchanama which is at Exh. 25. He has deposed that the police had seized one red colour plastic can of kerosene containing 2 and half liters kerosene, one match box from the bed room at the time of spot panchanama. The police had also seized some pieces of burnt clothes and pieces of skin from the spot. At the time of spot panchanama, they noticed that some sand was spread towards head portion of the dead body. There was smell of kerosene in the room. Some kerosene which had spread on the floor appeared to be wiped.
4 P.W. 2 is also a panch for inquest panchanama. At the time of the inquest panchanama, they had noticed that fluid was oozing from the nostrils of Trupti and her body was in a complete burnt condition. The inquest panchanama is at Exh. 26. P.W. 2 has identified the articles seized at the time of spot panchanama and the inquest panchanama. The witness has not been shattered in the cross-examination.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 :::7 apeal802.07.sxw 5 P.W. 3 Rupali Bhosale is the sister of deceased Trupti.
She has deposed before the Court that on 5/12/2005 she had spoken to Trupti on her cell phone and Trupti was crying while she was speaking on the phone. Trupti had disclosed that her in-laws were ill-treating her mentally and physically on the ground that she was not doing their household work properly. She was humiliated at the hands of her in-laws. Trupti had disclosed to P.W.3 that her husband was demanding Rs. 50,000/- from her parents and was harassing her in order to coerce her to fetch the amount of Rs. 50,000/- from her parents. P.W. 3 claimed to have given understanding to Trupti that she should wake up early in the morning and complete her domestic works and that she should not feel humiliated at the hands of in-laws. He had further informed her that she would visit her at the time when she comes to Vairag to meet her relatives. On 10/12/2005 P.W. 3 had received a message that her sister had expired. P.W. 3 had then been to Shelgaon alongwith her husband and mother-in-law. She reached Shelgaon at about mid-night and saw that the dead body of Trupti was lying in the bed room. In the cross-examination P.W. 3 has admitted that one of her cousin (uncle's daughter) had not died a ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 8 apeal802.07.sxw natural death. It was suggested to her that her close relative had committed suicide. P.W. 3 has further admitted that Manoj had not visited her house. That she has two mothers. Herself, Trupti and Atul were born out of her father's wedlock with Sharda.
Urmila is their step-mother and she resides at Kallamb. It was further suggested by the defence that Atul had done his post-
graduation in computer science and was serving in the hospital of Dr. Mastud at Barshi. It was also suggested that the father-in-law and brother-in-law of her sister Suchita are advocates. Her step-
sister Alka had also disclosed to her that Trupti had made telephone call to Alka. However, Alka had not disclosed to P.W. 3 as to whether Trupti had complained to her about ill-treatment.
On 10/12/2005 father of P.W. 3 had reached Shelgaon before her and was present in the courtyard when spot panchanama and inquest panchanama was conducted.
6 P.W. 4 Atul Keshavrao Deshmukh is brother of deceased Trupti. According to him, Trupti had disclosed to him that she was being ill-treated by her father-in-law and mother-in-
law and her husband. They had all made attempt to convince ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 9 apeal802.07.sxw Trupti. He has deposed before the Court that Trupti had disclosed to him telephonically fifteen days prior to the incident that her husband had threatened her of dire consequences on her failure to fetch Rs. 50,000/- for his new shop. In the cross-examination, he has stated that at the time of incident he was serving in Intel Computer Services at Osmanabad. He was serving there soon-
after Diwali and prior to it he was serving with Dr. Maksud who is Psychiatrist. He had admitted that in the span of five months of marriage, the accused had never visited his house at Yedshi. It was suggested to the witness that he had pressurised and influenced the medical officers to give evidence as per his say. The said suggestion is denied by the witness. It was suggested to him by the defence that there is suicidal tendencies in the family.
Suicidal tendency is not a contagious decease, but it depends upon the personality of the person, coupled with the circumstances around him. Hence, the suggestion is not of any significance.
P.W. 4 has denied the rest of the suggestions.
7 P.W. 5 Keshavrao Deshmukh is the complainant in the present case. According to the P.W.5, on 10/12/2005 in the ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 10 apeal802.07.sxw evening when he was at home he had received an information from Manikrao Deshmukh who had told him that Trupti had sustained severe burns. Upon enquiry original accused Nos. 2 and 3 had disclosed to P.W. 5 that there were certain bickering between the husband and wife in the morning and thereafter, they saw that whole body was charred. He has also stated that Trupti had disclosed to him about ill-treatment at the hands of the accused persons.
8 P.W. 6 Dr. Bharat Gaikwad was working as a medical officer at Barsi Municipal Hospital at the relevant time. On 10/12/2005 he had received corpse of Trupti Manoj Patil. On external examination P.W. 6 noticed that rigor mortis was well marked in upper and lower limbs. There were no signs of decomposition. He found 99% burns on the body surface as follows :
(1) Face 9%
(2) Upper limbgs 18%
(3) Lower limbgs 36%
(4) Both sides of truck 36%
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 :::
11 apeal802.07.sxw
On internal examination it was noticed that there was absence of soot in trachea. Both lungs were congested. There was congestion of all organs. Stomach was containing semi-digested food material. He has expressed before the Court that Trupti had sustained post mortem burns and before her death she had made every attempt to save herself. Admissions elicited in the cross-
examination are pertaining to the arrest of P.W. 6. P.W. 6 was suspended from the government services for 20 days and was subsequently reinstated by the Government. He had been booked under the Prevention of Corruption Act as he had issued 350 age certificates to the people without verification of the facts. The post mortem notes are Exh. 34. Doctor had issued advance cause of death certificate which is at Exh. 35. The cause of death as noted by the Medical Officer is "Asphyxia due to smothering. The burns of the body are post mortem burns."
9 P.W.7 Ravi Chaudhary is the photographer who had taken the photographs of the dead body.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 :::12 apeal802.07.sxw 10 P.W.8 Ganpat Nagtilak is a police constable, who had carried out the part of the investigation.
11 P.W.9 Chandrakant Gholve is the police personal attached to Pangari Police Station since 2004. According to him, on 10/12/2005 he had registered Accidental Death No. 50 of 2005 on the basis of occurrence report and statement of one Sudarshan Manik Bargule.
12 P.W.10 PSI Nivrutti Gena Kasbe was attached to Pangari Police Station. He had investigated A.D. No. 50 of 2005, which was registered by constable Gholve. He is the investigation officer. In the cross-examination P.W.10 has stated that the house of the accused has two doors, one on the eastern side and the other on the southern side. At the time of inquest panchanama, P.W. 5 was present. There is a government hospital at Pangari and medical officers are also available in that hospital.
P.W. 10 has proved omissions in the statement of P.W. 4 Atul Deshmukh. P.W. 10 has further admitted in the cross-examination that not a single witness has stated while recording statement that ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 13 apeal802.07.sxw they had seen the accused in their house at the time of incident on the day of incident. Taking advantage of the said admission, the learned Counsel for the appellants submitted that this admission by itself is sufficient to establish that the accused were not present in the house when Trupti sustained burn injuries and therefore, they are not perpetrator of crime. However, this admission by the Investigating Officer is not sufficient to substantiate the plea of alibi taken by the accused. There was no reason for the neighbouring witnesses to speak about the presence of the accused at the spot of incident. At that time, the onus lies upon the accused to establish their plea of alibi. The defence has suggested to the Investigating Officer that the dead body of Trupti was sent to Barsi at the instance of the complainant only to get it manipulated. P.W. 10 has flatly denied the said suggestion.
13 The accused have examined defence witnesses in order to substantiate their plea of alibi.
14 The defence witness No. 1 Shridhar Patil is the retired gram sevak of village Shelgaon. He is the elder brother of accused ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 14 apeal802.07.sxw No. 2. He is resident of the same village. According to him, at about 4.15 p.m. he had gone to the back side of accused No. 2 for fetching fodder. At that time, he heard commotion of one lady from the house of the accused No. 2. Thereafter, he and his nephew Mukund came in front of the house of accused No. 2. The door on the eastern side was found closed. Mukund had broken open the door. The door on the southern side was closed.
Smoke was emanating from the house of the accused due to which the visibility was faded. They went to the bed room and found Trupti lying on the floor. She had died due to burns. According to him, at that time accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present at their shop at Barsi. According to him, at his instance Ramesh Khandekar had informed accused No. 1 about the incident on his cell phone.
Accused No. 1 had told Ramesh Khandekar that his motor cycle is not in working condition and therefore, he should come and take him to Barsi. Hence, Ramesh Khandekar went to Barsi and brought the accused No. 1 on his motor cycle. The defence witness has further stated that at the time of incident original accused No. 3 was in her agricultural land. One Khatal had called her from her agricultural land. In the cross-examination, he has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 15 apeal802.07.sxw stated that smoke was emanating from the window which was situated towards south side of the house of the accused No. 2.
Mukund had open the door by giving four kicks to the door. He has further stated in the cross-examination that when he entered in the bed room, at that time, there was some fire on the breast of Trupti and Mukund had extinguished the fire. He has a weak vision in both the eyes. He has also admitted that due to smoke his eyes were itching and therefore, he came out of the house and thereafter did not enter in the house again. In the cross-
examination, the defence witness No.1 Patil has further stated that the police arrived at 7.30 p.m. and he was doing his routine work from 4.30 p.m. to 7.30 pm. He was present in the village when the police arrived. The statement of the defence witness was recorded on 16/12/2005. He has admitted that during this period i.e. from 10/12/2005 to 16/12/2005 he had not disclosed to the police that he was the first one to reach the house and see Trupti lying in the bed room in the burnt condition. He has claimed ignorance about the police enquiry. In fact, D.W.1 was the real brother of original accused No. 2. D.W. 1 has attended funeral of ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 16 apeal802.07.sxw Trupti. According to him, he had not met Mukund Patil and Ramesh Khandekar till 16/12/2005.
15 D.W. 2 Ramesh Khandekar runs grocery shop towards southern side of the house of the accused No. 1. He has deposed before the Court that on 10/12/2005 when he was present in his grocery shop, Mukund Patil rushed towards his shop and disclosed to him that Trupti had sustained burn injuries and she has died and requested him to inform accused No. 1 Manoj at his cell phone. Pursuant to the said request, D.W. 2 had informed the accused No. 1. At that time the accused No. 1 was present in his automobile shop at Barshi. Accused No. 1 told him that his motor cycle is not in working condition and therefore, he should come to Barshi and take him to Shelgaon. He claims to have gone to the shop of accused No. 1. At that time, the accused no. 2 was also present in the shop. He had brought the accused no. 1 to the village. He had entered into the bed room of accused No. 1 and saw Trupti lying on the floor. It is elicited in the cross-
examination that he has reached Barshi with his motor cycle within 10 minutes and that distance between Shelgaon to Barshi is ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 17 apeal802.07.sxw 6 kms. The statement of defence witness No. 2 was also recorded on 16/12/2005 and till then he had not disclosed to anybody that he had brought the accused No. 1 from Barshi. It is pertinent to note that according to him he had not attended the funeral of Trupti.
16D.W.3 Ram Kisan Khatal is an agriculturist. He has deposed before the Court that at the time when Trupti deied at home, accused No. 3 i.e. mother-in-law of Trupti was present in agricultural land and when he came to know about the incident he had informed the accused No. 3 about the death of Trupti and then he had brought her home. He has stated in the cross-
examination that the agricultural land of accused No. 3 is situated adjacent to village and 15 minutes are required to reach in the agricultural land of accused No. 3. Although he had been to police station to meet the accused No. 3 after her arrest, he claimed to have no knowedge about the reason for her arrest.
17 D.W.4 is Mukund Patil who is serving in the health department and is posted at Barshi. He had visited village ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 18 apeal802.07.sxw Shelgaon since it was second Saturday. According to him, on 10/12/2005 at about 4 pm. he had come out of his house for proceeding towards his agricultural land. He heard the commotion of one lady from the house of accused No. 2. In the mean time, Shridhar Patil rushed towards him and he informed him that he also heard commotion. Therefore, Shridhar Patil and Mukund had been to the house of accused No. 2. Initially, they proceeded towards the main door of the house situated on the eastern side of the house. The door was locked from inside. The window from inside the house was open. Thereafter, they proceeded to the southern side of the door of the house. The said door was also found closed. There was smoke inside the house.
He had given call to accused No. 2, but there was no response.
Thereafter, he gave 4 to 5 kicks on the door and open the door.
He had seen that there was some fire on the breast of Trupti. He extinguished the fire with the help of the blanket. Trupti was dead. Nobody was present inside the house. He then requested Ramesh Khandekar to inform accused No. 1. According to him, accused Nos. 1 and 2 were present at Barshi and accused No. 3 was in her agricultural land. In the cross-examination, he has ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 19 apeal802.07.sxw stated that Shridhar Patil is the real brother of accused No. 2.
D.W.3 is also a close relative of accused No. 2. The house of accused No. 2 is situated towards western side of his house. The agricultural land of Shridhar Patil is situated towards southern side of the house of the accused No. 2. He has admitted in the cross-
examination that he was present near the house of accused No. 2 for 10-15 minutes and at that time, he had not heard any shout from inside the house. When he entered into the bed room he saw that Trupti was lying on the floor and there was fire on her person.
He has deposed that he has not seen the kerosene can, match box and burnt clothes of deceased Trupti in the bed room. He admits to have seen some part of saree of Trupti burning. He had seen smoke in the bed room. He admits that he had not touch the dead body of Trupti and had attempted to extinguish the fire with the help of blanket. He has admitted that he was present in the house of accused after arrival of police till funeral of Trupti. He admits that police were making enquiry with the villagers. He had attended his office from 12/12/2005 to 15/12/2005. He knew that the accused were arrested on 11/12/2005. He had attempted to meet the accused when they were in police custody, but he was ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 20 apeal802.07.sxw not permitted to meet them. Till 16/12/2005 he had not met Ramesh Khandekar or Shridhar Patil. In the cross-examination he further admitted that on the day of incident, there was weekly market at village-Barshi. He had attended weekly market and return home at 4 p.m. and thereafter, he was present in the house.
18In the present case, the incident of death of Trupti was brought to the notice of the police machinery by Sudarshan Bagule, resident of village Shelgaon. A.D. No. 50 of 2005 was registered on the basis of the information. The said report is marked at Exh. 45. P.W. 5 i.e. Keshavrao Deshmukh, father of Trupti has candidly stated that on 10/12/2005 Manikrao Deshmukh informed him telephonically that Trupti had sustained severe burn injuries. He had reached Shelgaon alongwith other family members at about 8 p.m. Upon enquiry, accused No. 2 had informed him that in the morning there was some bickering between Trupti and accused No.1. Both of them had entered into bed room and at that time, Trupti was lying on the floor in the burnt condition and accused No. 1 had left the bed room of Trupti.
The testimony of P.W. 5 is not shaken in this aspect. This would ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 21 apeal802.07.sxw indicate that original Accused Nos. 2 and 3 were present in the house when Trupti sustained burn injuries and accused No. 1 had left the bed-room in the presence of original Accused Nos. 2 and 3.
P.W. 5 has not disclosed that original Accused Nos. 2 and 3 had ever demanded any dowry from him. It is the case of P.W. 5 that Trupti was ill-treated by accused Nos. 2 and 3 for not performing the domestic course efficiently. Similarly, it is not the case of P.W. 5 that accused No. 1 had directly demanded Rs. 50,000/- from him. Trupti had not disclose the nature and extent of ill-treatment extended to her to coerce her to fetch Rs. 50,000/- from P.W. 5.
Hence, it cannot be said that Trupti was ill-treated and harassed only for the demand of dowry.
19 P.W. 3 Rupali has also stated that Trupti had disclosed to her that her father-in-law and mother-in-law ill-treated her mentally and physically, as she did not perform household work properly. She was insulted on that count. Even according to P.W. 3 accused No. 1 had asked her to fetch Rs. 50,000/- from her father since he had recently opened a new shop and on that count accused No. 1 had ill-treated her. P.W.3 has stated that she had ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 22 apeal802.07.sxw advised Trupti to do her household work properly and not to take the words of her in-laws seriously. This aspect would indicate that Trupti was not being harassed for demand of dowry. The accused had suggested to P.W. 3 that her cousin and other close relative had committed suicide. This suggestion was made to make a case that Trupti as suicidal tendency. In this eventuality, it was incumbent upon the accused persons to disclose some incident due to which they could infer that Trupti may have committed suicide.
20 P.W. 6 Dr. Bharat Gaikwad had performed autopsy on the dead body of Trupti on 10/12/2005. The post mortem examination had commenced at 11.50 p.m. on 10/12/2005. He has categorically stated that the cause of death was "asphyxia due to smothering" and that burn injuries were post mortem burns.
Absence of soot in trachea is a clear indication that the burns were post mortem, especially when the body was charred. It is pertinent to note that there was singing of heirs on the frontal side. Vital land was not evident. The report of death of Trupti was given to the police at about 7.15. p.m. It was mentioned in the report that at about 5.30 p.m. Sudarshan Bargule had learnt ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 ::: 23 apeal802.07.sxw about the death of Trupti due to burns. Upon perusal of post mortem notes, which are at Exh. 34, it is seen that rigor mortes was well marred in upper and lower limbs. Stomach contents showed some digested food. P.W. 6 Dr. Gaikwad has stated in the cross-examination that Trupti must have died 4 to 5 hours after her last meal and the post mortem was conducted after 6 to 9 hours after the death. This aspect makes it clear that Trupti had died some time in the afternoon i.e. at least 10 hours before post mortem. It is clear that cause of death was strangulation and the burns were post-mortem burns. The testimony of P.W. 6 cannot be doubted in the present case because of some previous allegations made against him under Prevention of Corruption Act. His opinion about the cause of death is based upon the findings which are recorded in Exh. 34. P.W.10 Nivrutti Kasbe has deposed before the Court that while conducting spot panchanama they had noticed fistful of sand near the head of the dead body of Trupti.
The contents of the spot panchanama would corroborate the post mortem findings that Trupti had sustained post mortem burns at that the perpetrator of crime had attempted to cause disappearance of evidence.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 :::24 apeal802.07.sxw 21 Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act casts the burden of proving the fact within the special knowledge of a person. In the present case, the death of Trupti is a custodial death. She died in her matrimonial home. More particularly, the charred dead body of Trupti was found in the bed room of accused No. 1 and therefore, it was incumbent upon the accused No. 1 to offer an explanation as to how Trupti had died. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is an exception to Section 101 of Indian Evidence Act. Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution from the duty of discharging its general or primary burden of proving the case beyond reasonable doubt. It is only when the prosecution has led the evidence which if believed will sustain a conviction or makes it a prima facie case against the accused, the question of proving the contrary lies upon the accused. In the present case, the prosecution has squarely established that Trupti had died a homicidal death and that the cause of death was a strangulation.
It is in this premise that the burden of proving the contrary would lie upon the accused persons.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:04 :::25 apeal802.07.sxw 22 Accused have specifically pleaded alibi and that they had no knowledge as to how Trupti died, in what circumstances she died and therefore, they deserve acquittal. To substantiate the plea of alibi, the accused have examined four witnesses.
Testimony of defence witness No. 1 is inherently inconsistent.
According to him, he went to the house of accused No. 2 only upon hearing the commotion of a lady from the said house. In the very next break D.W. 1 has contended that when he went inside the house, Trupti was lying on the floor. There was fire on her chest, which he extinguished with a blanket. It does not appeal to a prudent man that a dead woman would raise commotion and he had noticed that she was dead.
23 D.W.2 has also repeated the version of D.W. 1.
According to the defence witnesses, the accused No. 2 was also in the shop of accused no. 1. It is pertinent to note that distance between the shop and the residential house is only 6 kms. and the said distance could be covered by a motor cycle within 10 minutes.
The plea of the accused No. 1 that he went to the shop on his motor-cycle but while returning it was not working condition.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:05 :::26 apeal802.07.sxw There is nothing on record to indicate that the motor-cycle was not in a working condition. The Apex Court in the case of Dudhnath Pandey v/s. State of Uttar Pradesh reported in AIR 1981 SC 911 has held that-
"The plea of alibi postulates the physical impossibility of the presence of the accused at the scene of offence by reason of his presence at another place. The plea therefore succeeds only if it is shown that the accused was so far away at the relevant time that he could not be present at the place where the crime was committed."
The distance of 6 kms was such that it can be covered on the motor-cycle within 10 minutes. It therefore, does not appeal to the prudent mind that it was impossible for the accused No. 1 to have committed the offence and then go to his shop alongwith the accused No. 2. The accused No. 3 has also taken a plea of alibi by stating that she was in the agricultural land at the time when the incident occurred and was informed by the other villagers that her daughter-in-law had died due to burs. It is elicited in the cross-
examination of D.W. 3 and 4 that the agricultural land is situated adjacent to the village and 15 minutes are required to reach in the agricultural land of accused No. 3. That settles the issue of guilt.
::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:05 :::27 apeal802.07.sxw The distance thus would be the material factor in the matter of acceptability of the plea of alibi.
24 The learned Counsel for the appellant has submitted that in all probabilities Trupti had committed suicide. This submission cannot be accepted in view of the fact that the burns sustained by Trupti were post-mortem burns. Moreover, the body was charred. There was a fistful of sand in the bed-room. Hence, we have arrived at a conclusion that Trupti had died a homicidal death at the hands of the accused persons and that they have attempted to cause disappearance of evidence by setting the dead body ablaze in order to create a scene that Trupti had committed suicide by immolating herself. The circumstances speak for themselves. However, the prosecution has failed to establish the charge under Section 498A r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code since the accused are acquitted of the charge punishable under Section 304 B r/w Section 34 of Indian Penal Code. The findings of the Sessions Judge in respect of conviction for offence punishable under Section 302 and 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:05 ::: 28 apeal802.07.sxw Code do not call for any interference. Hence, we pass following order :
ORDER
(i) The appeal is partly allowed.
(ii) The conviction and sentence of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 498 A r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is quashed and set aside. Fine, if paid, be refunded.
(iii) The conviction and sentence of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 302 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed.
(iv) The conviction and sentence of the appellants for offence punishable under Section 201 r/w 34 of Indian Penal Code is confirmed.
(v) Office to communicate this order to the Superintendent of prison where the appellant is lodged and to the appellant-original accused.
(v) Writ of Order be expedited.
(SMT. SADHANA S. JADHAV, J) (SMT.V.K.TAHILRAMANI, J) ::: Downloaded on - 09/06/2013 19:34:05 :::