Punjab-Haryana High Court
Vishwa Nath vs State Of Haryana on 7 February, 1998
JUDGMENT V.K. Bali, J.
1. Appellant Vishwa Nath has been held guilty of murder charge for setting his wife ablaze on December 23, 1994, at 8.15 p.m. He has been ordered to undergo R.I. for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 5,000/- or in default thereof to further undergo RI for two years, vide order of conviction and sentence recorded against him by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat, dated February 7, 1998. It is against this order of conviction and sentence that the present appeal has been filed.
2. Brief facts of the case reveal that the occurrence leading to death of Promila, wife of the appellant herein, had taken place on December 23, 1994 when, as mentioned above, she was, as per the prosecution case, set ablaze alive by the appellant. The FIR with regard to occurrence came to be recorded at 3.15 p.m. on the same date and the special report reached the concerned Magistrate at Panipat at 7.45 p.m., again on the same date. The FIR came into being on the statement of Naresh Chander Goel, real brother of the deceased. It was recorded by SI Surinder Kumar PW 8 at police station City Panipat. While giving the details of the events, leading to death of his sister Promila, Naresh Chander Goyal stated that his elder sister Promila Gupta was married in the month of February, 1980 with Vishwa Nath according to Hindu Rites. The appellant had constructed his new house on the back side of Tehsil Road, General Hospital, Panipat about 3/4 years ago. His sister and her husband used to live in that house. Three children were born from the womb of his sister. Out of them, two sons had expired. One daughter, namely, Isha is alive. She was born in between the two sons and was about three years old. His other elder sister, namely, Nirmala, who was married with Ghansham Dass Gupta, was residing at 55-B, Narain Singh Park, Panipat. On December 22, 1994 she informed him at Delhi by means of a telephonic message that a dispute had taken place at the house of Promila. He reached the house of Promila at about 6 p.m. on the same date. At that time, his sister Promila and her husband were present at home. He had a talk with his sister Promila. She told him that her husband had illicit relations with a woman, resident of Tehsil Camp, Panipat, for the last about two years. That woman had got a son aged about six months from the loins of Vishwanath. The first informant continued making understand the appellant uptil 11 p.m. and the appellant insisted that he had no illicit relations with any woman. They all took their meals after 11 p.m. His sister Promila, her husband and their daughter Isha went to sleep in the bedroom on the ground floor. He went upstairs in the Chaubara in order to sleep there. In the morning at about 8.15 a.m. he heard the shrieks of his sister from ground floor. He got up immediately and came out. He saw from the roof through iron Jal that the appellant was sprinkling kerosene oil upon his sister with a jug. He raised an alarm from the roof. Within his sight, the appellant lit the match stick and set his sister on fire. He wanted to rush down but the gate of the stair case was locked from outside. He opened the gate of stair case with great efforts and reached down stairs in the gallery. In the meantime, his sister Promila had breathed her last. The appellant ran away towards outside after opening the main gate. He got perplexed. Then he took out a blanket from the room and wrapped his sister in it. He came out after closing the main gate of the house and reached the house of his sister Nirmala which was situated in Narain Singh Park, while weeping and running. He narrated the whole incident to his sister and her husband Ghansham Dass. His sister's husband informed his father Ram Dia at Delhi by means of telephonic message. He had been waiting for his father. After the arrival of his father, he along with his father and his sister's husband Ghansham Dass went to police station to lodge the report. Naresh Chander Goyal further stated that the appellant had killed his sister by setting her on fire on account of dispute that he had illicit relations with another woman and that he had witnessed the whole occurrence.
3. In support of its case, the prosecution relied upon statements of two eye witnesses, Naresh Chander Goyal and Ghansham Dass Gupta, PWs 6 and 7. To corroborate the version given by two eye witnesses, referred to above, prosecution also examined Dr. Naresh Pahuja, PW 2, Dr. Mahesh Parkash, PW 3, Raghbir Singh, Sub Registrar, PW 1 B. L. Taneja, Draftsman, PW 4, Surinder Singh, Photographer, PW 5, SI Surinder Kumar, PW 8 and Constable Tej Singh PW 9, besides relying upon some documentary evidence.
4. When examined under S. 313, Cr.P.C. the appellant, besides denying the incriminating material put to him, further stated that he was living happily with his wife, Promila. His wife Promila could not conceive for a period of about 11-12 years from marriage and got treatment from various doctors and hospitals. His wife delivered two male children and both of them had died at the time of birth and as such she remained under depression. Prior to her death, she was under the impression that she was pregnant and on 22-12-1994 she was subjected to a pregnancy test, which was found negative and as such she became very dejected. On 23-12-1994 he was not present in the house and had gone for his work and upon learning that his wife Promila had caught fire, he immediately rushed to his house, where various people of the locality were present. Thereafter, he informed the local police and sent information to his in-laws and other relatives. The police had come to the spot immediately. His in-laws falsely implicated him in this case in collusion with the police and he was taken into custody on the same day. In his defence, he examined DW 1 Mahabir Singh, DW 2 Dr. Anita Vermani and DW 3 Dr. K. L. Batra.
5. The resultant trial, resulted in conviction and sentence of the appellant in the manner, fully indicated above.
6. Before the points canvassed by learned counsel for the parties are examined, it would be useful to give the text of evidence led by the parties in brevity.
7. Dr. Naresh Pahuja PW 2 stated that on 22-5-1994 at about 11 p.m. one Babita wife of Vishwa Nath was admitted in his hospital and she was having labour pain. She gave birth to a healthy male child on 23-5-1994 at 4.41 a.m. He had brought the original bed head ticket prepared by him, bearing various entries with regard to her time to time position. She was discharged on 24-5-1994. He produced the original bed head ticket in the Court as Ex. PB. He further stated that the certificate with regard to consent for operation etc. was given by the person, who accompanied the patient and he had signed the same at point, Ex. PB/2 in Ex. PB. He did not remember as to what relation the person accompanying Babita was having. He had also brought the original birth and death register. He further stated that there was discrepancy with regard to the address of Babita, given in bed head ticket, Ex. PB and the entry about it in column No. 7 in the relevant register. He further stated that the entry in the register had been made after ascertaining the permanent address from the person accompanying Babita. On the request of the Public Prosecutor, the witness was declared hostile and was cross-examined. In his said cross-examination, he denied having made any statement to the police on 11-1-1995 and having stated to the police that certificate Ex. PB/2 was signed by Vishwa Nath, husband of Babita. He was confronted with his statement, Ex. PC, portion 'A' to 'A' wherein it was so recorded. He admitted that there was a column in the certificate, Ex. PB re : relationship of the person with the patient which was lying blank. He denied the suggestion that he was in a position to identify the person accompanying Babita at the time when she was brought to his hospital or that he had falsely deposed with regard to his inability to identify him. When cross-examined by the appellant, he stated that on the OPD ticket, Ex. PB/1, only name of Babita was mentioned. Her father's name or husband's name or address or caste had not been mentioned. In the entire record maintained by him, the parentage, caste and address of Vishwa Nath did not find mention. However, address of Babita wife of Vishwa Nath had been mentioned as aforesaid. In Ex. PB, where the address of Babita had been mentioned as Ram Nagar, Panipat, there was no column of temporary address. He did not remember if Babita had earlier visited his hospital or not. PW 3 Dr. Mahesh Parkash stated that on 24-12-1994 at 10.30 a.m. he had conducted post mortem on the dead body of Promila and observed as under :-
"There were various degrees of burns all over the body (nearly 100%) except small patch below the left bangles area on hand which contained a small piece of un-burnt red-jersy and showed the line of redness. There was patch on the right buttock area unburnt. There were superficial burns on feet and sole also.
There was black colouration of face, head and body with peeling of the skin at places all over the body with underlying skin, yellowish red. There was deep burn (muscle deep) on the left arm posteriorly along with the posterior part of maxilla and part of the chest on back adjacent to axilla was present.
Scalp hair were totally burn except a portion on the left side of scalp.
Eyes lashes, eye brows and pubic hair were totally burnt.
Membrane and brain were congested, pleurae was congested, larnyx and trachea were congested and sooty particles were present in the trachea. Both the lungs were congested and heart contained blood on both sides. Stomach contained liquid, small intestine contained chyme and gases and was congested, large intestine was congested and gas and faecal matter was present, liver, spleen and kidneys were congested, bladder had small amount of urine. Organ of generation were totally burnt externally and internal uterus was not pregnant."
8. In the opinion of the doctor, cause of death was shock and suffocation due to extensive burns (100%). The burns were ante-mortem in nature. However, the deep burns present on the muscles could be the effect of the burns after the death of the victim. However, with a view to find out if there was any associated cause of poisoning, viscera of the deceased was taken for examination by the expert. The time between injury and death was variable md within 24 hours and between death and postmortem between 4 to 48 hours. The doctor explained that by saying that the deep burns could be postmortemed in nature, he meant that the injured sustained burns during lifetime and died and the same burns continued affecting the dead body. The possibility of death in this case being instantaneous could not be ruled out.
9. PW 1 Raghbir Singh proved certificate, Ex. PA which was issued by him on 5-1-1995 after collecting relevant entry from the relevant original register. The information about the birth of the child in this case was received through an official of Pahuja Nursing Home, Panipat. In his cross-examination, he stated that there was a column in the register, which is No. 10, in which the occupation of the father of child is mentioned and in the said column occupation of the father of the child has been mentioned as business. The address of Babita and Vishwa Nath has been mentioned as 471/11, Panipat in the register as well as in the certificate, Ex. PA. In the column of informant, which is at Sr. 23, there were signatures of one Rajesh who had come to get the entry recorded. In the entire record caste of Babita and Vishwa Nath had not been mentioned. In the column of education of the child's father, which is at Sr. No. 9 in the register, the qualification of Vishwa Nath has been mentioned as B.A. PW 4 B. L. Taneja, Draftsman only deposed that he prepared the scaled plan, Ex. PG on the asking of the police on 24-12-1994. Surinder Singh, Photographer, PW 5 stated that on 23-12-1994 on the asking of the investigating officer he took five different snaps of the place of occurrence. Insofar as PWs. 6 and 7, Naresh Chander Goel and Ghansham Dass Gupta are concerned, they have fully supported the prosecution version. We shall deal with their cross-examination as and when required in the context of the contentions raised by learned defence counsel. SI Surinder Kumar, PW 8 deposed with regard to the steps that he had taken while investigating the case. Constable Tej Singh PW 9 only tendered his affidavit, Ex. PN in the evidence.
10. As mentioned above, appellant led evidence in defence. Mahabir Singh, Lab Technician, DW 1 stated that he was working as Lab Technician since the year 1991 in Red Cross Blood Bank and Hospital Welfare Section, Panipat. He had brought the original register pertaining to the month of December, 1994 regarding various tests undergone by him of different patients. On 22-12-1994 Promila was referred from Civil Hospital, Panipat for urine test in order to confirm the pregnancy and had given his report which he proved as Ex. DX. The pregnancy test was found to be negative. In his cross-examination he, however, stated that neither the name of husband nor other particulars of Smt. Promila regarding her address as well as her identification mark, except her age, were mentioned. He admitted that the name of patient mentioned in Ex. DX is Parmil. The prescription slip, Ex. DX was given by some doctor of civil hospital. DW 2 Dr. Anita Vermani stated that she knew appellant Vishwa Nath. She had issued prescription, Ex. DX about his wife. The appellant was accompanying his wife on 22-12-1994, the date of prescription. The lady had told her that she was carrying pregnancy for the last five months. She examined her and from the examination of abdomen, she found that the lady was pregnant for the last 16 weeks. Growth of foetus, in her view, was not normal. She prescribed urine test to confirm the pregnancy. The lady had undergone that test from Red Cross Blood Bank and vide report Ex. DX/1 she was not found to be pregnant. The witness had verbally advised her to undergo ultra sound test for the confirmation of the pregnancy, if any. In her cross-examination, she stated that the name of patient, as mentioned in Ex. DX was Parmil. Her age as well as the name of her husband was not mentioned on it. The prescription slip did not bear any registration number/reference number of the civil hospital, Panipat or that of ESI Hospital, Panipat. There is no office record of the said prescription slip. She further stated that they do maintain OPD register in the ESI hospital as well as in civil hospital. However, she had examined the lady on personal equation. The OPD register of ESI Hospital relates to the persons who are covered under ESI. She denied the suggestion that with a view to help the appellant, the said documents had been manipulated later on. She further stated that the lady might be of the age of about 27 years and she had wheatish complexion and her height might be 5'-2" approximately. However, these details as well as the mark of identification of the lady were not mentioned in the said document. She did not know the parents/brothers of the lady. She denied the suggestion that she never examined the wife of appellant and had deposed falsely. Dr. K. L. Batra, Medical Superintendent, Civil Hospital, Panipat, who was examined as DW 3, stated that on 15-12-1994 he was posted as Medical Superintendent in Civil Hospital, Panipat and he also attended the out-door patients in the hospital. He had seen the prescription slip, Ex. DY issued in the name of Promila. She was a patient of Manic Depressive Psychosis. According to the history of the patient, two deaths of male children had taken place in the family and there was no male issue even after 14 years of married life. There was history of change of mood, sometimes sad, sorrow and alternatively elated and agitated. She was put on treatment and was referred to Medical College and Hospital, Rohtak for further treatment. In his cross-examination he stated that the patient had given her age as 40 years. Sometimes age was recorded by them on their own estimate. The name of the husband or father, as well as the address of patient was not given either in the prescription slip or in the said register. The entry regarding Promila was at the end of the relevant date. Poonam, who recorded the entry, was still posted in the hospital. He denied the suggestion that they do not write history of the patient on such slips and the same has been manipulated later on.
11. We have heard Mr. Atul Lakhanpal, learned counsel for the appellant and Mr. N. K. Sanghi, Deputy Advocate General, Haryana and with their assistance, gone through the records of the case.
12. The first contention of learned defence counsel centres around non-presence of PW 6 Naresh Chand Goel, brother of the deceased. While elaborating the said contention, it has been argued that as per the statement of the said witness, dead body of Promila was wrapped with a blanket but the same was not found nor taken into possession by the police. Further, the conduct of witness is absolutely unnatural inasmuch as even though he had seen his sister being burnt alive, he did not bother to take her to hospital, situated just opposite to the house where she died nor he informed the neighbours nor even bothered to go to the police station. He rather chose to report the matter to his other sister, who too was residing at Panipat. Further, when on the previous day, he had reached Panipat, he did not inform any one about his arrival. It is then contended that statement of Surinder Singh, photographer, who was examined as PW 5, completely demolishes the presence of PW 6 at the scene of occurrence. Further, site plan, Ex. PD/1 and the inquest report do not show the presence of this witness. So much so, even the JAL, through which the witness had seen the occurrence, had not been shown in Ex. PG. "Even the medical evidence would indicate non-presence of this witness further contends the learned counsel. The contention of the learned counsel is that the doctor clearly stated that possibility of death in this case could not be ruled out because of suffocation inasmuch as many sooty articles are found. On the other hand, the place where dead body was found was quite open and, in any case, not congested and therefore, death could not be the result of suffocation." It is then argued that the eye witness failed to mention anything with regard to Isha, daughter of the deceased as to whether she was taken by the appellant along with him after the occurrence or she remained in the house. The witness even did not bother to extinguish the fire which further lends support to his contention that PW 6 was not present at the scene of occurrence.
13. We have given our anxious thoughts to the points raised by learned defence counsel but in the context of the evidence that has been led in this case, we do not find any merit whatsoever. Before we may comment upon the various points projected by the defence counsel, as noted above, it is significant to mention that concededly, the sister and brother-in-law of the deceased, were incidentally residing in the same town. If, therefore, it was a case where PW 6 had not seen the occurrence and an effort was to involve the appellant in this ghastly crime and for that purpose if witness was required, it would have been very easy for the prosecution to substitute Naresh Chand Goel with either the sister or brother-in-law, who was a Sub Divisional Officer in Government service, of the deceased. They could have been called in a matter of minutes from their known address at Panipat and asked to become a witness. No investigating officer with even limited prudence at his command would have made Naresh Chand Goel, who was residing at Delhi as an eye witness instead of those who are readily available in the town itself. It is in this context that the contentions raised by learned defence counsel need to be appreciated. Learned counsel is not right in submitting that no blanket was found or taken into possession by the police. It is true that the witnesses sometime talk of blanket and sometimes of a LOHI but there is not much difference in the two items and further that even as per the defence counsel, as is also made out from the statement of investigating officer, the blanket was found under the dead body. Insofar as unnatural conduct of PW 6 in not immediately informing the police and neighbours or not taking his sister to the hospital which was located nearby, is concerned, it may be mentioned that it has been throughout the case of prosecution that Naresh Chand Goel had informed his other sister and brother-in-law, residing at Panipat and then an information was passed on to his father and it is only on the arrival of his father that the police was informed. In the FIR itself it has been mentioned that the witness had narrated the whole incident to his sister and her husband Ghansham Dass and his sister's husband had informed his father Ram Dia by means of telephonic message. He had been waiting for his father. After the arrival of his father, he along with his father and his sister's husband Ghansham Dass went to police station to lodge the report. In his statement made before the Court, it has further been clarified by the witness that his father had told him to wait for his arrival at Panipat. We find absolutely nothing unnatural in this conduct of the witness. He must not be visiting Panipat very often. As per the defence counsel, he had gone to Panipat after a long gap. Naturally, he did not know many people residing around the house of the appellant. It could also be that he was not expecting anyone around the house of the appellant to be lending him a helping hand. Such a help was, however, assured to him from his other sister and brother-in-law residing at Panipat. In these circumstances, his not going to the police straightaway or informing the people in the neighbourhood, can not reflect adversely upon his conduct. Insofar as his not taking Promila to the hospital, located opposite to the house of appellant, is concerned, suffice it to say that as per the statement made by him, when he had covered her with a blanket, she had already expired. There was no question of taking a dead body to the hospital and that would have served no purpose whatsoever. Nothing unnatural can be deciphered from his conduct of not informing anyone that he had arrived at Panipat when he landed there a day earlier from the occurrence. It is quite clear from the statement made by him that upto late night he was busy in bringing about a settlement between his sister and the appellant and he had made all efforts to persuade the appellant to stop extra marital relations that he had with Babita. Insofar as informing his arrival to his other sister is concerned, it appears that there was no necessity to do so as, in all probability, the said sister knew about his arrival inasmuch it is on receipt of her telephone that he had come to Panipat. The less said about the photographer the better. This witness, in our view, has certainly been won over by the appellant. He deposed in his cross-examination far more for what he was brought in the witness box by the prosecution and was rightly declared hostile and then cross-examined. The occurrence in this case leading to death of Promila had taken place at 8/8.15 AM and it is not possible to believe that this witness was attracted to the scene of occurrence as he was opening his shop at that time. Shops do not open that early in the morning and that too in the month of December when it is extreme cold. When questioned as to who all had come along with him, when he had heard the noise coming from the spot, he did mention few persons but the defence did not have courage to examine even one of the persons named by him. Insofar as non-showing of the presence of witness in Ex. PD or Ex. PG is concerned, in our view, it was not necessary to have shown the presence of witness there. Presence of JAL, even though mentioned as a hole has been shown in Ex. PG. There is no support available to the appellant on the basis of medical evidence either. The doctor has clarified by saying that death could be instantaneous and insofar as suffocation is concerned, all that the doctor says is that the said possibility cannot be ruled out. Non-mentioning of Isha, i.e., as to whether she remained in the house or was taken by the appellant along with him, cannot be fatal to the prosecution case. At a time when Promila was burning, all that the witness could do, perhaps was to wrap a blanket around her body which he did and, therefore, it cannot be said that he made no efforts to extinguish the fire.
14. Learned defence counsel then contends that the prosecution has miserably failed in this case to prove motive inasmuch as no proper evidence has been led that the appellant was having illicit relations with a woman, named, Babita and that their illicit liaison had resulted into birth of a male child. The oral and documentary evidence led on that behalf can not result into a positive finding that the said child was born to Babita and that too from the loins of appellant, further contends the learned counsel. If evidence of an eye witness is available and the same is reliable, it is not necessary for the prosecution to prove motive, but in the present case, we do not at all agree with the contention of the learned counsel that the prosecution could not prove that the appellant had illicit relations with Babita. Dr. Naresh Pahuja, PW 2 stated that on 22-5-1994 at about 11 p.m. one Babita wife of Vishwa Nath was admitted in his hospital and she was having labour pain. She gave birth to a healthy male child on 23-5-1994. This all happened to be about six months before the occurrence and it may be recalled at this stage that the first informant did state that he had come to know from his sister that the appellant was having illicit relations with Babita and they had even a male child of six months. The FIR in this case came to be lodged at 3.15 p.m. on 23-12-1994. In such a short span it was difficult for the prosecution to have coined a story with regard to illicit relations that the appellant had with Babita. In any case, it could not be known that the male child, which was result of such illicit relations between these two, was of six months. The eye witness had no occasion whatsoever to come to know about this but for the information that he received from his sister in the evening a day earlier to the date of occurrence. The doctor had produced the original bed head ticket in the Court as Ex. PB and further stated that the certificate with regard to consent for operation was given by the person, who accompanied the patient and he had signed the same. He denied as to what relation the person accompanying Babita was having. It may be recalled that the witness was declared hostile and cross-examined by the Public Prosecutor. When cross-examined, he denied having made any statement to the police on 11-1-1995 and having stated to the police that certificate, Ex. PB/2 was signed by Vishwa Nath, husband of Babita. He was duly confronted with his statement, Ex. PC, portion 'A' to 'A' wherein it was so recorded. It does appear to us that the witness remained only half way true while making his statement and to some extent he did want to help the appellant. It is proved on record that his statement was recorded by the investigating officer and to that extent he is certainly telling lie. Further, PW 2 had even produced the original birth register. If the statement of PW 1 Raghbir Singh is read along with the statement of PW 2 Dr. Naresh Pahuja, it would be crystal clear that the appellant had illicit relations with Babita and a male child was born to Babita from the loins of the appellant. Raghbir Singh, Sub Registrar, PW 1 proved certificate, Ex. PA which was issued by him on 5-1-1995 after collecting the relevant entry from the relevant original register which he had brought in the Court. The information about the birth of child in this case was received through an official of Pahuja Nursing Home, Panipat. The witness further stated that various Nursing Homes, working at Panipat, maintain their registers in this respect and the said registers ar produced before him for making the relevant entry in the relevant register maintained in the Municipal Committee, Panipat. A mere look at birth certificate, Ex. PA would show that a male child was born on 23-5-1994 at Pahuja Nursing Home with the parentage of Vishwa Nath and Babita. It is true that the investigating officer did not verify the address mentioned in various documents so as to come to know as to whether any Babita was residing there or not but we are of the view that sufficient evidence was collected to connect the birth of a male child to appellant and Babita. In any case the prosecution had led evidence by which onus to prove otherwise or to rebut the same had shifted upon the appellant and concededly, he led no evidence to rebut the evidence brought in this case by the prosecution. We may reiterate here that the fact of illicit relations of appellant with Babita finds mention in the FIR itself and so much so even the age of male child had also been given. It was not possible for the prosecution to have collected such evidence in that short span of time if it was not true and only an effort was being made to pin down the appellant by creating false evidence.
15. Learned defence counsel then contends that there is a considerable delay in lodging the FIR in this case as also that the special report reached the concerned Magistrate at Panipat itself late. In the context of the facts of this case, we, however, find no merit in this contention of the learned counsel either. As mentioned above, it was not unnatural for PW 6 to have first gone to his other sister and brother-in-law residing at Panipat, who in turn informed the father of witness at Delhi. There is nothing unnatural also in the father also telling all concerned to await his arrival before some action is taken in the matter. It would have been the natural anxiety of the father to see the dead body himself and also to ponder over the future of surviving female child of his deceased daughter. It is, thus, not a case where the delay in lodging the FIR has not been satisfactorily explained. Insofar as special report reaching the Magistrate late is concerned, it may be mentioned here that whereas the FIR came to be recorded at 3.15 p.m. the special report reached the Magistrate concerned at 7.45 p.m. on the same day. It is not a case where any deliberations were to be made to coin a story as such and the prosecution in this case could have not gained in any manner whatsoever by delaying sending of the special report to the Magistrate.
16. Nothing at all based upon the evidence led by the appellant has been canvassed before us presumably for the reason that the evidence brought by the appellant appears to be all made-up affair. We need not discuss the defence evidence in detail inasmuch as, as mentioned above, nothing based upon such evidence has been urged before us and for the additional reason that it is not the case of the appellant that only few days before the occurrence his wife had started remaining depressed for either not being pregnant for which she had gone for a check-up as per the defence version or for the reason that she was unable to give birth to a male child, as is again the case of the appellant. The couple was married from last 14 years and the two male children had died quite sometime earlier. Even though the facts are as have been stated, the evidence that has been brought on records pertains to few days and a day earlier to the date of occurrence. No evidence could be brought on records to show that the deceased was depressed for the reasons, referred to above, earlier to just few days before the occurrence. It may be recalled at this stage that the entry regarding Promila was at the end of the relevant date, as is clear from the statement of DW 3 Dr. K. L. Batra.
17. Before we may part with this order, we would like to mention that when the dead body of a wife is found from the house of the husband and it is proved that the death was on account of violence or burning, the husband owes some kind of explanation to show the circumstances in which she died. In Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, (1989) 1 Rec Cri R 18 : (1989 Cri LJ NOC 13), Division Bench of this Court held that "when the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused or was expected to be in his company, the accused is required to give an account of high probability as to how the deceased died". Provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act were invoked. Another Division Bench of this Court in Balwant Singh v. State of Punjab, (1996) 1 Rec Cri R 248 held that "when a bride dies in her in-laws house, it was for the husband to explain as to how a live body turned into corpse or was made to turn into corpse. Apex Court also in Jagjit Singh v. State of Himachal Pradesh, 1994 SCC (Cri) 176 : (1994 Cri LJ 233), held that "when dead body with fatal injuries is found in the room of the accused, he is bound to give an explanation which should at least look probale. When such an explanation is found to be palpably false, circumstances may be sufficient to establish guilt of the accused". In the present case, no doubt true that the appellant has come with his version and led evidence but the same, in our view, is absolutely a made-up one. It is true that the prosecution has to stand on its own legs and prove the case against the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt and that in the present case prosecution has discharged the said onus. The fact that appellant came up with an explanation which is all made-up in our view, makes the case of prosecution doubly sure.
18. In view of the discussion made above, we find no merit in this appeal and dismiss the same, thus, upholding the order of conviction and sentence recorded by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Panipat.
19. Appeal dismissed.