Rajasthan High Court - Jaipur
Shyopal vs State Of Raj Asthan Through Pp on 14 February, 2017
IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE FOR RAJASTHAN
BENCH AT JAIPUR
JUDGMENT
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 293 / 2011
Shyopal S/o Shri Gheesa Ram @ Ghasi Ram, by caste Meghwal,
resident of Ward No. 17, Mandawa, Police Station Mandawa,
District Jhunjhunu, Rajasthan
(Presently he is behind the bars in Central Jail, Bikaner)
----Accused/Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan through Public Prosecutor.
----Respondent DB Criminal Appeal under Section 374 of CrPC against the Judgment and order dated 10.02.2011 passed by Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhunjhunu, in Sessions Case No. 31/2010 (47/2010) State versus Shyopal.
_____________________________________________________ For Appellant(s) : Mr. Deepak Soni For Respondent(s) : Mr. N. S. Dhakad, PP, for the State. _____________________________________________________ HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI Reportable Date of Judgment :: 14/02/2017 Dinesh Chandra Somani,J.
This criminal appeal under Section 374 of CrPC preferred by the appellant, was received by post through Jail, against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 10.02.2011 passed by learned Additional Sessions Judge (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhunjhunu in Sessions Case No. 31/2010 (47/2010), whereby the (2 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] appellant has been convicted under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs.5,000/- and in default of payment of fine to further undergo one years' simple imprisonment.
Prosecution story in brief is that on 17.01.2010, the complainant Devkaran S/o Rameshwar Lal Meghwal submitted a written report (Ex.P-4) to SHO, Police Station Mandawa stating therein that his sister Manju Devi was married with Shyopal S/o of Gheesa Ram, by caste Balai, Ward No. 17, Mandawa. He got telephonic information that death of his sister Manju Devi has occurred by burns. Thereafter, he informed his family members and went to the spot, with some persons. He saw there that his sister was completely burnt and her death took place on the spot. Thereafter, they did not allow her funeral and discussed the matter for inquiry. Thereafter, we are submitting this application to you with request to inquire into the matter. It is pertinent to mention that her husband Shyopal came to home before two days from abroad and thereafter, this incident took place. His bahnoi (brother-in-law) Shyopal gave beating several times to his sister Smt. Manju Devi. In the night of 16.01.2010, his bahnoi (brother-in-law) Shyopal burnt his sister Manju Devi to death. So please take legal action against Shyopal.
On the basis of above written report, FIR No. 4/2010 was registered at Police Station Mandawa, District Jhunjhunu for offence under Section 302 of IPC and investigation commenced. After completion of investigation, the police filed charge-sheet against the accused/appellant under Section 302 of IPC in the Court of Judicial (3 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] Magistrate, Jhunjhunu who committed the case to the Sessions Judge, Jhunjhunu and thereafter, the case was transferred to Additional Sessions Judge, (Fast Track) No. 2, Jhunjhunu.
The learned Trial court framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the accused/appellant. Charge was read over and explained to the accused/appellant who pleaded not guilty and sought to be tried.
In order to support it's case, prosecution examined 14 witnesses and exhibited 26 documents.
Thereafter, learned Trial court put oral evidence of the prosecution witnesses and documentary evidence produced by the prosecution, to the accused/appellant under Section 313 of CrPC. In reply to the prosecution evidence, the accused/appellant stated that he came from abroad on 15.01.2010. On 16.01.2010 at about 3.00 PM, he went to market of Mandawa to meet with his friends, where he got information about burning of his wife, then he immediately rushed to his house. The appellant also stated that he loved his wife (Manju) very much. Manju died due to fire of hearth while preparing food, he did not set her on fire. The appellant further stated that his in-laws have falsely implicated him due to enmity. The accused/appellant did not produce any witness in defence.
After completion of trial, the learned Trial court convicted the appellant for the offence under Section 302 of IPC and sentenced him as indicated hereinabove.
Being aggrieved with the judgment of conviction and order of sentence awarded by the learned Trial court, the accused/appellant (4 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] has preferred this appeal through Superintendent of Central Jail, Jaipur, against the impugned judgment dated 10.02.2011.
As the present appeal was received by post, Mr. Anurag Sharma was appointed as Amicus Curiae, but later on Mr. Deepak Soni, advocate filed Vakalatnama for the appellant.
Mr. Deepak Soni, learned counsel for the accused/appellant submitted that the prosecution has come out with a case that the deceased Manju Devi was married with the appellant before 18 years, even then she was issueless, therefore, the appellant was willing to perform second marriage and used to torture her, gave her beatings several times and for that reason, he burnt her to death. But the said motive is completely missing in the written report (Ex.P-4). Therefore, the motive story put forth by the prosecution is afterthought and cannot be relied upon. Learned counsel also submitted that admittedly, marriage of the deceased Manju with the appellant, was solemnized before about 18 years, which fact itself is sufficient to negate the motive story put forth by the prosecution.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that there are several infirmities and contradictions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, therefore, no reliance can be placed on the testimony of such witnesses. Learned counsel further submitted that the whole prosecution case revolves around the statement of PW-6 Smt. Basanti Devi, who is also married in the family of the appellant with his brother Prahlad, thus, she is sister of the deceased and bhabi (sister-in-law) of the appellant. Her (5 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] deposition cannot be relied upon because her statement was recorded by the police after two months of the incident.
Learned counsel for the appellant also submitted that the case rests upon circumstantial evidence and it is requirement of the law that there should be no missing link in the chain of circumstances and all the chain of circumstances should be completed, but in the present case, the prosecution has miserably established any of the circumstances.
Learned counsel further submitted that in the case of circumstantial evidence, conviction cannot be based only upon the theory of last seen together or the accused and the deceased were living in a house jointly. Learned counsel for the appellant further submitted that according to prosecution, Manju Devi died in evening of 16.01.2010, and when she was burning in the house, Shyopal was sitting out of the house, and when Smt. Basanti Devi (PW-6) went there, the appellant ran after her with a stick, but the FIR was registered on next day at 5.20 PM. Thus, there is material delay in lodging the FIR and the same has not been properly explained and it reveals that the case is falsely fabricated against the appellant due to enmity.
Learned counsel also submitted that the learned Trial court has not properly considered the statements of prosecution witnesses and discussed the same in routine and passed the impugned judgment against the criminal jurisprudence, thus, the conviction of the appellant is bad in law. Learned counsel for the appellant placed reliance on:-
(6 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011]
1. 2016 (1) RCC (Raj.) 451 Ravindra @ Ravi VS. State of Rajasthan.
2.(2016) 9 Supreme Court Cases 337 Kala Alias Chandrakala Vs. State through Inspector of Police 3.2016 (10) Supreme Court Cases 298 Nathiya Vs. State
4. (2016) 10 Supreme Court Cases 519 Joes @ Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy & Anr.
Per contra, Mr. N. S. Dhakad, learned Public Prosecutor has supported the impugned judgment and submitted that the learned Trial court has rightly convicted the accused/appellant on the basis of cogent and reliable evidence which proved his guilt beyond reasonable doubt. Learned Public Prosecutor also submitted that this is the case of unnatural death inside the house, but he did not offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. As he did not submit probable and satisfactory explanation, and did not discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act, therefore, the Court can consider his failure as an additional link which completes the chain.
First of all, it is to be decided that whether death of Smt. Manju Devi, sister of Dev Karan (PW-3) and wife of the appellant Shyopal, has caused by burns in unnatural circumstances.
In written report (Ex.P-4) submitted by PW-3 Dev Karan, it is mentioned that on receiving telephonic information that death of his sister, Manju Devi has caused by burns, he informed his family members and went to the spot with some persons, where he saw that his sister was completely burnt and her death took place on the spot. In this respect, PW-3 Dev Karan has stated that on (7 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] 17.01.2010, his cousin Pramod informed him that Shyopal poured kerosene on his sister Manju and set her on fire and burnt her to death in his own house in the night about 7-7.30 PM. Thereafter, he along with some persons went to the house of his sister Manju in Mandawa, the house was burnt and he saw that Manju was completely burnt.
PW-2 Gopal has stated that on 17.01.2010, Dev Karan told him that accused/Shyopal has burnt his sister to death and on his request he and some other persons of the village, went to Mandawa with Dev Karan, where they saw that body of Manju was completely burnt. The witness also proved his signatures on memo of condition of body Ex.P-2, site plan Ex.P-1, memo of confirmation of place of occurrence by the accused Ex.P-3.
PW-1 Mahendra Singh is cousin of the deceased Manju Devi, who stated that Shyopal has burnt his cousin Manju Devi to death. Police prepared site plan of place of occurrence Ex.P-1 and the witness has proved his signatures thereon.
PW-4 Indraj is also cousin of the deceased, who stated that Shyopal has burnt his cousin Manju to death in Mandawa. He went there and saw Manju in completely burnt condition. PW-5 Nathu also gave similar statement.
PW-6 Smt. Basanti Devi is sister of the deceased and bhabi (sister-in-law) of the accused/appellant, who stated that on information of fire in Shyopal's house, she rushed there. She saw there that Shyopal was sitting out of the house and Manju was (8 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] burning inside. There was smell of kerosene. She also stated that Shyopal set her (Manju) on fire with kerosene.
PW-14 Dinesh Kumar, Investigation Officer has stated that on 17.01.2010, he was SHO, Police Station Mandawa. On that day, Dev Karan submitted a written report Ex.P-4 to him whereupon FIR (Ex.P-5) was registered and he commenced investigation. He prepared Site Plan (Ex.P-1), Panchayatnama of dead body Ex.P-2. After post-mortem examination, dead Body of the deceased was handed over to Dev Karan vide Ex.P-6.
PW-8 Dr. Rajveer has stated that on 18.01.2010 he was Medical Officer in CHC, Mandawa. On that day, Medical Board of three members including him was constituted. Dead body was brought by SHO Mandawa, which was identified by Dev Karan, brother of the deceased and Gopal, uncle of the deceased Manju wife of Shyopal Meghwal. Police told that the death has caused due to burns. Relatives of the deceased told that death took place before 48 hours. Post-mortem examination was done on 18.01.2010 at 11.45 AM. Dr. Rajveer (PW-8) has also stated that on examination of the dead body, he found that the dead body was 100% burnt and it was of third category burn. A thermal fracture on frontal bone in mid-line with separation of sagital suture seen. Four metallic bangles in both hands. Flexion at elbow and wrist joint. Scalp, Skull, Vertebrae, Membranes, Brain and Spinal Cord, Thorax were burnt. Liver, spleen and Kidneys were dark brownish coloured. Small intestine and Large intestine were reddish brown coloured. Bladder was burnt. Opinion of the Medical Board was reserved till histopathological and FSL report.
(9 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] The witness proved post-mortem report Ex.P-13. The witness also stated that according to FSL report Ex.P-14, portions of viscera of the deceased Manju Devi sent for chemical analysis gave positive tests for the presence of Carboxyhaemoglobin and gave negative tests for metallic poisons, ethyl and methyl alcohol, cyanide, alkaloids, barbiturate, tranquillizers and insecticides. The witness also stated that according to histopathological report, the death was caused due to burns.
The accused/appellant in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC has admitted that death of his wife Manju Devi has caused by burns. He also stated that she was burnt by fire of herth, while preparing food, he did not set her on fire.
From the evidence produced by the prosecution and admission made by the accused/appellant in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC, it is proved that death of Smt. Manju Devi, wife of the appellant and sister of the complainant Dev Karan (PW-
3), has caused by burns on 16.01.2010 and her death is unnatural.
There is no eye witness of the incident of pouring kerosene on the body of Smt. Manju Devi and to set her on fire. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence. Prosecution has come out with a case that the deceased Manju Devi was married with the appellant before 18 years, even then, she was issueless, which was the cause of dispute between husband and wife. The appellant used to give her beatings and torture his wife, the deceased. He was willing to perform second marriage. The (10 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] relation between the appellant and his in-laws were not cordial and he used to avoid attending the functions in his in-laws.
In this respect PW-3 Dev Karan, on whose written report, the FIR was registered, has stated that his sister Manju was married with Shyopal before 17-18 years. His sister was issueless, therefore, Shyopal used to give her beatings and torture her after taking liquor. The accused/appellant used to say to Manju that if no child, then he will kill her and perform second marriage. Whenever she came to maternal home, she used to tell him. In cross-examination, the witness stated that he never reported the matter of Shyopal's maltreatment with Manju. The witness also stated that there was an estrangement between him and Shyopal. He cannot say as to on which day, Shyopal maltreated her.
PW-2 Gopal has stated that Manju Devi married with Shyopal. The dispute arose between them after 4-5 years of the marriage, for no child till then. Shyopal used to say that he will perform second marriage because she is sterile and on this pretext, he used to maltreat her.
PW-4 Indraj, PW-5 Natthu and PW-6 Smt. Basanti Devi also gave similar statements, as given by PW-3 Dev Karan.
Learned counsel for the appellant contended that though, the prosecution witnesses have deposed that Manju Devi was married with the appellant before 18 years, even then, she was issueless, which was the cause of dispute between husband and wife. Therefore, the appellant was willing to perform second marriage and for that reason, he burnt her to death, but the said motive is (11 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] completely missing in the written report Ex.P-4, submitted by brother of the deceased Dev Karan PW-3. Therefore, the motive story put forth by the prosecution is afterthought and cannot be relied upon.
It is settled law that FIR is not an encyclopedia of the case, therefore, the case of the prosecution cannot be thrown on the ground that the motive story put forth by the prosecution is missing in the written report. The complainant has mentioned in the written report Ex.P-4 that his bahnoi (brother-in-law) Shyopal gave beatings to his sister Smt. Manju Devi several times. The witness Dev Karan was examined by the police on the same day i.e. 17.01.2010 and in police statement Ex.D-1, Dev Karan (PW-3) has clearly stated that deceased Manju Devi married with Shyopal before about 18 years and she was issueless, therefore, the appellant was willing to perform second marriage, and used to torture her and gave her beatings several times. Therefore, non- mention of reason of beating, in the FIR is of no consequence.
Therefore, there is no reason on record to disbelieve the deposition made by the prosecution witnesses that the deceased Manju Devi was issueless, which was the cause of dispute between husband and wife. The appellant was willing to perform second marriage and used to torture his wife Manju Devi and gave her beatings several times. In these circumstances motive theory put forth by the prosecution cannot be disbelieved.
In the case of Vijay Shankar Vs. State of Haryana reported in (2015) 12 Supreme Court Cases 644, Hon'ble (12 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] Apex Court has held that in each and every case, it is not incumbent on the prosecution to prove the motive for the crime. Often, motive is indicated to heighten the probability of the offence that the accused was impelled by that motive to commit the offence. Proof of motive only adds to the weight and value of evidence adduced by the prosecution. If the prosecution is able to prove it's case on motive, it will be a corroborative piece of evidence. But even if the prosecution has not been able to prove it's case on motive that will not be a ground to throw the prosecution case nor does it corrode the credibility of the prosecution case. Absence of proof of motive only demands careful scrutiny of evidence adduced by the prosecution. In the present case, absence of convincing evidence as to motive makes the court to be circumspect in the matter of assessment of evidence and this aspect was not kept in view by the High Court and the trial court.
According to prosecution, the appellant Shyopal was working in Muscat (Arab). He went there before 6-7 months and returned on 15.01.2010 from abroad. The appellant also admitted this fact in his statement recorded under Section 313 of CrPC. The appellant also stated that on 16.01.2010 at about 3.00 PM, he went to the market of Mandawa to meet with his friends, where he received information of burning of his wife and then he came to his house forthwith. From the statement of the appellant, it reveals that he was residing with his wife Manju Devi in his house. It also reveals that the appellant was in his house with the (13 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] deceased upto 3.00 PM on 16.01.2010 and the incident of burning took place after 3.00 PM on that day.
According to Smt. Basanti Devi (PW-6), the appellant was taking liquor in the day hours of 16.01.2010 and in evening, he set her (Manju) on fire by kerosene. She also stated that she was sleeping in her house being suffering from typhoid. Her little son came to her and told that fire took place in the house of uncle Shyopal. Then she rushed to the house of the appellant. She saw there that the appellant was sitting out of his house and Manju was burning inside. She also felt smell of kerosene there. The appellant ran after her with stick and told to kill her also. The witness did not say that she saw the appellant pouring kerosene over Manju and setting her on fire. According to her, she went after the fire and she saw the appellant sitting out of his house when Manju was burning inside the house. Though, this witness was examined by the police on 19.03.2010 i.e. after two months of the incident, but only on this ground, evidence given by her can not be disbelieved, because her statement also gets corroboration from the statement of accused/appellant himself, and it is proved that in evening hours of 16.01.2010 wife of the appellant Smt. Manju burnt to death in the house, where she was residing along with the appellant. It is also proved that the appellant was also there at his house when the deceased was burning inside the house, but the appellant has not explained the circumstances regarding death of his wife Manju Devi.
In Munna Kumar Upadhyaya @ Munna Vs. State of Andhra Pradesh reported in (2012) 6 SCC 174, Hon'ble the Apex (14 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] Court held that statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. is to serve a dual purpose, firstly, to afford to the accused an opportunity to explain his conduct and secondly to use denials of established facts as incriminating evidence against him. If the accused gave incorrect or false answers during the course of his statement under Section 313 of Cr.P.C., the court can draw an adverse inference against him.
In our opinion, facts admitted by the accused/appellant require no further proof by the prosecution. Therefore, examination of Smt. Basanti Devi (PW-6), after two months of the incident is not fatal to the prosecution.
As discussed above, the incident of burnt to the death of Manju Devi, took place in the evening of 16.01.2010. According to PW-3 Dev Karan, PW-2 Gopal and PW-5 Natthu, it reveals that on 17.01.2010, brother of the deceased Dev Karan (PW-3) received all information of her death. Then he came to Mandawa along with some persons and after deliberations, he lodged the report with the police. Though, there are some contradictions regarding time and manner of receiving information of death of Manju Devi but that is of no consequence because this is not the case of the appellant that he informed or instructed anyone, to inform to his in-laws regarding the incident.
It is pertinent to note that there is nothing on record to suggest that the appellant would have made any efforts to save his wife Manju Devi from fire, or he sought help of anyone for this purpose. Even, the appellant did not inform to the police about the incident. These circumstances create doubt on the conduct of (15 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] the appellant. Moreover, it supports the prosecution story that relations between the appellant and the deceased were not cordial, because she was issueless and the appellant was willing to perform second marriage and he used to torture her and gave her beatings several times.
To our mind, provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 applies in this case, which provides inter-alia that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of the any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Section 101 of the Evidence Act lays down the general rule that the burden of proof in criminal case is upon the prosecution and Section 106 is not intended to relieve the prosecution of that duty. Section 106 provides to meet certain exceptional cases, where it would be impossible and disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish the facts, which are especially in the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience.
In Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1992) 3 SCC 106, the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife inside his house. Since the death had occurred in his custody, it was held that the appellant was under an obligation to give an explanation for the cause of death in his statement under Section 313 of CrPC. A denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant was a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife.
(16 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681, Hon'ble Apex Court has held that when the wife is injured in the dwelling home where the husband ordinarily resides, and the husband offers no explanation for the injuries to his wife, then the circumstances would indicate that the husband is responsible for the injuries. It was also said that where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.
Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in (2007) 10 SCC 445, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that since the deceased was murdered in her matrimonial home and the appellant had not set up a case that the offence was committed by somebody else or that there was possibility of an outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.
In State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh reported in (2014) 12 Supreme Court Cases 211, wife of the accused died of unnatural death in a room occupied only by both of them. There was no evidence of anybody else entering the room. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that facts relevant to cause of death being (17 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] only known to accused, and he did not explain them, therefore, there is strong presumption that accused murdered his wife. Hon'ble Apex Court set aside the order passed by the High Court and restored the judgment of conviction passed by the trial Judge.
In view of the discussions made above, it is settled position of law that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts which especially within the knowledge of the accused and are virtually difficult for the prosecution to prove, the burden of proving that fact is upon the accused to explain as to how and when he parted company. If he furnish an satisfactory explanation, he must be held to have discharged his burden. But if he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Here in this case, the appellant, Shyopal and the deceased, Manju Devi are husband and wife having no child and they were the only occupant of the house, where the incident took place, therefore, it was obligation of the appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt. Since Smt. Manju Devi died of an unnatural death in the room occupied by her and the appellant Shyopal, the cause of unnatural death was known to the appellant. There is no evidence that anybody else has entered in their room or could have entered. The appellant has offered an explanation that he went to market of Mandawa at 3.00 PM to meet with his friends, where he received an information about burning of his wife Manju Devi, and (18 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] then he rushed to his house. But he did not disclose the fact that who informed him about the incident of burning, even he did not produce any witness in this regard or any of his friends with whom he met on that day after 3.00 PM. Therefore, the explanation put forth by the appellant is found to be false. The appellant has not set up any case that some other persons entered in room and caused the unnatural death of his wife Manju Devi. The relevant facts to the cause of death of Manju Devi being only known to Shyopal, the appellant, yet he did not disclose the facts or explained them. Therefore, there is a strong presumption that the deceased Smt. Manju Devi was murdered by her husband, the appellant Shyopal.
In State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashiram reported in (2006) 12 Supreme Court Cases 254, Hon'ble Apex Court observed that it is not necessary to multiply with authorities. The principle is well settled. The provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act itself are unambiguous and categoric in laying down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Thus, if a person is last seen with the deceased, he must offer an explanation as to how and when he parted company. He must furnish an explanation which appears to the Court to be probable and satisfactory. If he does so, he must be held to have discharged his burden. If he fails to offer an explanation on the basis of facts within his special knowledge, he fails to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. In a case resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable (19 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] explanation in discharge of the burden placed on him, that itself provides an additional link in the chain of circumstances proved against him. Section 106 does not shift the burden of proof in a criminal trial, which is always upon the prosecution. It lays down the rule that when the accused does not throw any light upon facts which are especially within his knowledge and which could not support any theory or hypothesis compatible with his innocence, the Court can consider his failure to adduce any explanation, as an additional link which completes the chain.
As discussed above, unnatural death of Smt. Manju Devi, wife of the appellant took place in the house of the appellant, in evening hours of 16.01.2010. The appellant and the deceased were the only occupants of the house, where the incident took place. Admittedly, the appellant was with his wife Manju Devi in the house, upto 3.00 PM on that day. Therefore, it was his obligation to tender some explanation to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt because the burden was upon him to prove how and when he parted company. Since those facts were especially within knowledge of the appellant and he failed to do so. Therefore, it must be held that he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. This circumstance provides the missing link in the chain of circumstances, which prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt.
In Ravindra @ Ravi VS. State of Rajasthan (supra), Coordinate Bench of this Court has held that when the case of prosecution is based on the version of eye witness, provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act, not applicable.
(20 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] In Kala Alias Chandrakala Vs. State through Inspector of Police (supra), the accused/appellant, wife of the deceased, along with her father and nephew allegedly strangulated deceased to death with a saree and placed his body under a bridge of canal. The case depends upon circumstantial evidence and extra judicial confession made by the appellant to sister of the deceased, however, the appellant was not having good relationship with her. Body was not recovered at the instance of accused. Further, recovery of a moped and pieces of nylon saree were not proved to be related to commission of offence and to be incriminating materials. Hon'ble Apex Court observed that the appellant had not kept quiet and had clearly stated in her statement under Section 313 of CrPC that she had gone to police station along with photograph of deceased and had also stated that the deceased frequently used to go outside for 2 to 5 days. It explains her conduct and nothing more can be attributed to her exclusive knowledge which she was require to explain within preview of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Knowledge of any other fact is attributable to her in view of evidence adduced in the case and the appellant was acquitted giving her the benefit of doubt. Due to difference in facts and circumstances of the case, the law laid down by Hon'ble Apex Court in this case, is not of much help to the appellant.
In Nathiya Vs. State represented by Inspector of Police (supra), it was alleged by the prosecution that there was illicit relationship between wife of the deceased and her paramour (both appellant-accused), eventually led to their allegedly killing the (21 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] deceased. Body of the deceased found floating in a well. The Hon'ble Apex court has observed that the well is away from residence of the deceased, for which any definitive presumption against his wife, as a conspirator of crime, cannot be drawn without the risk of going wrong to cast a burden on her, as contemplated under Section 106, Evidence Act. PW-3 Packiammal stated to have heard shrieks of deceased, followed by a loud sound of a fall inside the well. There is no evidence that immediately thereafter, the appellants were seen in the vicinity of the well. Noticeably, chappals of deceased were found by the side of the well. PW-4 stated that when dead body was recovered from the well, both the appellants were present and wife of deceased, was seen weeping by his side. Hon'ble Apex Court opined that it would be wholly unsafe to sustain their conviction and acquitted the appellants giving the benefit of doubt. Due to difference in facts and circumstances of the case, this is also not of much help to the appellant.
In Jose @ Pappachan Vs. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy & Anr. (supra), It was alleged that the appellant smothered his wife inside the room of his house, strangulated her by using a plastice rope and then hanged her from a hook of the roof of the work area of the house by using saree and thus, brutally murdered her. Testimony of defence witness DW-1 (son of appellant) that relationship between his mother and father was very cordial. Medical evidence also does not decisively establish case of homicidal hanging. Doctor performing the post-mortem examination, highlighted the absence of characteristic attributes (22 of 22) [CRLA-293/2011] attendant on death due to homicidal hanging following strangulation, further reinforce the possibility of suicide. There was no any persuasive evidence to held that at the relevant time, the appellant was present in his house. Hon'ble Apex court has held that it is impermissible to cast any burden on him under Section 106 of Evidence Act. Due to difference in facts and circumstances of the case, the law down in this case, is also not of much help to the Appellant.
In view of the discussions made above, the evidence produced by the prosecution is cogent and reliable and unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellant. The possibility of any such hypothesis, which may be compatible with the innocence of the appellant is ruled out and the prosecution has successfully proved the charge of Section 302 of IPC against he accused/appellant beyond reasonable doubt. The learned Trial court was fully justified in convicting the appellant. There is no scope to interfere in the impugned judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the learned Trial court.
For the above reasons, we see no infirmity in the impugned judgment to call for our interference.
Consequently, the appeal is dismissed.
(DINESH CHANDRA SOMANI)J. (KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA)J. Manish