Indian Kanoon - Search engine for Indian Law

(2) Multiple abrasion mark average size 1/2 cm x 1/2 cm front of neck below the ligature mark. On cut section underlined tissue found non ecymos.

5. The cause of death of the deceased was due to asphyxia as a result of anti-mortem smothering.

6. While framing charge, the trial Judge has framed charge against the accused appellant under Section 302 of IPC.

7. So as to hold accused appellant guilty, prosecution has examined six witnesses. Statement of the accused appellant was also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. in which, he pleaded his innocence and false implication.

(iii) that in the house in question, the appellant was residing with the deceased and when the deceased died homicidal death, it is for him to explain as to under what circumstances, the deceased died. No such explanation has been offered by the appellant either by adducing evidence or in his 313 Cr.P.C. statement.

(iv) that post-mortem report of the deceased clearly depicts homicidal death of the deceased and the same is good enough to uphold the conviction of the appellant.

11. We have heard counsel for the parties and perused the record.

17. In a case where house murder is an issue, heavy burden is on the shoulders of the accused to explain as to under what circumstances the deceased died but here no such explanation has come either in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure nor did he take any defence to this effect by adducing any evidence. While dealing with the matter involving the murder committed inside the house, it has been held by the Apex Court in the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v State of Maharashtra1 as under:

19. Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar v. State of Maharashtra {(2007) 10 SCC 445} this 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 a possibility of an outsider committing the offence, it was for the husband to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.

20. In Jagdish v. State of MP {(2009) 9 SCC 495} this Court observed as follows: (SCC 503, para 22) "22... It bears repetition that the appellant and the deceased family members were the only occupants of the room and it was therefore incumbent on the appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt."