Santosh Kumar and Others vs State of Rajasthan

Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia, J.—On the intervening night of 25th and 26th of May, 2005 at around 04:00 A.M. the appellant No. 1 (Santosh Kumar) caused murder of his wife (Maya Devi) by way of strangulation.

The case of the prosecution, in nut-shell, is that the appellant No. 1 (Santosh Kumar) within four years of marriage, along with his parents, namely appellants No. 2 and 3, Madan Lal and Smt. Phuli Devi, on account of demand of dowry used to harass, Maya Devi and, thus, he and his parents had committed offence punishable under Section 498A of Indian Penal Code.

Appellant, Santosh Kumar was also charged for offence of murder punishable under Section 302 I.P.C. for having caused death of his wife Maya Devi.

The Court of Additional Sessions Judge, Kotputli, Jaipur District Jaipur, vide its impugned judgment dated 08.11.2006, held appellant No. 1, namely Santosh Kumar, guilty of offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 10,000/-. In default thereof to further undergo two years additional rigorous imprisonment.

The appellant No. 1, along with his father, Madan Lal and mother Smt. Phuli Devi were also convicted for commission of offence punishable under Section 498-A of Indian Penal Code. and was sentenced to undergo two years rigorous imprisonment and to pay a fine of Rs. 2000/- each. In default thereof to further undergo six months additional rigorous imprisonment.

Aggrieved against the conviction and sentence, the appellant No. 1, Santosh Kumar and his parents appellants No. 2 and 3, namely Madan Lal and Smt. Phuli Devi have preferred D.B. Criminal Appeal No..1175/2006, under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, in order to assail their conviction and sentence.

In the present case, the prosecution agency, during trial, had examined, in all twelve-witnesses and also proved on record twenty-three documents, being Exhibit-P/1 to Exhibit-P/23 respectively.

The statement of accused were recorded under Section 313 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. They denied all the incriminating evidence put to them, pleaded innocence and took a stand that they been falsely implicated.

In defence, accused had not examined any witness.

In the present case, Amar Singh (PW-1) has presented a written-report (Exhibit-P/1) before Station House Officer, Police Station Pragpura.

In the said report (Exhibit-P/1), complainant, Amar Singh (PW-1) made a grievance that Smt. Maya Devi @ Muli was murdered on account of demand of dowry. In the report, complainant stated that the daughter of his brother, Gadsiram was married with Santosh Kumar S/o. Madan Lal about four years ago. Immediately after marriage, Maya Devi @ Muli was harassed by her father-in-law, Madan Lal, mother-in-law, Smt. Phuli Devi, husband, Santosh Kumar, sister of the husband, Pushpa and brother of husband, Kailash. They were demanding Rs. 50,000/-. Even though, marriage was performed by the complainant-party beyond their capacity. Once accused made an attempt to throw Maya Devi out of the roof of the house and she had suffered fracture. Accused, husband and parents-in-law did nothing to get her treated. They used to often beat her on account of demand of dowry. On 26.05.2005 in the morning at 04:00 A.M. a message was received that Maya Devi has been murdered.

On the basis of above said report, a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/21) was registered at Police Station, Pragpura, Jaipur District Jaipur for offences punishable under Sections 498-A and 304-B I.P.C.

Dr. Birbal Yadav (PW-6) on 26.05.2005 while posted at B.D.S. Hospital, Kota, being a Member of the Medical Board, had conducted autopsy on the dead-body of deceased Murli @ Maya, aged twenty-two years.

In the Post Mortem Report (Exhibit-P/20), the Medical Board had found three abrasions on the dead-body, which were on the chin and the right cheek. The Medical Board had also found a single ligature mark in the middle of the neck. The Medical Board opined that, in the present case, cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation. The Board has also sent viscera to the State Forensic Science Laboratory, Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Complainant - Amar Singh appeared as PW-1 stated that Maya Devi @ Maya was his niece, being daughter of his elder brother, Gadsiram. This witness further stated that Ghardsi Ram was having three daughters, namely Muli, Gumani and Guddi. Muli Devi was married with present appellant No. 1, Santosh Kumar five-years ago. At the time of marriage, they had given dowry according to their capacity. This witness has stated that they have given various household utensils and items of the jewellery. The witness further stated that Rs. 51,000/- was given in cash.

Gadsiram, the father of the deceased, has deposed in the Court regarding the factum of marriage of Muli Devi with Santosh Kumar. This witness also stated that Muli was called by her in-laws as Maya Devi. He had given dowry beyond his capacity. Since birth, Muli from the side of right hand and foot was suffering handicap. This witness further stated that he was informed by his daughter that she is being harassed by her in-laws. On 26.05.2005 in the morning at about 05:00/06:00 A.M. he received a telephonic call from Mamraj, resident of Bansur. He informed that his daughter, Muli had died, therefore, he should come to Paota. The witness stated that they reached at the matrimonial home of his daughter and found her dead body in the courtyard of the house. They had seen dead-body, which was having injury on the cheek. The blood was oozing out of the nostrils. There was also an abrasion present on her right hand.

Dr. Kishan Lal Sharma (PW-3) stated that on 20.06.2005 Madan and Phuli Devi were arrested in his presence. The arrest memos were proved on record as Exhibit-P/16 and Exhibit-P/17.

Banwari Lal (PW-4) stated that at the relevant time, he was posted as Constable at Police Station, Pragpura. On the alleged day, after registration of the case, he had handed over two sealed packets for their onwards deposit to the State Forensic Science Laboratory Rajasthan, Jaipur.

Smt. Manju Devi (PW-5), who was then posted as Constable at Police Station, Kotputli stated that in her presence on 20.06.2005 Smt. Phuli Devi was arrested. Arrest memo was also proved on record as Exhibit-P/17.

Prakash Chand (PW-7) stated that Vimla, daughter of his uncle (tauji) was married with Gadsiram resident of Laduwas. She has given birth to three daughters, namely Maya @ Muli, Guddi and Gumani. Maya was married with present appellant, Santosh s/o. Madan Lal about five years ago.

Madhodan (PW-8), at the relevant time was posted as Assistant Sub Inspector at Police Station, Pragpura. This witness stated that on 26.05.2005 at 11:00 A.M. he was having the charge of Police Station, Pragpura. Constable Raghuveer Singh presented a written-report (Exhibit-P/1) and on the basis of which a formal First Information Report (Exhibit-P/21) was registered.

Babul Lal (PW-9), being maternal uncle of the deceased, stated that daughter of his sister Vimla, was married with Santosh Kumar S/o. Madan Lal. Fifteen/twenty days before the alleged occurrence, Amar Singh (brother-in-law) informed that Muli has been thrown from the roof of matrimonial house. She suffered injury on her foot. Lastly, this witness stated that Muli has not told anything to him regarding the alleged occurrence.

Kesar Singh Shekhawat (PW-10), being Investigating Officer had proved various facets of the investigation.

Shankar Lal (PW-11), being photographer, was called at the spot and he had taken photographs of the dead-body and also proved the same vide Exhibit-P/7 to Exhibit-P/14, which he returned to the Investigating Officer.

Gurudayal (PW-12) had prepared site-plan of the spot vide Exhibit-P/23.

Mr. Sri Ram Joshi, the learned counsel appearing for the accused-appellants, has urged that in the present case, there is no direct evidence available with the prosecution that the appellant, Santosh Kumar committed murder of his wife, Maya Devi @ Muli. It has been further urged by the learned counsel that the prosecution has examined uncle, Amar Singh (PW-1), father Gadsiram (PW-2), another relative, Prakash Chand (PW-7) to prove that the deceased was harassed by her husband and parents of the husband, but no witness has been examined, qua offence of murder, therefore, at the best case will within the ambit of Section 304-B I.P.C.

Counsel appearing for the accused-appellants has contended that even though, it has come in the evidence that the marriage was four years old, therefore, the appellant may be convicted for offence under Section 304-B I.P.C. instead of Section 302 I.P.C. Furthermore, in the present case, by not converting the offence, the Court below has made a grave error.

It is true that there is no direct evidence, but admittedly the dead-body was found inside the house, which was in possession of the appellant and the cause of death is strangulation.

The site-plan of the spot (Exhibit-P/23) prepared by Gurudayal (PW-12) conclusively prove that the dead-body was found inside the room of the house. The said room was in possession of the appellant.

In the present case, occurrence had taken place on the intervening night of 25th and 26th of May, 2005. It is incumbent for the appellant to explain as to how his wife has died, especially when this being special circumstance was in the knowledge of the husband. Therefore, presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act is drawn against the appellant.

In the statement recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C., the appellant has also not furnished any explanation and has not stated a single word as to how his wife had died.

The Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh, , had observed as under :-

"Discussion and conclusion

Questioning the decision of the High Court acquitting Thakur Singh, the State of Rajasthan has preferred this appeal.

We find that the High Court has not at all considered the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872.1 This section provides, inter alia, that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.-- When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Illustrations

(a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him.

(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.

Way back in Shambu Nath Mehra Vs. The State of Ajmer, this Court dealt with the interpretation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and held that the section is not intended to shift the burden of proof (in respect of a crime) on the accused but to take care of a situation where a fact is known only to the accused and it is well nigh impossible or extremely difficult for the prosecution to prove that fact. It was said:

"This [Section 101 ] lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not."

In a specific instance in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, , this Court 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 said:

"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."

Reliance was placed by this Court on Ganeshlal Vs. State of Maharashtra, , in which case 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 the Code of Criminal Procedure. 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.

Similarly, in Dnyaneshwar Vs. State of Maharashtra, , 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.

In Jagdish Vs. State of Madhya Pradesh, , this Court observed as follows:

"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."

More recently, in Gian Chand and Others Vs. State of Haryana, a large number of decisions of this Court were referred to and the interpretation given to Section 106 of the Evidence Act in Shambhu Nath Mehra was reiterated. One of the decisions cited in Gian Chand is that of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar (2008) 8 S.C.C. 382 which gives a rather telling example explaining the principle behind Section 106 of the Evidence Act in the following words:

"During arguments we put a question to learned Senior Counsel for the respondents based on a hypothetical illustration. If a boy is kidnapped from the lawful custody of his guardian in the sight of his people and the kidnappers disappeared with the prey, what would be the normal inference if the mangled dead body of the boy is recovered within a couple of hours from elsewhere. The query was made whether upon proof of the above facts an inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed the boy. Learned Senior Counsel finally conceded that in such a case the inference is reasonably certain that the boy was killed by the kidnappers unless they explain otherwise."

The law, therefore, is quite well settled that the burden of proving the guilt of an accused is on the prosecution, but there may be certain facts pertaining to a crime that can be known only to the accused, or are virtually impossible for the prosecution to prove. These facts need to be explained by the accused and if he does not do so, then it is a strong circumstance pointing to his guilt based on those facts.

Applying this principle to the facts of the case, since Dhapu Kunwar died an unnatural death in the room occupied by her and Thakur Singh, the cause of the unnatural death was known to Thakur Singh. There is no evidence that anybody else had entered their room or could have entered their room. Thakur Singh did not set up any case that he was not in their room or not in the vicinity of their room while the incident occurred nor did he set up any case that some other person entered the room and caused the unnatural death of his wife. The facts relevant to the cause of Dhapu Kunwar''s death being known only to Thakur Singh, yet he chose not to disclose them or to explain them. The principle laid down in Section 106 of the Evidence Act is clearly applicable to the facts of the case and there is, therefore, a very strong presumption that Dhapu Kunwar was murdered by Thakur Singh.

It is not that Thakur Singh was obliged to prove his innocence or prove that he had not committed any offence. All that was required of Thakur Singh was to explain the unusual situation, namely, of the unnatural death of his wife in their room, but he made no attempt to do"

The similar view was also formulated by the Hon''ble Supreme Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Kashi Ram, , and His Lordship has observed as under :-

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 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 specially 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. The principle has been succinctly stated in In Re: Naina Mohamed, .

There is considerable force in the argument of counsel for the State that in the facts of this case as well it should be held that the respondent having been seen last with the deceased, the burden was upon him to prove what happened thereafter, since those facts were within his special knowledge. Since, the respondent failed to do so, it must be held that he failed to discharge the burden cast upon him by Section 106 of the Evidence Act. This circumstance, therefore, provides the missing link in the chain of circumstances which prove his guilt beyond reasonable doubt."

Thus, taking into consideration the observations made by the Hon''ble Apex Court in the case of State of Rajasthan Vs. Thakur Singh (Supra), whereby Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act was invoked and the fact that there was presence of abrasions on the dead-body of Maya and the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation, we have no hesitation to affirm the conviction of the appellant recorded by the trial Court.

Furthermore, having perused the judgment of conviction and order of sentence, we are also convinced that in the present case no interference is warranted to vary the order of sentence.

As a result of above discussions, the present appeal being devoid of merit fails and is, hereby, dismissed, while affirming the conviction and sentence of the appellant recorded by the trial Court.