2008 Supreme(SC) 10

2008(1) Supreme 180
Supreme Court of india
G.P. Mathur & G.S. Singhvi,JJ.
State of Rajasthan — Appellant
versus
Jaggu Ram — Respondent
Appeal (crl.) 1133 of 2000
Decided on 04.01.2008

important point
When any fact is especially within the knowledge of the any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Sections 498-A, 304-B, 201-Death of a married woman in matrimonial home by head injuries within seven years of marriage — Prosecution of husband, and in laws of deceased for harassing her in connection with demand of dowry and burning her with kerosene and cremating her body — Defence case that deceased was suffering from fits and she died due to injuries caused when she collided with door (chaukhat) of house — Trial Court while acquitting A1 husband of deceased convicted inlaws u/ss 498-A, 304-B, 201of IPC — Appeal — High Court while acquitting Respondent and his wife of charge under Section 304-B IPC, upheld their conviction under Section 498A –State Appeal — High Court committed serious illegality by acquitting respondent of charge under Sections 304-B and 201, IPC on premise that A1, his son had been acquitted-Even though trial judge accepted defence version that A1was not present in village at time when deceased suffered injuries on her heard and acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and State did not challenge same by filing appeal but that by itself did not justify a conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove charge under Sections 304-B & 201 IPC against remaining accused — Categorical statements, of PW1, PW6 and PW12 father and brothers of the deceased that deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and inlaws immediately after marriage on ground of insufficient dowry — Trial judge rightly held charge under Section 304-B IPC as proved, against Accused — High Court gave undue weightage to minor discrepancies in prosecution case and acquitted accused ignoring the most important factor that the deceased suffered injuries in a dwelling unit belonging to her in-laws and in their presence, that she died due to those injuries and that the defence failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the injuries on the head of deceased — No documentary evidence was produced to show that deceased was ever treated for epilepsy — Conduct of accused and his family members in not informing parents of deceased about injuries caused on her head and consequential death and fact that cremation of dead body was conducted in wee hours without informing parents showed that accused had deliberately concocted story that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and she suffered injuries on her head by colliding against door bar during bout of fits — Fit case for invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which lays down that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of the any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him — Impugned judgment of High Court set aside — Conviction of respondent under Section 304-B read with 201, IPC restored-Appeal allowed. (Paras 17 to 23)

       [2003 (11) SCC 271], [2006 (12) SCC 254] and [2007 (1) SCR 13] — Relied upon.

       Facts of the Case :

       1.A married woman died in matrimonial home by head injuries within seven years of marriage herein in the instant case. Husband, and in laws of deceased were prosecuted for harassing her in connection with demand of dowry and burning her with kerosene and cremating her body. -Trial Court while acquitting A1 husband of deceased ,convicted her inlaws u\ss 498-A, 304-B, 201of IPC. On Appeal, High Court while acquitting Respondent and his wife of charge under Section 304-B IPC, upheld their conviction under Section 498A.

       2.Present Appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       High Court committed serious illegality by acquitting respondent of charge under Sections 304-B and 201, IPC on premise thatA1, his son had been acquitted-Even though trial judge accepted defence version that A1was not present in village at the time when deceased suffered injuries on her heard and acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and the State did not challenge same by filing appeal but that by itself did not justify a conclusion that prosecution had failed to prove charge under Sections 304-B & 201 IPC against remaining accused. Critical analysis of facts and evidence brought on record showed that prosecution had succeeded in proving that deceased died within one and a half years of her marriage. Categorical statements, of PW1, PW6 and PW12 father and brothers of deceased showed that deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her husband and inlaws immediately after marriage on ground of insufficient dowry. On consideration of prosecution evidence in backdrop of fact that defence failed to produce any evidence to controvert facts relating to the demand of dowry, held that deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in connection with dowry immediately after her marriage and such harassment continued till her death and trial judge rightly held charge under Section 304-B IPC as proved, against Accused. High Court gave undue weightage to minor discrepancies in prosecution case and acquitted accused ignoring the most important factor that the deceased suffered injuries in a dwelling unit belonging to her in-laws and in their presence, that she died due to those injuries and that defence failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the injuries on the head of deceased. No documentary evidence was produced to show that deceased was ever treated for epilepsy .Conduct of accused and his family members in not informing parents of deceased about injuries caused on her head and consequential death and fact that cremation of dead body was conducted in wee hours without informing parents showed that accused had deliberately concocted story that deceased was suffering from epilepsy and she suffered injuries on her head by colliding against door bar during bout of fits. Held to be a fit case for invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If High Court had adverted to Section 106 of the Evidence Act and correctly applied principles of law, it would not have committed grave error of acquitting Respondent. Impugned judgment of High Court set aside. Conviction of respondent under Section 304-B read with 201, IPC was restored.

       Result : Appeal allowed.