Back
2019 Supreme(Raj) 781
IN THE HIGH COURT OF RAJASTHAN AT JODHPUR
SANDEEP MEHTA, ABHAY CHATURVEDI, JJ.
Sawai Singh - Appellant
Versus
The State of Rajasthan - Respondent
D.B. Criminal Appeal No. 384 of 2013
Decided On : 05-08-2019
For the Appellant : Amitabh Acharya.
For the Respondents: N.S. Bhati, Public Prosecutor.
The prosecution must prove beyond reasonable doubt that the accused is guilty of the offence charged. The accused has the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased if the death occurred in the matrimonial home.
Headnote:
CRIMINAL APPEAL - SECTION 302 IPC - MURDER - EVIDENCE ACT, SECTION 106 - PRESUMPTION OF GUILT - BURDEN OF PROOF - EXPLANATION OF CIRCUMSTANCES - ADVERSE INFERENCE - SUFFICIENCY OF EVIDENCE - CONVICTION UPHELD.
Fact of the Case:
The appellant was convicted of murder under Section 302 IPC for killing his wife. The prosecution alleged that the appellant had a strained relationship with his wife and had inflicted fatal injuries on her with an iron rod while she was preparing food. The appellant denied the charges and claimed that he was not at home at the time of the incident.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder. The court relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant inflicting injuries on the deceased, the medical evidence which confirmed the cause of death as fatal head injury, and the failure of the appellant to explain the circumstances surrounding the death of his wife.
Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder. 2. Whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances surrounding the death of his wife.
Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellant was guilty of murder. The court relied on the testimonies of eyewitnesses who saw the appellant inflicting injuries on the deceased, the medical evidence which confirmed the cause of death as fatal head injury, and the failure of the appellant to explain the circumstances surrounding the death of his wife. 2. The court held that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances surrounding the death of his wife. The court noted that the appellant had not produced any evidence to support his alibi that he was not at home at the time of the incident and that there was no evidence of any prior or existing enmity between the appellant and his wife.
Final Decision: The court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant for murder under Section 302 IPC.
JUDGMENT :
Abhay Chaturvedi, J.
1. Instant criminal appeal under Section 374(2) Cr.P.C. has been preferred by the accused appellant Sawai Singh against the judgment and order of conviction dated 19.12.2012 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Rajsamand in Sessions Case No. 86/2011, whereby, the learned trial Court convicted him for the offence under Section 302 IPC and sentenced him to undergo life imprisonment.
2. Brief facts giving rise to this appeal are that on 19.04.2011, Roshan Singh (PW-1) submitted a written report (Ex. P/1) to SHO, Police Station Deogarh District Rajsamand alleging inter alia that his younger sister Smt. Ladu got married to Sawai Singh @ Shiv Singh, accused-appellant about 18 years ago. After marriage, he used to pick quarrels incessantly with his sister (the deceased). On many occasions, the differences between them were resolved by the members of families and community. It was further alleged that on 18.04.2011, at about 08:00 p.m., his maternal uncle, (Mama) Shri Ram Singh S/o. Bhoor Singh, resident of Pandi, informed him telephonically that his sister Ladu had been killed by her husband and asked him to reach at village Anoppura, thereupon, he alongwith his father, brother and other members of his family, rushed to village Anoppura where they found that the police had already arrived and they were informed that on the same day at about 7.30 p.m., his sister (deceased) was preparing food, when, Sawai Singh reached there in an intoxicated state and started quarrelling with his sister and inflicted iron rod (Sabbal) blows on her head and other parts of the body which resulted into her death on the spot.
3. On the basis of this report, a formal F.I.R. No. 102/11 (Ex. P/14) was registered at Police Station, Deogarh District Rajsamand for the offence under Section 302 IPC and the investigation commenced. During the investigation, Photographs of the deceased Smt. Ladu were taken. The dead body of the deceased Smt. Ladu was subjected to post mortem examination by PW-16 Dr. Suresh Chand and PW-17 Dr. Sushil Jingar who opined the cause of death of the deceased to be Neurogenic shock due to fatal head injury. During investigation, following documents were prepared by the investigating officer:
| 1. | Inquest Memo | Ex.P/3 | Dt.19.4.11 |
| 2. | Fard Supurdgi Lash | Ex.P/5 | Dt.19.4.11 |
| 3. | Site Plan | Ex.P/2 | Dt.19.4.11 |
| 4. | Seizure Memo of blood stained clothes of the deceased. | Ex.P/4 | Dt.19.4.11 |
| 5. | Seizure Memo of blood stained Soil and Control Soil | Ex.P/6 | Dt.19.4.11 |
4. The statements of the material witnesses were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer. The accused-appellant was arrested and his blood stained clothes were recovered vide Seizure Memos Ex. P/8 and Ex. P/10. The weapon of offence (Sabbal) was recovered vide Seizure Memo Ex. P/9. Sharwan Singh, brother of accused-appellant was medically examined and his MLR was procured (Ex. P/12). The recovered articles viz. blood smeared soil, control sample, clothes of the deceased and the accused-appellant, weapon of the offence (Sabbal) and blood stained BELAN were sent to FSL for chemical examination. The FSL, after examination issued its report (Ex. P/22) whereby 'O' group human blood was found on these articles except the underwear. Thereafter, the police after thorough investigation, submitted charge sheet against the accused-appellant for the offence under Section 302 IPC before the Magistrate concerned.
5. Since, the offence under Section 302 IPC was exclusively triable by Court of Sessions, the case was committed to the trial Court.
6. Learned trial Court framed, read over and explained the charge for the offence under Section 302 IPC to the accused-appellant who pleaded not guilty and sought trial. The prosecution examined as many as 19 wit
