2006 Supreme(Raj) 2509
Supreme Court
Honble B.P. SINGH, J. Honble TARUN CHATTERJEE, J.
State of Rajasthan - Appellant
Versus
Kashi Ram - Respondents
Criminal Appeal No.745 of 2000
Decided On : November 07, 2006
Naveen Kumar, Mukul Sood, S. Gupta, Ms. Shikha Tandon and Aruneshwar Gupta, Advocates, for Appellant Doongar Singh, V.J. Francis, A. Radhakrishnan, Anupam Mishra and P.I. Jose, Advocates, for Respondent
Headnote:(a) Evidence Act, 1872, Sec. 106 – Accused last seen with his deceased wife and daughters – Accused to explain how and when he parted with them – Burden of proof – Inference u/Sec. 106 ought to be drawn is a question which must be determined by reference to facts proved – Held – His failure to offer any explanation when arrested has been ignored by High Court – It is ultimately a matter of appreciation of evidence and therefore, each case must rest on its own facts. (Para 19)(b) Penal Code, Sec. 300 – Appreciation of evidence – Accused last seen with his wife and daughters – Failed to offer any explanation in defence – Incriminating circumstances forming complete chain to prove guilt of accused – Accused respondent not pleaded alibi, nor has been given an explanation which may support his innocence – Ignoring clinching evidence and acquittal of accused. (Paras 30 to 32)
(2). The respondent herein Kashi Ram was married to Kalawati (deceased) about seven years before the occurrence. They were blessed with two children, Suman (deceased) and Guddi (deceased) aged two and half years and two and half months respectively. It appears from the record that the relationship between them was not cordial and there were incidents of the respondent assaulting Kalawati and treating her with cruelty. A Panchayat had also been convened at the house of the father of the respondent, however, the respondents father pleaded helplessness since the appellant did not pay any heed to his advice. The result was that Kalawati stayed with her parents for about two years. Later Harchand, father of the respondent assured her parents that Kashi Ram had improved in his behaviour and, therefore, Kalawati should be sent to her matrimonial home. On being convinced, Kalawati was sent to her matrimonial home.
(3). The case of the prosecution is that after some time Kashi Ram again started misbehaving in the same old manner and used to beat his wife Kalawati off and on.
(4). The case of the prosecution is that the respondent killed his wife and two daughters on the night intervening 3rd and 4th February, 1998 and thereafter disappeared. The first information regarding the incident was given by Inder Bhan, PW-6, a cousin of the father of Kalawati (deceased). On the basis of information given by him, a formal first information report was drawn up and a case registered against the respondent under Section 302 IPC. The first information was recorded at 10.15 a.m. on February 6, 1998 in which the informant stated as follows:
The respondent was married to Kalawati (deceased) about seven years before the occurrence. Kalawati used to come to her parents off and on in the first six months after marriage but it appears that there were frequent quarrels between Kalawati and her husband (respondent herein) who used to complain that she had brought a camel instead of a buffalo at the time of marriage. He also complained that she was dark complexioned. Things came to such a stage that Kalawati had to return to her parents. On the very next day, the informant along with the father of the deceased and others went to the father of the respondent namely Harchand and complained to him about the behaviour of his son. Harchand pleaded helplessness in the matter and advised them to do whatever they liked, since his son was not under his control. In these circumstances, Kalawati continued to stay with her parents for about one and half or two years. One day, Harchand, father of the respondent came to the house of the father of Kalawati and assured him that his son Kashi Ram (respondent herein) had improved in his behaviour and assured him that she will be cared for in her matrimonial home. The father of the deceased and other relatives after getting assurance from the brothers of Harchand decided to send her back to her matrimonial home. The respondent along with his father Harchand came and the deceased accompanied them to her