The burden of proof in cases of murder committed in secrecy inside the house cannot be shifted to the accused unless the prosecution first proves that the accused was present at the time of the alleged occurrence. The prosecution must establish the guilt of the accused beyond all reasonable doubts independent of weaknesses of the defense.

JUDGMENT :

AJAI TYAGI, J.

1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 08.11.2016 passed by Additional Sessions Judge/Special Judge, E.C. Act, Budaun in Session Trial No. 826 of 2013, arising out of Case Crime No. 100 of 2013, Police Station-Ughaiti, District-Budaun, whereby the appellant was convicted and sentenced under Section 302 IPC for life imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 20,000/- in default of the payment of fine to further undergo one year simple imprisonment.

2. The brief facts of the case as culled out from the record are that a written report is filed at Police Station-Ughaiti, District-Budaun with the averment that the marriage of sister of the informant was solemnised with appellant Anil, in which dowry was given as per his financial condition but the in-laws of his sister started demanding Rs. 50,000/- as additional dowry. On 24.06.2013 at about 4:00 pm he received, a call phone from the neighbour of his sister that his sister has been done to death by her in-laws for want of dowry. On hearing the news, he reached to the matrimonial home of his sister along with other family members and saw that his sister was done to death by her in-laws by way of administering the poison.

3. On the basis of aforesaid written report, a first information report was registered as Case Crime No. 100 of 2013 u/s 498A, 304B of IPC and under Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Investigation was taken up by the I.O. He visited the spot and prepared the site-plan. The statements of witnesses were recorded u/s 161 Cr.P.C. by the investigating officer. Inquest proceedings had taken place and inquest report was prepared. The post mortem of dead body was conducted and post mortem report was prepared. The cause of death was not ascertained in post mortem and, hence, Viscera was preserved and sent to Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical examination. From where the report was received, in which organophosphorus insecticides poison was found in Viscera. After completion of investigation, the FIR was culminated into charge sheet against accused Anil, Lalu Prasad and Jaleshwari. The Magistrate took the cognizance and committed it to the Court of Sessions because the case was triable exclusively by Court of Sessions.

4. Learned trial court framed charges against all the accused persons u/s 304B IPC with alternative charge u/s 302 IPC and u/s 498A IPC and 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. Accused persons denied the charges and claimed to be tried.

5. The prosecution so as to bring home the charges, framed against the accused, examined the following witnesses:

6. Following documentary evidence was filed by prosecution, which was proved by leading evidence:

7. After completion of prosecution evidence, statements of accused persons were recorded u/s 313 of Cr.P.C. in which they have stated that false evidence has been led against them and specifically stated that co-accused Anil and deceased used to reside in separate house from other co-accused, namely, Lalu Prasad and Smt. Jaleshwari. No witness is examined by accused persons in defence.

8. After hearing both the parties, learned trial court convicted the accused appellant Anil for the offence u/s 302 IPC and sentenced life imprisonment and fine. Other co-accused Lalu Prasad and Smt. Jaleshwari