The judgment establishes the principle that witness testimony changes can be disregarded, and the burden of proof shifts to the accused in dowry death cases. It also highlights the presumption of guilt under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act.

Rajiv Sharma, J.

1. This appeal is directed against the judgment dated 25.06.2012, rendered by learned Sessions Judge, Almora in Sessions Trial No. 02 of 2010, whereby the respondents- accused, who were charged with and tried for the offences under Section 302, 498-A, 304-B of IPC and 3/4 of Dowry Prohibition Act have been acquitted.

2. The case of the prosecution, in a nutshell, is that Exhibit Ka-1 was lodged by PW-1 Shyam Lal before the Naib Tehsildar, Bhikiyasen, District Almora with the allegations that his sister Smt. Deoki Devi was married to accused Girish Chandra on 05.06.2009 as per Hindu customs and rites. His sister’s husband Girish Chandra, father-in-law Prem Ram, mother-in-law Pushpa Devi and sister-in-law Tara were harassing her for brining insufficient dowry. Whenever she used to come to her parental house, she used to complain to PW-1 Shyam Lal about their cruelty. His sister’s in-laws were demanding Rs. 1.50 lacs. On 24.11.2009, her father-in-law and sister-in-law committed her murder. The information was supplied to PW-1 Girish Chandra by his sister’s father-in-law on 24.11.2009. He found his sister’s body in burnt condition. The FIR was registered. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. According to postmortem report, the deceased died to asphyxia due to ante mortem injuries. The doctor has also noticed superficial to deep burn injuries over her right upper arm, superficial to deep burns and few blisters over the lower part of the whole neck, hair were also burnt. He has also noticed compressed abrasion over upper part of neck. The investigation was carried out and the challan was put up after completing all the codal formalities. The prosecution has examined as many as four witnesses in its support. The statements of the accused were also recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. They have denied the case of the prosecution. The accused were acquitted. Hence, this appeal.

3. Learned State counsel has vehemently argued that the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt. Learned counsel on behalf of the respondents-accused has supported the judgment dated 25.06.2012.

4. We have heard learned counsel for both the parties and perused the judgment and record carefully.

5. PW-1 Shyam Lal has testified that his sister Devki Devi’s marriage was solemnized on 05.06.2009 with the accused Girish Chandra. His sister was harassed for bringing insufficient dowry. His sister’s father-in-law, husband, mother-in-law and sister-in-law were harassing her. They have demanded Rs. 1.50 lacs. They used to administer beatings to his sister. Whenever his sister used to come to her parental house, she narrated the incident over to them. They used to persuade her to go to her matrimonial home. He received the information about the illness of his sister. He went to the spot at 9:00 AM. He saw that the face and hair of his sister were burnt. The saree was hanging from the tree. Tehsildar and Naib Tehsildar reached the spot. The dead body was sent for postmortem examination. In his cross-examination, he has denied the suggestion that accused Girish Chandra was at Chandigarh on 24.11.2009. He has spent Rs. 2-2.5 lacs in the marriage of his sister. He raised the loan. He was again re-examined. The witness was recalled on 23.03.2012. After the alteration of charge in his examination-in-chief, he has deposed that on 23.03.2012, he has not seen his sister being killed by the accused. The accused have never demanded any dowry. He has lodged the report at the instance of the people. He was declared hostile and cross-examined by learned Public Prosecutor. He has admitted his statement earlier recorded by learned District Govt. Counsel. He has deposed that the accused have never asked for dowry. Accused Girish Chandra was at Chandigarh on 23.11.2009. Accused Pushpa Devi and Tara were also not at their home. Only accused Prem Ram was at his home. The accused have not killed his sister. His sister remained sick. His sis