High Court of Madhya Pradesh
Vivek Rusia, Amar Nath (Kesharwani), JJ.
JITENDRA s/o KALU SINGH RAJPUT & ORS. – APPELLANTS
Versus
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH – RESPONDENT
Cri. Appeal No. 314 of 2014
Decided On : 26-02-2022
Criminal Appeal - Conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code - 302 - Summary
Fact of the Case:
The appellant, husband of the deceased, was convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code for the death of his wife due to strangulation. The trial court acquitted the appellants from the offences punishable under section 304-B, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act.
Finding of the Court:
The court found that the prosecution failed to establish the motive and the chain of circumstances necessary to shift the burden on the appellants under section 106 of the Evidence Act. The court also noted the absence of direct evidence and the reliance on circumstantial evidence in the case.
Issues: The issues revolved around the burden of proof under section 106 of the Evidence Act, the establishment of motive, and the sufficiency of circumstantial evidence to convict the appellants.
Ratio Decidendi: The court held that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to establish the culpability of the accused, and the absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence weighs in favor of the accused. The court also emphasized the importance of motive in cases of murder based on circumstantial evidence.
Final Decision: The criminal appeal was allowed, the judgment of conviction and sentence was set aside, and the appellants were set at liberty.
JUDGMENT VIVEK RUSIA, J. : – Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants.
Shri Kamal Kumar Tiwari, learned Government Advocate for the respondent / State.
With the consent of the parties, this criminal appeal is heard finally instead of hearing the application on suspension.
The present Criminal Appeal has been filed under section 374 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 against the judgment of conviction and sentence dated 15-2-2014 passed by the XV Additional Sessions Judge, Indore in Sessions Trial No. 796/2013, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offences punishable under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment along with fine of Rs. 10,000/-. With default clause to further undergo three months’ additional rigorous imprisonment.
2. As per the prosecution story, appellant No. 1 is the son of appellants No. 2 and 3, who was married to Mona @ Monika (the deceased) on 21-1-2013 under Hindu customs and rituals. After marriage, she was living with appellants, but she was subjected to cruelty for not fulfilling the demand of a gas burner and a cash amount of Rs. 10,000/-. The mother of the deceased sent Rs. 10,000/- to appellant No. 3 despite that cruelty continued with her. On the date of the incident, Kamal elder brother of the appellant No. 1 along with one other took the deceased to the hospital where she was reported to be died by consuming a poisonous substance but later on it was revealed that she died due to strangulation. On arriving at the local hospital in serious condition, Merg No. 38/13 (Ex-P/12) was registered and after her death, F.I.R. (Ex-P19) was registered at Crime No. 311/2013 under sections 304-B, 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against all appellants. Spot map (Ex-P/11) and Naksha Panchayatnama (Ex-P/2). Vide Ex-P/15, P/16 and P/17, the appellants were arrested. The dead body was sent for autopsy which was conducted by Dr. Bharat Bajpai who opined that the death was due to asphyxia resulted in throttling and a report vide Ex-P/27 was submitted. Seized articles were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory and reports were received vide Ex-P/24 and P/25. Statements of witnesses were recorded under section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, thereafter, the charge-sheet was filed under section 304-B, 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code against appellants before the JMFC from where the trial was committed to Sessions Court. Appellants denied the charges and pleaded for trial. The prosecution has examined nine witnesses and marked 28 documents in support of the charges. The appellants did not examine any witnesses and pleaded their false implications.
3. After evaluating the evidence came on record, the appellants were convicted vide judgment dated 15-2-2014. The learned Additional Sessions Judge has acquitted the appellants from the offences punishable under section 304-B, 498-A of the Indian Penal Code and section 4 of Dowry Prohibition Act but convicted under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. Hence, the present criminal appeal is before this Court.
4. Shri Vivek Singh, learned counsel for the appellants has argued that initially the F.I.R. was registered against the appellants alleging that the deceased was subjected to cruelty for demand of dowry, thereafter, they were trialed for the offences punishable under sections 304-B and 498-A/34 of the Indian Penal Code but all the witnesses like mother, father and brother of the deceased have categorically denied any demand of dowry by the appellants, hence, these appellants ought to have been acquitted from all charges. The prosecution has not established the charge under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants but they have been convicted only by relying on section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act as they have failed to explain under what circumstance, Mona @ Monika died. The said conviction based on section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act only, is bad in law and contrary to t
State of Rajasthan vs. Kashiram
Aftab Ahmed Ansari vs. State of Uttaranchal
State through C.B.I. vs. Mahender Singh Dahiya
Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar vs. State of Haryana
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : Vivek Singh For the Respondent : Kamal Kumar Tiwari
Persistent dowry demands and cruel treatment resulted in the presumption of guilt for murder; circumstantial evidence and statutory presumptions under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act applied.
The burden of proof lies with the prosecution in cases of dowry death, and circumstantial evidence must be conclusive to establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
(1) Section 106 of Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under same roof and being last person seen with deceased.(2) In a case of circumstantial evidence, m....
Circumstantial evidence can sustain a conviction for murder when the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for the deaths of the victims, establishing guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The significance of circumstantial evidence, the importance of establishing motive in dowry-related crimes, and the burden of proof on the accused to explain the circumstances leading to the crime.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.