The court reaffirmed the principle that in domestic homicide cases, the accused must explain injuries found on the deceased, or their silence may imply guilt.

1. The appeal has been preferred by the accused appellants aggrieved by judgment dated 29-7-93 delivered by 2nd Addl. Sessions Judge, Mandla in S. T. No. 47/90 thereby convicting the appellants for commission of offence under S.302/34, IPC.

2. As per the prosecution case the marriage of deceased Padma Bai was performed with Sunderlal prior to three years. Father of deceased Padma Bai had given one acre of agricultural land at the time of marriage. After death of Dulichand, father inlaw and Rikhiram the father of deceased, dispute arose with respect to the mutation of name of deceased Padma Bai over the agricultural land. The incident took place on 3-2-89. Deceased used to be harassed by the accused persons due to non mutation of name over the agricultural land. Possession of the land was handed over to the in laws by the brothers of deceased Padma Bai and they started cultivating the land on crop sharing basis. Brothers of Padma Bai wanted mutation of land in the name of Padma Bai whereas family members of the accused wanted the mutation of land in the name of accused Sunderlal. On 2-2 89 and 3-2-89 quarrel took place, Padma Bai was beaten by Sunderlal, next day also she was beaten. Boiled water was poured on Padma Bai, she succumbed to death, report (P/4) was reduced in writing. After due investigation an offence was registered under S.302/ 34, IPC by J. S. Jaggi (PW 18). Inquest (P/2) was prepared, autopsy was performed by Dr. P. C. Musraha (PW 5). Viscera of deceased was seized along with the clothes. On the basis of information furnished by accused Sunderlal and Ramswaroop two lathis were recovered as per memos P/13 and P/15 respectively. Body was excavated, thereafter it was examined by panel of doctors at Bhopal. On completion of investigation the accused persons were charge sheeted.

3. Accused abjured the guilt and contended that they have been falsely implicated in the case. Deceased was suffering with fits, she used to work in the field and Khalihan, injuries found on her person were caused during bout of fits, in the postmortem report cause of death could not be opined with precision, 18% burn injuries were found on the person of deceased beside there were other injuries, definite opinion as to cause of death could be given after obtaining the report of examination of viscera. The prosecution in all has examined 18 witnesses. In defence none of the witness was examined. The Trial Court has convicted the appellants Sunderlal and Ramswaroop relying upon the factum of seizure made from them and also the circumstances on record. The Trial Court has found that death was homicidal. Aggrieved by the conviction and sentence imposed, the appeal has been preferred by the accused/appellants.

4. Shri Sharad Verma, learned counsel appearing for appellants has submitted that evidence on record falls short of proving that death was homicidal in nature there is no evidence to show who caused injuries to deceased. Ramswaroop was not residing along with Sunderlal, thus, Ramswaroop could not be said to be responsible for the death of Padma Bai, he was not involved in the case and has been falsely implicated. Even against Sunderlal the evidence falls short to prove his guilt, thus, he also ought to have been acquitted, particularly when on same set of evidence two other accused persons, namely, Summatlal and Mst. Chitra Bai, have been acquitted by the Trial Court.

5. Shri Sudesh Verma, learned GA appearing for State has submitted that death has taken place in the house of accused persons, they have failed to explain the injuries on the person of deceased. There were contusions, abrasions and burn injuries to the extent of 18% found on the person of deceased which indicates tha