IMPORTANT POINT
When an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, burden would be of a comparatively lighter character on prosecution and in views of Section 106 of Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how crime was committed.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Appellant husband of deceased convicted for murder by High Court in appeal against acquittal—Appeal—Case of prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence—Where offence was committed in secrecy inside a house, in view of Section 106 of Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on inmates of the house to give cogent explanation as to how crime was committed—Burden on prosecution would be comparatively lighter—Circumstances established by prosecution were that deceased was being ill-treated and harassed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of Rs. 25,000/- which appellant wanted for purchasing tempo—After murder of deceased information sent to her parents and circulated in village was that she died on account of snake bite—Medical evidence however showed that deceased had died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation—Body of deceased was purposely placed in sitting posture against a wall as found by parents of deceased and police so that no one suspected that she had actually been killed—No explanation for offence and false cause of death provided additional link in chain of circumstances against accused—Circumstances unerringly pointed to guilt of accused and were inconsistent with his innocence—High Court rightly convicted accused.
       Held : From the evidence adduced by the prosecution the following circumstances are clearly established.
       I.The marriage of Revata with the appellant Trimukh had taken place about 5-6 years back.
       II.The appellant Trimukh used to ply a tempo.
       III.There was a demand of Rs.25,000/- by the appellant and his parents from the parents of the deceased. The deceased was being ill-treated and was occasionally not given food on account of the fact that the demand of money had not been met.
       IV.The deceased had told her parents about the fact that she was being ill-treated and occasionally she was not given food, whenever she visited her parental home and last time on the occasion of Panchami festival. She had also told about the said fact to her neighbour PW.5 Girjabai of village Kikki.
       V.After the death of Revata the appellant and his parents informed some persons in the village as also the family members of the deceased that she had died on account of snake bite.
       VI.When PW.1, PW.2, PW.3 and PW.4 reached the house of the accused in village Kikki, they found the body of the deceased in a sitting posture with her back taking support from the wall. PW.14 Devichand, Assistant Sub-Inspector of Police also found the body in the same position.
       VII.The post-mortem examination revealed that Revata had died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of snake bite.
       VIII.Certain recoveries like chappal of the deceased, broken pieces of bangles were made at the pointing out of the appellant. A shoe was also recovered at his pointing out.(Para 9)
       If an offence takes place inside the privacy of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the Courts. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecution 1944 AC 315 quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab vs. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271). The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads:
       (b) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
       Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation.(Para 12)
       In the earlier part of the judgment we have given a resume of the evidence which is available on record. The appellant was plying a tempo in order to earn his livelihood. It is fully established that the deceased Revata was being ill-treated and harassed on account of non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.25,000/- which the appellant wanted for purchasing a tempo. The deceased Revata was often beaten and was sometimes not given food. After Revata had been murdered, information was sent to her parents that she had died on account of snake bite, which was reiterated when they reached the house of the appellant in village Kikki. In fact, everyone in the village had been told that Revata had died on account of snake bite and the Police Patil, believing the said information to be true, had lodged an Accidental Death Report at the police station. The medical evidence, however, showed that she had died on account of asphyxia due to strangulation. The body of the deceased was purposely placed in a sitting posture with her back taking support of the wall so that no one may suspect that she had actually been killed as a result of strangulation and may believe the version of snake bite given by the appellant and his parents. The appellant in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. did not offer any explanation as to how she received the injuries which were found on her body. Recovery of some articles of the deceased was made at the pointing out of the appellant. The circumstances enumerated above unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and they are inconsistent with his innocence.(Para 18)
       (ii) CRIMINAL LAW—Prosecution case based on circumstantial evidence —Prosecution has to prove circumstances by cogent evidence and such proved circumstances must form a chain consistent with hypothesis of guilt of accused—No explanation on circumstances or explanation given found to be untrue provides additional link in chain of circumstances.
       Held : The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence. (Para 10)
       In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye-witness account is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of this Court. [See State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 (para 6); State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal AIR 1992 SC 2045 (para 40); State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC 471 (para 27); Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 (para 15) and Gulab Chand v. State of M.P. (1995) 3 SCC 574 (para 4)].(Para 16)

Judgement Key Points

Based on the provided legal document, the key points are as follows:

When a murder occurs in complete secrecy within a household, the prosecution's initial burden is lighter, but the inmates of the house are required to provide a cogent explanation of how the crime was committed. Failure to do so can strengthen the case against the accused (!) .
Circumstantial evidence plays a crucial role in such cases. The circumstances established by the prosecution must form a complete and unbroken chain that points unerringly to the guilt of the accused, making it impossible to explain the evidence on any hypothesis other than the accused's guilt (!) .
If an incriminating circumstance is presented to the accused and they either do not offer an explanation or provide an explanation that is found to be false, this becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances indicating guilt (!) .
The evidence in the case demonstrated that the deceased was subjected to ill-treatment and harassment related to a demand for money, which was a motive for the crime. The deceased had disclosed this treatment to her family and neighbors (!) (!) .
The body of the deceased was found in a sitting posture against a wall, with injuries consistent with strangulation, and not from a snake bite as falsely claimed by the accused and their family (!) (!) .
Medical evidence confirmed that death resulted from asphyxia due to strangulation, and no poison or snake bite was involved. The injuries on the body could have been caused by forceful pressing of the neck and pulling, consistent with the circumstances of murder (!) .
Articles belonging to the deceased, such as footwear and bangles, were recovered from the scene at the pointing out of the accused, strengthening the inference of guilt (!) .
The accused did not provide any explanation for the injuries or circumstances of death during investigation or in their statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, which further supports the conclusion of guilt (!) .
The case relied heavily on circumstantial evidence, and the circumstances collectively pointed to the accused's guilt beyond reasonable doubt. The chain of evidence was complete and incapable of any explanation other than the accused's involvement (!) (!) .
The court emphasized that in cases involving crimes committed in secrecy within a household, the law permits a lighter burden on the prosecution but expects the accused to offer a cogent explanation. Failure to do so can be a significant factor in establishing guilt (!) (!) .
The evidence showed a clear motive related to the demand for money, and the false explanation of snake bite was deliberately circulated to conceal the true cause of death (!) (!) .
The overall evidence, including the medical report, recovery of articles, and the circumstances of the body’s placement, supported the conviction of the accused for murder. The court upheld the conviction and sentence based on the totality of circumstantial evidence (!) (!) .

These points collectively highlight the importance of circumstantial evidence, the necessity for the accused to offer a credible explanation, and the significance of establishing a complete chain of circumstances to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt in cases of secretive crimes within a household setting.

JUDGMENT

G.P. Mathur, J.—1. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan has filed this appeal against the judgment and order dated 27.7.2005 of Aurangabad Bench of Bombay High Court by which the appeal filed by State of Maharashtra was allowed and the order dated 21.4.1997 passed by the learned Additional Sessions Judge, Nanded was set aside and the appellant was convicted under Section 302 IPC and was sentenced to imprisonment for life and a fine of Rs.2,000/- and in default to undergo six months RI. By the same judgment and order, the appeal filed by the appellant challenging his conviction under Section 498-A IPC and the sentence of two years RI and a fine of Rs.1,000/- and in default to undergo RI for three months was dismissed.

2. The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the deceased Revata @ Tai daughter of Dattarao resident of village Umatwadi was married to the appellant Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (for short Trimukh) nearly seven years before the incident which took place on 4.11.1996 in village Kikki. Maroti Kamaji Kirkan (for short Maroti) is the father and Nilawatibai Maroti Kirkan (for short Nilawati) is the mother of the appellant Trimukh and they are residents of village Kikki. The appellant who is the husband and Maroti and Nilawati used to ill-treat the deceased Revata and used to harass her on account of non-payment of Rs.25,000/- by her parents for the purpose of purchasing a tempo for the appellant. Whenever, the deceased Revata came to her parental home, she used to disclose to her family members the ill-treatment and harassment meted out to her. She came to her parental home at the time of Panchami festival in the year 1996 and stayed there for about 15 days. During this period also she disclosed that on account of non-fulfilment of demand of Rs.25,000/- by her father, the appellant and her in-laws (Maroti and Nilawati) used to harass her. She was often beaten and was not provided food. After the Panchami festival, the father of Revata took her to the appellants house in village Kikki and requested the appellant and her in-laws not to ill-treat her. He, however, told them that he is not in a position to fulfil their demand of Rs.25,000/- on account of his weak financial condition. A few months thereafter, Dattarao received information from a person of village Kikki that Revata had died due to snake bite. Information was also given by the Police Patil of the village to P.S. Nanded (Rural) that Revata had died due to snake bite and on the basis of this information, a case as A.D. No.42 of 1996 was registered in accordance with Section 174 Cr.P.C. at the police station. Devichand, ASI and some police personnel went to the village, held inquest over the dead body and after preparing the spot panchnama sent the same for post-mortem examination. The appellant Trimukh himself showed the place of incident where the victim had been allegedly bitten by snake and had died. The post-mortem examination conducted on the body of Revata disclosed that she had died due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck. Dattarao, father of the deceased then lodged an FIR of the incident at 4.30 p.m. on 5.11.1990 at the police station and a case was then registered under Section 302 IPC. During the course of investigation, the police recorded statements of some witnesses. The appellant was arrested and while in custody he made a disclosure statement on the basis of which some recoveries were made. After completion of investigation, chargesheet was submitted against three persons, viz., the appellant Trimukh and his parents, viz., Maroti and Nilawati.

3. The learned Sessions Judge, Nanded framed charges under Section 498-A IPC against all the three accused and also under Section 302 IPC against appellant Trimukh. The accused pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried. In order to establish its case the prosecution examined 14 witnesses and filed some documentary evidence. The accused in their statement denied the prosecution case and stated that

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2006 Supreme(SC) 939

Cases Referred (12)