‘False Explanation Adds to Guilt’: SC Restores Conviction in 1997 Dowry Death Case
SC set aside HC's acquittal, finding each link seamlessly formed a continuous chain which pointed unerringly to the guilt of the accused
The Supreme Court restores murder conviction; circumstantial evidence chain proves guilt
The Supreme Court has held that a conviction for murder can solely rest on circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete and consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused.
A bench of Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe further observed that when an accused offers a false explanation regarding the cause of death which takes place within the confines of his house, such falsity becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused.
Court observed thus in an appeal filed by the Madhya Pradesh government against the high court's judgment. The apex court allowed the State appeal and restored the trial court's judgment, which had convicted respondent Janved Singh for killing his daughter-in-law, Pushpa, by strangulation and falsely claiming she died due to electrocution while ironing clothes on December 31, 1997.
The bench found that the version given by the accused father-in-law to the police that the deceased died of electrocution while ironing the clothes was falsified by medical evidence. It noted that the deceased died in a room on the first floor and the incident had taken place at 5:00 am. The accused was at home on the date of the incident and had lodged a false report that the deceased died of electric shock.
The bench observed, "The explanation offered by the accused that he returned from the field to find the deceased dead is not supported by any witness. Neither any neighbour nor any person, employed by him in the field, has been examined by the accused No.1 to corroborate his claim".
The sessions court, by its judgment on January 11, 2000, on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record, held that the theory of electrocution was wholly fabricated and Pushpa’s death was homicidal in nature. The trial court held Mahesh Singh (the husband) guilty of offences under Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. It also held that Janved Singh (the father-in-law) actively participated in the murder, fabricated a false report, and attempted to cause disappearance of evidence. Accordingly, he was convicted under Sections 302, 498-A and 201 of the IPC. The husband was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years, and the father-in-law was sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for life. Co-accused Ramkali (mother-in-law), Sharda (sister-in-law), and Ahivaran Singh (brother-in-law) were acquitted.
The high court, however, by its judgment on April 06, 2010, reversed the trial court's judgment and acquitted both Mahesh Singh and Janved Singh.
The apex court examined the present appeal only with regard to Janved Singh as it had in 2011 dismissed the plea against the acquittal of the husband.
Considering the matter, the bench noted that once the circumstances pointing out the guilt of the accused No.1 were proved, the burden was on the accused No.1 to explain the circumstances under which the deceased died in the house occupied by him. The court stated, "The accused No.1 has miserably failed to discharge the burden".
Court emphasised that Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its duty to prove the case. On the contrary, it is designed to meet exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate, disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts within the knowledge of the accused which he can prove without any difficulty or inconvenience.
The word “especially” used in Section 106 of the Evidence Act means the facts which are pre-eminently or exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused. Court pointed out, citing State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Others (2000), that the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution cannot be allowed to be wrapped in a pedantic coverage, as offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.
The bench also emphasised that it is equally a well-settled legal proposition that while dealing with an appeal against an acquittal, the reasons which weighed with the trial court must be dealt with. The normal presumption of innocence gets reinforced with an order of acquittal. It said that if two views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate court must be extremely slow in interfering with an appeal against an order of acquittal.
Coming back to the facts of the matter at hand, the bench noted that the post-mortem report and the evidence of the doctor left no manner of doubt that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that there were ligature marks around the neck consistent with strangulation.
There was an injury on the body, and the burn injuries were post-mortem. From the statement of the parents of the deceased, namely, Sobran Singh and Ilaychi Bai, and her uncle Ramesh, the court opined that it was axiomatic that the accused persons used to beat the deceased and made demands of dowry.
Court held that the prosecution had established the complete chain of circumstances, namely, the unnatural death of the deceased, which was not accidental but homicidal as established from the medical evidence; the death occurred inside the house occupied by accused No.1, which was under his control. The bench found that the FIR lodged by accused No.1 himself established his presence in the house at the relevant time, and his version that he had gone to the field is wholly unsubstantiated by any witness or independent corroboration.
The bench concluded, "The deliberate lodging of a false report of electrocution and an attempt to mislead the investigation, the strained relations between son of accused No.1 and his daughter-in-law and persistent demands for dowry, each link fits seamlessly with the next, forming a continuous chain which points unerringly to the guilt of accused No.1 and excludes all reasonable hypothesis of innocence".
Court held the high court had not considered the material evidence on record, and its findings suffered from serious infirmity. It finally ordered that Janved Singh should be taken into custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of the sentence.
Case Title: State of Madhya Pradesh Vs Janved Singh
Bench: Justices Sanjay Kumar and Alok Aradhe