- Section 106-Anil Kumar v. State Of U.P
- Bench: Amreshwar Pratap Sahi, Abhai Kumar
Facts:
Complainant received information from Bhola son of Munshiram regarding the death of his daughter Guddi that she has been killed at 11.00 a.m. on the same day, then he alongwith his brother Kamal Singh and other persons reached to the in-laws' house of her daughter where he found his daughter dead. On the information received by police station concerned, PW-6 S.I. Megh Singh reached on the spot alongwith Naib Tehsildar and other police personnel including a lady home-guard and prepared the inquest report and also collected a dupatta in two pieces from the place of incident and sent the body for postmortem. At the time of inquest, complainant with his relatives was present and he did accompany the body to the mortuary where postmortem was conducted. From there, complainant came to the police station alongwith his brother Kamal Singh and got the FIR scribed from Kamal Singh. FIR was lodged in the night showing the incident. Whereas as per information received by the complainant, death occurred at 11.00 a.m. on the same day. During the investigation, statements of witnesses were taken by the Investigating Officer. Site plan was also prepared. Affidavits on behalf of complainant as well as his brother, son of the complainant and other persons were filed in support of the prosecution before the Investigating Officer and Investigating Officer after finding the fact that death has been caused due to demand of dowry, chargesheet under Sections 498A, 304B, 302 IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act, has been filed. Trial court formulated the charge under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 Dowry Prohibition Act. In the alternate, charge under Section 302 read with 34 of IPC and Section 306 IPC also made, from which denial is being made by the appellants and claimed trial.
Trial court after perusing the record and hearing the parties came to the conclusion that, charges under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act and alternate charge under Section 306 IPC are not made out but the alternate charge under section 302/34 was found to be proved by the trial court and accordingly convicted the appellants. Trial court did not find the story of the defence correct that deceased was under depression and committed suicide. It is also observed by the trial court that from the postmortem report it can be inferred that deceased was strangulated and was murdered and the opinion of the doctor that the injury could have been that of suicide, and suicide might have been committed by the deceased, is not trustworthy. Taking the help of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, trial court reached to an adverse inference against the appellants and also found the deceased, living with all the appellants in the same house and as there was no separate living of the appellants, all the appellants were held to be liable for causing the death of the deceased Guddi.
Issues:
Whether the burden of proof lies on the appellant
Contentions of the Appellant:
The appellants submitted that the case of the prosecution was based upon false evidence, the basis of the prosecution allegation was not supported by the witnesses of facts and, accordingly trial court rightly came to the conclusion that charges under Sections 498A, 304B IPC and Section 3/4 D.P. Act were not established.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The respondent opposed the submissions of the appellant and it was contended thatthough no mark of injury except upon the neck was found on the body of the deceased, but from that it cannot be said that deceased hanged herself. Similarly, if several ornaments were found on the body of the deceased at the time of inquest, this also does not mean that the heinous act was not committed by the appellants. So far as medical evidence is concerned, it has been supported on the ground that in the postmortem report itself it has been recorded by the doctor that death is due to strangulation and the statement of doctor that injury could also have been caused due to hanging by the deceased herself, is merely an opinion of the doctor and same is not binding upon the court and trial court has rightly not believed the statement of the doctor in this regard.
Judgment:
The court held that the burden of proof lies on the appellant Anil since all that was required of the him was to explain the unusual situation, namely, of the unnatural death of his wife in their room, but he made no attempt to do this. Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the guilt of the appellant was proved beyond reasonable doubt.
