Research › Search › Judgment

Patna High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1058 (PAT)

Sita Devi v. State of Bihar

2014-10-14

ASHWANI KUMAR SINGH

body2014
JUDGMENT Since both these appeals arise out of a common judgment and order, they have been heard together and are being disposed of by a common judgment. 2. This case of dowry death arising out of un-fulfilled demand of dowry and consequent cruelty depicts meticulous planning and neat execution of crime in the matrimonial home of the deceased. I have evidence of ante mortem burn injury of the deceased as well as medical evidence highlighting killing the daughter of the informant, by squeezing the throat manually. 3. Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 1197 of 2010 has been preferred by the appellant Sita Devi who is mother-in-law of the deceased Sabita Kumari, whereas Cr. Appeal (SJ) No. 195 of 2011 has been filed by the appellant Sunil Pandey who is husband of the deceased. 4. The above appeals are directed against the judgment and order of conviction and sentence dated 7th December, 2010 passed in Sessions Trial No. 547 of 2009 arising out of Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2008 by the Fast Track Court No. 1, Bhagalpur convicting the appellants under Sections 304-B and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code and sentencing them to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years for the offence under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code and rigorous imprisonment for two years for the offence under Sections 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. The trial Court has directed the sentences awarded against the appellants to run concurrently. 5. The case of the prosecution is based on a fardbeyan made by Gangadhar Pandey before one S.P. Mandal, a Sub-Inspector of Police of Bhagwan Bazar police station on 13th July, 2008 at 5.30 a.m. at Brahmpur Nayi Basti alleging therein that the informant had married his daughter Sabita Kumari in May 2002 with the appellant Sunil Pandey and after marriage, the appellant Sunil Pandey and his family members started demanding a Hero Honda motorcycle and rupees fifty thousand in cash. For this demand, the deceased was being physically and mentally tortured. Ten days prior to the lodging of the FIR, the deceased was compelled to bring Hero Honda motorcycle and rupees fifty thousand in cash. She was threatened that if she would not bring the motorcycle and money as demanded by the appellants, she would be killed and her dead body would be disposed of. Ten days prior to the lodging of the FIR, the deceased was compelled to bring Hero Honda motorcycle and rupees fifty thousand in cash. She was threatened that if she would not bring the motorcycle and money as demanded by the appellants, she would be killed and her dead body would be disposed of. In the fardbeyan, it has further been claimed by the informant that he was telephonically informed by someone in the night at about 11 p.m. on 12th July, 2008 that his daughter has been killed by her mother-in-law, brother-in-law, sister-in-law and husband and the accused persons are planning to dispose of her dead body. On getting this information, the informant (P.W. 4) and his son Shashi Bhushan Pandey (P.W. 1) came to the appellants home and enquired about the whereabouts of his daughter from her mother-in-law Sita Devi who stood at the door, not allowing the informant and his son to enter the house and said that the deceased Sabita Devi has gone to Delhi. Thereafter, suspecting foul the informant sent information to Bhagwan Bazar Police Station about the occurrence. On such oral information, the police party came to the place of occurrence and started searching for the dead body of Sabita Kumari. On search, the police found the dead body of the deceased from the east of the house of the appellants covered and concealed with grass and hay. The informant has alleged that the deceased has been killed by throttling and, thereafter, hot water has been sprinkled on her dead body by the accused Sunil Pandey (husband), Rajendra Pandey (brother-in-law), Sita Devi (mother-in-law) and Nilam Devi (sister-in-law). 6. On the basis of this fardbeyan, Bhagwan Bazar P.S. Case No. 71 of 2008 under Section 304-B was registered by the police on 13.7.2008 at 9 a.m. and investigation was taken up. On completion of investigation, charge sheet was submitted by the police, whereupon cognizance was taken and after complying with the requirements of Section 207 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the case was committed to the Court of Sessions for trial. The trial Court has framed charges under Sections 304-B and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and two others. 7. The trial Court has framed charges under Sections 304-B and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code against the appellants and two others. 7. The prosecution examined P.W. 1 Shashi Bhushan Pandey (brother of the deceased), P.W. 2 Prabhawati Devi (mother of the deceased), P.W. 3 Manikant Pandey (brother of the deceased), P.W. 4 Gangadhar Pandey (father of the deceased), P.W. 5 Lal Bahadur Rai, P.W. 6 Sri Narayan Rai, P. W. 7 Dr. Shambu Nath Singh, P.W. 8 Hira Choudhary, P.W. 9 Suman Prasad Mandal and also proved signature of P.W.1 Shashi Bhushan Pandey on fardbeyan and inquest report marked as Ext. 1 and Ext. 1/1 respectively, signature of P.W. 3 Manikant Pandey on inquest report marked as Ext. 2, signature of P.W. 4 Gangadhar Pandey on fardbeyan marked as Ext. 3, the post mortem report marked as Ext. 4, the fardbeyan marked as Ext. 5 and the inquest report marked as Ext. 6. 8. The accused were examined under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. In their statement, the appellants Sunil Pandey and Sita Devi have denied the allegation of demand of dowry. They have also denied the allegation of subjecting the victim to cruelty for non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. They have denied the charges of causing murder and concealing evidence and have pleaded complete innocence in the matter. 9. On behalf of the defence, neither any oral nor any documentary evidence has been adduced in course of trial. 10. The trial Judge analyzed the facts, evaluated the evidence on record and concluded that the prosecution has succeeded in proving the charges as against the appellants and, accordingly, convicted and sentenced them in the manner indicated above. However, the co-accused Rajendra Pandey and his wife Nilam Devi were acquitted by the Trial Court. 11. On perusal of the record, I find that the inquest report was prepared by P.W. 9 Suman Prasad Mandal on 13th July, 2008 at 6.15 a.m. It has been mentioned therein that the dead body of the deceased Sabita Kumari was lying in a naked condition on parti land adjacent east to the house of the appellants. The whole body was having burn mark as a result of which, skin had separated. The whole body was having burn mark as a result of which, skin had separated. Some mark of injury was also found near the neck and, according to the police, it prima facie appeared that the deceased was killed by throttling and sprinkling of boiled water over the body. On 13th July, 2008 itself, the dead body was sent for post mortem examination to the sadar hospital, Chapra. A Medical Board of three doctors was constituted which conducted the post mortem examination on the same day at 10.10 a.m. The Medical Board found the following antemortem injuries on the dead body of the deceased:- “(i) Burn 60%. The skin was separated at several places. (ii) Bruise both side of neck (a) 1 ½ inch x 1 ¼” (b) 1 inch x ½ inch. (iii) Bruise in front of the neck 4 inch x ½ inch. On Dissection-of Tracheal Rings. Clotted Blood present. All viscera intact and conjested. Stomach empty, Bladder empty.” In the opinion of the Medical Board, the death was as a result of asphyxia caused by throttling and the time elapsed since death was 18-24 hours. 12. As noted hereinabove, P. Ws. 1 to 4 are closely related to the deceased. They have fully supported the prosecution case. However, P.W. 5 Lal Bahadur Rai, P.W. 6 Sri Narayan Rai and P. W. 8 Hira Choudhary have been declared hostile by the prosecution in course of trial. P.W. 7 Dr. Shambu Nath Singh was one of the members of the Medical Board which had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased; whereas P.W. 9 Suman Prasad Mandal is the Police Officer who had recorded the fardbeyan, prepared the inquest report, conducted investigation and submitted police report in terms of Section 173(2) of the Code of Criminal Procedure in the Court. 13. I find from the evidence that P.W. 4 Gangadhar Pandey, the informant of the case, has reiterated the allegations made in the FIR in his examination-in-chief. He has proved his signature on fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 3. In cross-examination, he has admitted that when the marriage had taken place, his son-in-law was unemployed and at that time no demand of dowry was made. He has stated that one of his sons is a journalist who had received call on his cell-phone regarding murder of his sister. 3. In cross-examination, he has admitted that when the marriage had taken place, his son-in-law was unemployed and at that time no demand of dowry was made. He has stated that one of his sons is a journalist who had received call on his cell-phone regarding murder of his sister. He has stated that it was his son who had informed the police on telephone regarding the occurrence. He has stated that the appellant Sita Devi was an Auxilliary Nurse Midwife and was employed in a hospital. He has denied the suggestion made by the defence that the occurrence as alleged had never taken place. 14. P.W. 1 Shashi Bhushan Pandey is the son of the informant. He has duly corroborated the prosecution case as alleged in the FIR in his examination-in-chief. He is also a witness to the fardbeyan. He has proved his signature made on the fardbeyan which has been marked as Ext. 1. He is also a witness to the inquest report prepared by the police. He has proved his signature made on the inquest report which has been marked as Ext. 1/1. He too has admitted in cross-examination that at the time of marriage of his sister, no demand of dowry was made. He has stated that his brother-in-law Sunil Pandey was unemployed and his mother Sita Devi was an Auxilliary Nurse Midwife. He has stated in cross-examination that certain articles, such as, colour T.V., chain and ring made of gold and clothes etc. were given to the appellant Sunil Pandey at the time of marriage in the form of gift. He has admitted that he cannot produce any documentary proof in respect of demand of motorcycle and rupees fifty thousand in cash. He has denied the suggestion made by the defence that his sister died due to accidental burn injuries caused to her while cooking. 15. P.W. 2 Prabhawati Devi, mother of the deceased, has also supported the allegation of murder of his daughter due to non-fulfilment of demand of dowry. She has stated that some neighbours of the victim’s matrimonial home had intimated about the occurrence on cell-phone on 12th July, 2008 at about 11.00 p.m. She has denied the suggestion made by the defence that the victim died due to burn injuries sustained by her accidentally while cooking. 16. P.W. 3 Manikant Pandey has also supported the prosecution case. She has stated that some neighbours of the victim’s matrimonial home had intimated about the occurrence on cell-phone on 12th July, 2008 at about 11.00 p.m. She has denied the suggestion made by the defence that the victim died due to burn injuries sustained by her accidentally while cooking. 16. P.W. 3 Manikant Pandey has also supported the prosecution case. However, in cross-examination, he has stated that subsequently neighbours were saying that his sister died due to accidental burn injury. 17. P.W. 5 Lal Bahadur Rai, P.W. 6 Sri Narayan Rai and P. W. 8 Hira Choudhary have completely denied to have any knowledge regarding the occurrence. As noted above, they have been declared hostile by the prosecution. 18. P.W. 7 Dr. Shambu Nath Singh is one of the members of the Medical Board which had conducted the post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Sabita Kumari. He has stated in his examination-in-chief that on 13th July, 2008, he was posted as Medical Officer Incharge in the hospital and on that day, a board was constituted by the hospital authority of which he was one of the members. The other members were Dr. Ram Ishwar Prasad and Dr. Dharmendra Kumar. On conducting post mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased, the Medical Board found antemortem injuries as narrated in the post mortem report noticed hereinabove. He has identified his own signature as well as signature of the other two doctors on the post mortem report. He has proved the post mortem report which has been marked as Ext. 4. The only question put by the defence in cross-examination has been answered by him in the following manner. “Other than injury on the body of the neck of deceased, no injury was found, except burn injury. If one tries self-assassination by rope, such type of injury by asphyxia can be caused”. 19. P.W. 9 Suman Prasad Mandal has stated in his evidence that on receiving the telephonic information regarding the incident, he proceeded to the place of occurrence. He inspected the place of occurrence, recovered the dead body, prepared the inquest report and recorded fardbeyan at the place of occurrence itself. He has proved the fardbeyan and the inquest report which have been marked as Ext. 5 & 6 respectively. He inspected the place of occurrence, recovered the dead body, prepared the inquest report and recorded fardbeyan at the place of occurrence itself. He has proved the fardbeyan and the inquest report which have been marked as Ext. 5 & 6 respectively. He has stated that he sent the dead body of the deceased to hospital for post mortem examination and came back to the police station where formal FIR was registered. The Officer-in-charge of the police station handed over the investigation of the case to him pursuant to which, he conducted the investigation, recorded statement of the witnesses and finding the allegation of dowry death to be true submitted police report in the Court. In cross-examination, he has stated that statements of local people living around the place of occurrence were not recorded by him. He has admitted that he did not find any blood-stain near the place of occurrence. He has also admitted that he did not seize any material from the place of occurrence. No other relevant question has been put to the investigating officer by the defence in cross-examination. 20. While assailing the judgment of the trial Court, learned counsel for the appellants has submitted that there is no eye-witness to the occurrence. The witnesses who have supported the prosecution case are all related to the deceased. The independent witnesses have turned hostile. They have not supported the prosecution version. He has submitted that the witnesses have made contradictory statement at the trial which only reflect that deliberately a false case was lodged against the appellants. According to him, the trial Court has given a peculiar logic for convicting the two appellants and acquitting the two other co-accused on the same set of evidence. He has further submitted that the medical evidence is not in consonance with the ocular version and the place of occurrence and the manner of occurrence could not be proved in course of trial. In continuation, of his submission, he urged that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Since there are missing links and, hence, the appellants cannot be safely convicted for the offences under which charges were framed. 21. In continuation, of his submission, he urged that the case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Since there are missing links and, hence, the appellants cannot be safely convicted for the offences under which charges were framed. 21. Replying to the afore-stated contentions, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor has submitted that the inmates of the house, where the occurrence had taken place at the dead of night were the deceased and the accused persons only and hence, the appellants were bound to offer an explanation as to how the occurrence had taken place, if they were not the offenders. He has submitted that it is not the case of the appellants that the deceased Sabita Kumari was killed by someone else. On the contrary, from the trend of cross-examination, it would appear that an attempt has been made to show that the deceased died due to accidental burn injury, but the fact remains that strangulation marks were found on the neck of the deceased. The doctor, who conducted the post mortem examination, has categorically stated that the death of the victim was caused due to throttling. The learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further submitted that the appellants had started demanding a Hero Honda motorcycle and rupees fifty thousand in cash after marriage. For this demand, the deceased was being physically and mentally tortured. Even ten days prior to the lodging of the FIR, the deceased was threatened that if she would not bring the motorcycle and money as demanded by the appellants, she would be killed and her dead body would be disposed of. He has submitted that admittedly the deceased died due to antemortem injuries on her body within seven years of her marriage and there is enough evidence to show that she was being subjected to cruelty and harassment by the appellants after the marriage and soon before her death in connection with the demand of dowry. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further contended that there is enough evidence on record to show that the appellants tried to conceal evidence. 22. Now, I have to consider as to whether the trial Court was correct in convicting the appellants under Section 304-B and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Learned Additional Public Prosecutor has further contended that there is enough evidence on record to show that the appellants tried to conceal evidence. 22. Now, I have to consider as to whether the trial Court was correct in convicting the appellants under Section 304-B and 201 read with 34 of the Indian Penal Code. Section 304-B IPC deals with dowry death which reads as follows:- “304-B. Dowry death.- (1) Where the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, such death shall be called “dowry death”, and such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. Explanation.-For the purposes of this sub-section, “dowry” shall have the same meaning as in section 2 of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (28 of 1961). (2) Whoever commits dowry death shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which shall be not less than seven years but which may extend to imprisonment for life.” 23. The ingredients necessary for the application of Section 304-B are (a) when the death of a woman is caused by any burns or bodily injury; or (b) occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances; (c) the aforesaid two facts spring within seven years of girl’s marriage; (d) soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or his relative and; (e) this is in connection with the demand of dowry. If these conditions exist, it would constitute a dowry death; and the husband and/or his relative shall be deemed to have caused her death. 24. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act were inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry death. 24. Section 113-B of the Evidence Act is also relevant for the case at hand. Both Section 304B IPC and Section 113B of the Evidence Act were inserted by the Dowry Prohibition (Amendment) Act, 43 of 1986 with a view to combat the increasing menace of dowry death. Section 113B of the Evidence Act reads as follows:- “113-B. Presumption as to dowry death.-When the question is whether a person has committed the dowry death of a woman and it is shown that soon before her death such woman had been subjected by such person to cruelty or harassment for, or in connection with, any demand for dowry, the Court shall presume that such person had caused the dowry death. Explanation.- For the purposes of this section, “dowry death”, shall have the same meaning as in section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code (45 of 1860).” 25. A conjoint reading of section 113-B of the Evidence Act and Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code shows that there must be material to show that soon before her death the victim was subjected to cruelty or harassment. The prosecution must rule out the possibility of a natural or accidental death so as to bring it within the purview of death occurring otherwise than in normal circumstances. 26. From the evidence on record, it is apparent that the deceased was living in her matrimonial home together with the appellants prior to her death. Her death occurred otherwise than under normal circumstances by burn and bodily injury within seven years of her marriage and soon before her death, she was subjected to cruelty by her husband and his relatives in connection with the demand of dowry. It is not the defence of the appellants that the deceased had gone outside her matrimonial home and somebody else had killed her. It is also not the case of the appellants that prior to the occurrence, they had gone away from their house and, in their absence, somebody else had killed the deceased. From the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the defence has tried to make out a case that the deceased died due to accidental burn injury sustained by her while cooking. 27. I find that the medical evidence completely belies the defence case. From the trend of cross-examination of prosecution witnesses, it is apparent that the defence has tried to make out a case that the deceased died due to accidental burn injury sustained by her while cooking. 27. I find that the medical evidence completely belies the defence case. It clearly depicts that the death of the deceased Sabita Kumari was caused due to asphyxia as a result of manual strangulation. The deceased had also sustained antemortem burn injury all over her body. The medical evidence discloses that the deceased was subjected to cruelty before she was strangulated to death. 28. Further, had it been a case of accidental death, the appellants would not have concealed the dead body outside the house and covered the same with hay and grass. In that circumstance, the dead body would not have been found in a naked condition. 29. I further find that P.W. 1 Shashi Bhushan Pandey and P.W. 4 Gangadhar Pandey have categorically stated in their evidence that the police found the dead body of the deceased in a naked condition concealed with grass and hay. The said evidence is in tune with the First Information Report. The defence has put no question from those witnesses in order to create any doubt about the veracity of their evidence. The conduct of the appellant Sita Devi in giving mis-leading information to the informant on 12th July, 2008 in the night that the deceased had gone to Delhi and further in not allowing the informant and P.W. 1 Shashi Bhushan Pandey to enter inside the house when they were inquiring about the whereabouts of the deceased goes a long way to show that she had deliberately concocted a false story. The aforesaid conduct of the appellant Sita Devi is consistent only with her guilt. The act of covering of the dead body by grass and hay shows that the appellants intended to conceal the evidence of murder and screen themselves from punishment. The specific evidence against the appellant Sita Devi of trying to mislead the informant regarding death of the deceased as well as her conduct in offering resistance and not allowing the informant and his son to enter inside the house makes her case different from that of co-accused Rajendra Pandey and Nilam Devi who have been acquitted by the trial Court. 30. 30. I further find from the evidence that the witnesses examined in support of the prosecution case have not been confronted with their previous statements made before police. In other words, no effort has been made by the defence to impeach the credit of prosecution witnesses. When I look to the medical evidence, I find that the evidence regarding cause of death is quite clear. The deceased died as a result of asphyxia caused by throttling and the time elapsed since death was 18-24 hours. The Medical Board also found bruise on both sides as well as in front of the neck. There is evidence to show that the deceased had also sustained 60% ante mortem burn injury. The defence of the accidental burn sustained while cooking by the deceased is totally belied by the fact that the deceased died due to asphyxia caused by squeezing the throat manually. If the death was due to accidental burn injury as claimed by the appellants, nothing has been brought on record to explain injuries on the neck of the deceased. 31. A critical analysis of the facts and evidence brought on record shows that the prosecution has succeeded in proving all the ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B of the Indian Penal Code in respect of the death of Sabita Kumari. In their statements, P. Ws. 1 to 4 (father, mother and brothers of the deceased) have categorically stated that the deceased was subjected to cruelty by her husband Sunil Pandey and his family members regularly after marriage and soon before death on the ground of non-fulfilment of demand of motorcycle and rupees fifty thousand cash. 32. Coming to the arguments advanced on behalf of the appellants that there is no eye-witness of the occurrence and independent witnesses have not come forward to support the prosecution case, I find it apposite to refer to the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 in which while dismissing an appeal arising out of the judgment of conviction made by the Bombay High Court, the Hon’ble Supreme Court made the following observations in paras 13, 14, 15 and 22 which are as follow:- 13. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in the last few years. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in the last few years. Cases are frequently coming before the courts, where the husband or in-laws have gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member. The neighbours, whose evidence may be of some assistance, are generally reluctant to depose in court as they want to keep aloof and do not want to antagonise a neighbourhood family. The parents or other family members of the bride being away from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused except regarding the demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should go unpunished. 14. 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 Prosecutions 1944 AC 315 — quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. 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. 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 travelling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.” 15. 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. 22. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In Nika Ram v. State of H.P. (1972)2 SCC 80 it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with “khukhri” and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra (1992)3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 CrPC. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (1992) 3 SCC 300 the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that the wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 IPC. In State of T.N. v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9.00 p.m. and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime. 33. Regard being had to the ratio laid down by the Hon’ble Supreme Court, in my considered view, this is a fit case for invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act which lays down that any fact which is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. 34. As discussed above, the murder of the deceased was committed in her matrimonial home, the prosecution has discharged the initial burden to establish the case. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it was incumbent upon the appellants to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The explanation offered by the appellants in respect of death of the deceased that she died due to accidental burn injury has been found to be false. The medical evidence totally contradicts the defence of the accused. The explanation offered by the appellants being found to be untrue becomes an additional link to prove the circumstances against the accused. 35. In view of the judgment of the Hon’ble Supreme Court in the matter of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra), the non-examination of independent witnesses would be of no consequence in the facts and circumstances of the case. Similarly, the independent witnesses, who turned hostile, would also not adversely affect the prosecution case. 36. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, in my considered view this is a fit case for invoking presumption as to dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC have fully been satisfied by the prosecution in course of trial. 36. For the reasons assigned, hereinabove, in my considered view this is a fit case for invoking presumption as to dowry death under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act. The essential ingredients of the offence punishable under Section 304-B IPC have fully been satisfied by the prosecution in course of trial. Having regard to the evidence on record, I am satisfied that the appellants have been correctly found guilty by the learned trial Court of the offences with which they were charged. 37. These appeals, which have no merit, shall stand dismissed. The bail bonds of the appellants are hereby cancelled. They are directed to surrender in the Court below in order to serve out the sentence.