Research › Search › Judgment

Allahabad High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1627 (ALL)

TRIBHUWAN SINGH v. STATE OF U. P.

2014-05-20

OM PRAKASH VII, V.K.SHUKLA

body2014
JUDGMENT Hon’ble V.K. Shukla, J.—Appellants, who are three in number have approached this Court questioning the validity of the judgement and order dated 7.5.1986 convicting accused Tribhuwan Singh under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life, and pay a fine of Rs. 5000/-; convicting accused Smt. Makoi Devi under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentencing her to undergo imprisonment for life only; accused Chandra Bhawan Singh being convicted under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life with a further conviction under Section 201 IPC with a sentence to undergo rigours imprisonment for five years and all these sentence of accused Chandra Bhawan to run concurrently in Session Trial No. 291 of 1984 under Sections 302, 302/34, 201 IPC and Section 4 of D.P. Act, Police Station Kishanpur district Fatehpur. 2. Prosecution story as has been unfolded by the prosecution is to the effect that Satya Kali was wedded to Tribhuwan Singh in the year 1981 as per customary rights and elder brother of Tribhuwan Singh, namely Chandra Bhawan Singh son of Harpal Singh and Jwala Singh son of Jogeshwar Singh, who is a family member used to make demand of motorcycle as dowry and whenever request was being made for Gauna ceremony at all point of time demand of motorcycle was put up and complainant expressed his inability in the said direction due to his financial constrain before Tribuwan Singh, Chandra Bhawan Singh his brother and other family members and then on 15.3.1984 Thursday Jwala Singh son of Jogeshwar Singh and Chandra Bhawan Singh son of Harpal Singh all of sudden came to the house of girl and on the said date Satyakali was taken to her in laws house and on 18.4.1984 for demand of dowry girl in question has been killed by DBBL gun. After girl in question has been killed information was received by informant through the person sent by the Pradhan of the concerned village and thereafter FIR was lodged giving therein details of the demand of dowry and factum of his sister being killed. 3. After girl in question has been killed information was received by informant through the person sent by the Pradhan of the concerned village and thereafter FIR was lodged giving therein details of the demand of dowry and factum of his sister being killed. 3. This much has also come on record that Chandra Bhawan Singh elder brother of the accused Tribhuwan Singh on the date i.e 18.4.1984 when lady in question has died at 4.15 pm a written report has been given by him at Police Station Kishanpur informing that on account of dispute regarding partition, Satyakali w/o Tribhuwan Singh has committed suicide with his licensed gun on that day at about 4pm and her dead body was lying in the Court-yard. Chandra Bhawan Singh had also informed that he himself was working in the field and after receiving information he has rushed to the Police Station. After the said information has been furnished requisite entry was made in the GD No. 14, by Sri Ram Niwas Mishra Head Constable and based on the entries so made thereafter Sri K.P.Singh, SO has proceeded to make spot inquiry and at the said point of time he found the dead body of the deceased lying in the Court-yard of accused Tribhuwan Singh. Dead body in question was seized and thereafter inquest was got prepared and after inquest proceeding concluded then other paper work was got done such as photo-lash, challan lash, letter to C.M.O and R.I. and body in question after being sealed has been sent for postmortem through constable Aman Ahmad and Amar Nath Patel. 4. During this period as already mentioned above, Rajendra brother of deceased who has received information through the servant of the Pradhan of village Ekdala of his sister Satyakali having been murdered at about 3 to 4 pm. 4. During this period as already mentioned above, Rajendra brother of deceased who has received information through the servant of the Pradhan of village Ekdala of his sister Satyakali having been murdered at about 3 to 4 pm. has also got scribed written report by one Satendra Prakash Sharma, and thereafter FIR was lodged at Police Station Kishanpur at about 8.30 pm and on the basis of which Head Moharir Ram Niwas Mishra prepared FIR and registered a case at GD No. 17 and sent the same to Sri K.P. Singh, S.O on the spot through Constable Awadhesh Singh and after receiving the copy of the said GD wherein the case against the accused persons was registered, Sri K.P. Singh has investigated the case and has collected the plain earth and blood stained earth and after recording Panchnama, inspected the site and prepared site plan and also effectuated arrest of accused Tribhuwan Singh, his mother Smt. Makoi Devi on 19.4.1984 and demanded the said gun from which incident in question has been alleged. Accused Tribhuwan who after unlocking his baithak took out the gun No. DBBL-7702589 and three live and three empty cartridges and same were handed over and then same were kept in seal in two separate bundles and thereafter post-mortem has been conducted of the dead body of the deceased on 19.4.1984 at 3.30 pm and the Doctor was of the opinion that deceased has been murdered. On 27.4.1984 case was entrusted to Sri Ramesh Chandra Yadav, Circle Officer who after receiving post-mortem report and after recording the statement of accused appellant No. 1 Tribhuwan submitted charge-sheet against all the accused persons and thereafter, as offence in question was triable exclusively by the Court of Session, the matter was committed to the Court of session for trial on 6.9.1984, and thereafter charges were framed on 15.11.1984 and accused appellants pleaded not guilty to the charges and requested for trial. 5. Before the trial Court to support the case of prosecution, prosecution examined in all six witnesses namely Rajendra, PW-1, brother of deceased; Ram Niwas Mishra, PW-2 Head constable; PW-3 Dr. Bharat Namdeo; K.P. Singh, PW-4 S.O; Ramesh Chandra Yadav PW-5 Dy. S.P and Aman Ahmad PW-6 Constable. After prosecution evidence has been led statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C was got recorded and one Ram Sewak Singh had appeared as witness from the side of accused appellant. Bharat Namdeo; K.P. Singh, PW-4 S.O; Ramesh Chandra Yadav PW-5 Dy. S.P and Aman Ahmad PW-6 Constable. After prosecution evidence has been led statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C was got recorded and one Ram Sewak Singh had appeared as witness from the side of accused appellant. Trial Court on the basis of evidence available on record has proceeded to record conviction and thus impelling each one of the appellant to be before this Court. 6. Sri Apul Mishra, learned counsel for the appellants has assailed the validity of the conviction by submitting that (i) there is no motive whatsoever to commit the crime in question and false theory has been set up that for demand of dowry such an act has been committed whereas on account of elimination of deceased no benefit whatsoever could have accused appellants (ii) case in hand is one of virtually no evidence and here prosecution has miserably failed to substantiate the factum of murder by available evidence on record that proceeds to nail the accused appellant. (iii) information of suicide is not at all self incriminating and accepting for the sake of argument that false information has been given of committing suicide same in no way and manner will improve the case of prosecution, once prosecution on its own has no evidence in its stock to connect the appellants with the crime in question (iv) Section 106 and Section 114 of the Evidence Act would be attracted once prosecution substantiates it case and only such circumstances are then to be explained which are in the special knowledge of the accused appellant, and with the aid of Section 106 and Section 114 of the Evidence Act, on mere presumptions conviction cannot be recorded as in the matter of recording conviction, there is no concept of joint liability, and once chain of events are not complete on mere surmises and conjuncture, conviction cannot be recorded. 7. 7. The arguments that have been advanced on behalf of appellants has been resisted by learned Additional Government Advocate, Sri Vimlendu Tripathi, as well as Sri Sanjai Kumar Srivastava, learned counsel for the complainant, and both have contended in one voice that in the present case deceased is no one else but wife of appellant No. 1 and here hardly more than a month back she had been brought to her in laws house and thereafter she has been murdered and the circumstances are speaking for itself that no other persons but the accused persons are responsible for the said incident and here chain of events are complete and once no satisfactory reply has been given by them qua the incriminating circumstances that are existing against the appellants then rightly conviction has been recorded in the facts of the present case. 8. After respective arguments have been advanced, in the light of the evidence that is available on record this Court finds that as far as date of marriage of Satyakali with Tribhuwan Singh, appellant No. 1 is concerned, same is not at all disputed that same has been solemnized in the year 1981. This much is also accepted position that after marriage she had gone to her in laws house and stayed there for 8 days and had returned back. Thereafter as per the custom second vidai (gauna) was required to take place and complainant’s grievances has been that from the side of accused appellant no steps were undertaken to effectuate gauna ceremony and reason was that till motor-cycle is not given, said ceremony would not take place and then complainant had gone to Ekdala village and requested accused appellants for solemnizing gauna ceremony, at the said point of time Tribhuwan Singh, Chandra Bhawan Singh and his mother all the accused made it clear that till the motor-cycle is not given, gauna ceremony would not be performed and though complainant expressed his inability but the accused appellants were not prepared for the same. As per the prosecution case thereafter all of a sudden Chandra Bhuwan Singh came to complaints house, to take the deceased, whereas there has been no preparation in the said direction, and the deceased was sent. As per the prosecution case thereafter all of a sudden Chandra Bhuwan Singh came to complaints house, to take the deceased, whereas there has been no preparation in the said direction, and the deceased was sent. This much is clear that on 15.3.1984 the deceased was taken to her in laws house by Chandra Bhawan Singh and Jwala Singh and on the said date Satyakali was sent alongwith them and on 18.4.1984 servant sent by Pradhan of village Ekdala came to complainants village and informed him about the incident in question that has been there i.e the factum of killing of sister of complainant. This fact has not been disputed in the present case that deceased after she came to her in laws house on 15.3.1984 since then she has been staying in her in laws house and this much is also accepted position that death has taken place inside the house of accused persons. This fact has been accepted by accused persons in their statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. while answering question No. 6. 9. The prosecution story has been that for demand of dowry i.e motor-cycle, offence in question has been committed. PW 1 is the brother of deceased and complainant of the case and he has specifically stated that there has been persistent demand of motor-cycle by way of dowry to effectuate gauna ceremony and the complainant has expressed his inability to give motor-cycle, when complainant had gone for talks and as the appellants were not prepared to solemnize gauna ceremony, in the absence of motorcycle being given so he left. PW1 has also stated that thereafter his sister was taken away by them on 15.3.1984 in hot haste and without there being any preparation, at his end Satyakali was sent and thereafter he heard about the death of his sister. PW1 in his cross-examination has mentioned that on 15.3.1984 when they had come for vidai, then demand for motor-cycle was not made and it was told that motor-cycle be not given and vidai be got done. The statement of PW 1 is quiet natural and same also reflects of the design of the appellants that in per-planned manner the girl was taken away from her house to her in laws house and there after the incident in question has been executed with precision inside the house. 10. The statement of PW 1 is quiet natural and same also reflects of the design of the appellants that in per-planned manner the girl was taken away from her house to her in laws house and there after the incident in question has been executed with precision inside the house. 10. It is being contended before this Court that once accused appellants have chosen to eliminate the deceased then whatever possibility has been there of getting motor-cycle even same would vanish and such a conduct is beyond human comprehension, in view of this motive as has been suggested is of no consequence and hits the prosecution case badly. Prosecution story has been very very consistent that there has been demand of dowry in the shape of motorcycle and initially girl had gone to in her laws house and stayed there for 8 days and thereafter gauna ceremony was not performed for want of motor-cycle. Once such has been the background of the case and in designed manner on their own appellant No. 2 alongwith other went to the house of deceased to take the deceased to her in laws house and thereafter have chosen to eliminate her then to say that no benefit would have been there by eliminating her is of no consequence as no one knows the mind of criminals as to what is the design operating in their mind. Often motive is locked in the heart of offender, and motive may be known to assassin and no one else and no one else may know who gave birth to such evil thought in his mind as per the Apex Court, in the case of Munish Mubar v. State of Haryana, 2012 (10) SCC 464 . 11. This is true that in the present case PW-1 has clearly proceeded to mention that he is not an eye-witness of the incident in question and rightly he has proceeded to mention such fact inasmuch as once girl gets marriage there is no occasion for the family members of the girl to keep constant vigil on her in laws place. Here it is apparent that with calculated design deceased has been taken to her in laws house and thereafter she has been eliminated. The testimony of PWI on the question of demand of dowry stands unimpeached and thus motive is there. Here it is apparent that with calculated design deceased has been taken to her in laws house and thereafter she has been eliminated. The testimony of PWI on the question of demand of dowry stands unimpeached and thus motive is there. In view of this in most truthful manner PW-1 has come up forward to state before the Court that on account of non-fulfilment of dowry such an incident has been effectuated. 12. PW-2 is the Head Moharrir who has proceeded to prove the report that was lodged by Chandra Bhawan Singh on 18.4.1984 at about 4.15 pm and has also proceeded to mention that after entries in question were made then Sri K.P. Singh has been handed over the papers for undertaking investigation and his departure from police station is based on the same and on the same date i.e. 18.4.1984, FIR was lodged at 8.30 pm and details have also been given by him of the exercise that was undertaken by Sri K.P.Singh on 19.4.1984 and the entries made in the said direction and the details have also been given of the arrest of two accused persons on 20.4.1984. 13. PW-3 is Doctor Bharat Nam Deo, who has conducted autopsy of the body of the deceased and has found following injuries on her body, which is quoted below: Ante-mortem injuries (1) Gun shot wound of entry 1"x 1"x through and through over the mid line of chest 4" above and medical to left nipple. Blackening and tattooing present. Margins inverted, lacerated. Direction from front to back. (2) Gun shot wound of entry 1"x 1"x through and through on midline of chest ½” above injury No. 1 Margins inverted, lacerated. Blackening and tattooing present. Direction from front to back. (3) Gun shot would of entry ½” x ½”x through and through on the left side of chest. Margins inverted and lacerated 1" lateral and tattooing present. Direction from front to back. All the three injuries are in an area of 2½” x2½”. (4) Gun shot wound of exit 1½”x 1½” x through and through on left side scapula region. Margins everted and lacerated. Injury corresponds to injuries Nos. 1 to 3. (5) Gun shot wound of entry 3"x1½” to through and through on anterior surface of left shoulder joint. Margins inverted and lacerated. Backening and tattooing present. Direction from front to back. (4) Gun shot wound of exit 1½”x 1½” x through and through on left side scapula region. Margins everted and lacerated. Injury corresponds to injuries Nos. 1 to 3. (5) Gun shot wound of entry 3"x1½” to through and through on anterior surface of left shoulder joint. Margins inverted and lacerated. Backening and tattooing present. Direction from front to back. (6) Gun shot wound of exit 3½”x4" x through and through everted margins corresponds to injury No. 5. (7) Multiple fire arm wounds of entry each measuring ½”x ½ “ x bone deep on right leg antero-medical surface upper one third in an area of 4” x 3" with fracture of right tibia and fabula bones upper 1/3rd. After thorough extensive search,two big size pellets recovered from right tibia marrow cavity was found by the doctor and sealing the same in an envelope he sent it to S.P. through proper channel. On internal examination, he has found the right tibia and fabula bones, sternum left scapula and left clavicle bones fractured. The sternum below injuries Nos. 1 to 3 was also fractured. Pleura and both the lungs were lacerated. Heart was empty measuring 4 oz. Stomach and the small intestine was empty while large intestine gall bladder and bladder was full and about 2 oz urine was found in it. According to his opinion, the death was due to shock and haemorrhage caused by the above mentioned antemortem injuries and the deceased might have met her death on 18.4.84 at about 3 or 4 p.m.. He was also of the opinion that these injuries were caused by more then one fire and were sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause the death. In his cross-examination he also admitted that although there could have been the possibility that injuries Nos. 1 to 3 were caused by one fire and injury No. 5 may be result of the same fire, but looking to the wounds of entry, they were the result of atleast two fires. Dr. In his cross-examination he also admitted that although there could have been the possibility that injuries Nos. 1 to 3 were caused by one fire and injury No. 5 may be result of the same fire, but looking to the wounds of entry, they were the result of atleast two fires. Dr. Bharat Nam Deo has proceeded to mention time of death as one day old and as he has proceeded to start autopsy at 3.30 pm such fact in itself tallies with time of the incident as has been mentioned in the FIR as per the information furnished to first informant of the time when the incident has taken place and this time also tallies with the report that has been given by the accused appellant No. 2, Chandra Bhawan who has proceeded to report of suicide having been committed. Thus, in the present case as far as date, time and place of the incident in question is concerned the same is fully substantiated. 14. Appellant No. 2, Chandra Bhawan has proceeded to report at the police station of the fact of suicide having been committed. Subsequent to the same he has chosen to resile by submitting that no such report in writing had been given by him, that the deceased had committed suicide. Reason appears to be obvious, as after autopsy has been conducted, the theory of suicide set up by him stands fully exposed from the autopsy report as well as the statement made by Doctor concerned who conducted autopsy on the body of the deceased as it was quite clear that the injuries were on different parts of the body and were caused from a very close range as it contained blackening and tattooing. These injuries in no case could have been caused by a single fire as is reflected from the seat of the injury. Injury No. 7 is on the right leg anterio medial surface upper 1/3rd in an area of 4" x 3" with fracture of right tibia and fabula bone upper 1/3rd, while the other injuries are on the left side chest and near about. Thus, after receiving the first injury, if it was a case of suicide, the deceased could not have used the second fire. Thus, after receiving the first injury, if it was a case of suicide, the deceased could not have used the second fire. Further more, in case of suicide, people generally do keep the weapons quite close to the body so that there may not be a chance to miss the death. The postmortem report in itself belies the theory of suicide. Coupled with this the fire arm in question, used for committing suicide must be there on the spot, but here most surprisingly firearm was not found on the spot and the body was lying covered with white sheet. 15. There is nothing to indicate as to what prompted the girl to take such drastic step of committing suicide i.e. putting end to her life. Suicide is the act of intentionally causing ones own death. Such drastic step of taking ones own life is certainly not for fun, and the circumstances the mood and the emotions which drove a person to commit suicide has to be examined, at the point of time when theory of suicide is set up. There should be some evidence to show as to what was the reason for the deceased to commit suicide. Chandra Bhawan Singh, Appellant No. 2 in the report made, which he now denies, has mentioned of her being disturbed on account of partition. Trial Court has rightly observed that, if anybody was to be effected by partition, it would have been Tribhuwan Singh, appellant No. 1 and not the deceased. Theory of suicide, is nothing but a pretence. 16. Chandra Bhawan Singh is denying the report as he knows very well that the said report in original has been lost. Both PW-2 and PW-4 have accepted this fact that in writing report has been made by Chandra Bhawan Singh and in between PW-2 and PW-4 there has been blame game going on as PW-2 has been saying that he has handed over the report to PW-4 and he has not handed it back to him, whereas PW-4 has proceeded to mention that he was not handed over original of such report, but he had seen the same in the police station itself. The fact of the matter is that said report is lost and as per the record departmental enquiry had been set up. The fact of the matter is that said report is lost and as per the record departmental enquiry had been set up. In the facts of the present, once on account of callous and negligent attitude of the police officials report has been lost, the story set up by Chandra Bhawan Singh that he has not lodged report that she has committed suicide has to be ignored or it can still be accepted. For the lapses on the part of the investigating agency prosecution case cannot be made to suffer. PW-2 has given details of the fact when Chandra Bhawan Singh had came to police station, with a written report and same was entered in GD, rapat n. 14 and this was followed by investigation by departure of PW-4 Sri K.P. Singh on the spot. Once entries are there in the G.D and said entries have been proved and based on the same further follow up action has been taken on the spot by undertaking inquest proceeding etc, then loss of report would not affect of the credibility of the entries and the prosecution case as has come forward. Trial Court in detail has discussed the conduct of PW-4 Sri K.P. Singh, that he has been in collusion with the accused persons, as he himself opined that it was case of suicide agreeing with the view that the panchs had given, ignoring the seat of injuries. Trial Court has also mentioned that Sri K.P.Singh had deliberately kept on hold the report in question to help accused persons. Various other attending circumstances have been noted by the trial Court to show and substantiate live link of collusion between accused and Sri K.P.Singh, as Chandra Bhawan Singh was not arrested on the same day, though note was made by him that Chandra Bhawan Singh offered to take dead body on tractor, whereas he has mentioned that when he entered the house with panchs, none of the inhabitants of house were found and dead body was lying there covered with white sheet. The inevitable conclusion is that Chandra Bhawan Singh had informed the police in writing of suicide being committed and based on the same follow up action has been taken and he succeeded in winning over Sri K.P.Singh, who also proceeded to support the theory set up by Chandra Bhawan Singh of suicide being committed alongwith panch whereas, as already discussed above the theory of suicide is clearly ruled out in the facts of the case and when the deceased has not committed suicide, the only probability which remains is that she died a homicidal death. 17. Coupled with this in the present case the dead body was found in the Court-yard of the accused. According to inquest, when Sri K.P.Singh visited the place of occurrence he found the dead body covered with a white bed sheet. This in itself goes to show that somebody has reached in between the time of murder and the arrival of Sri K. P. Singh, who did not find the gun in question or any empty cartridge inside the Court-yard or near the dead body and same was recovered from the possession of accused Tribhuwan, who, according to PW-4 Sri K.P. Singh, had given the same from the box kept in another room of Baithka which was unlocked by him. The patta of cartridges also contained three empty cartridges alongwith three live cartridge. From the report of the Ballistic Expert it is fully corroborated that the empty cartridges were fired from the said DBBL gun belonging to the accused Chandra Bawan Singh. EC1 and EC3 (both cartridges) have been fired from the left barrel of DBBL gun and EC2(cartridge) has been fired from the right barrel of DBBL gun. It is admitted by the accused persons that the gun used to be kept in another room of Baithka. Accused Tribhwan Singh under Section 313 Cr.P.C admitted that the recovery memo of the gun Ext. Ka.16 contains his signature but stated that his signature was forcibly obtained next day at the police station and though it was fully written but he was not allowed to read it. He admitted that there is one baithka outside the house containing two room and in that room gun of Chandra Bhawan Singh was being kept. Ka.16 contains his signature but stated that his signature was forcibly obtained next day at the police station and though it was fully written but he was not allowed to read it. He admitted that there is one baithka outside the house containing two room and in that room gun of Chandra Bhawan Singh was being kept. Chandra Bhawan Singh also admitted that he used to keep his gun, license and cartridges in his baithka which is out of the house and use to keep the license of the gun in the box. Thus, it is fully corroborated that the gun was used for murdering the deceased and thereafter it was removed from the place of occurrence and kept in the room where it was ordinarily kept in other days and but for the accused appellants no outsider had access in the house. 18. Prosecution in the present case has proceeded to substantiate the fact that there has been motive to commit the crime in question, incident in question has taken place in the house of the appellants and date, time and place of incidence is also fixed. The theory that has been set up by Chandra Bhawan Singh that deceased committed suicide stands clearly ruled out by medical evidence and other attending circumstances as already discussed above and here on the body of the deceased there has been multiple fire arm injuries and the circumstances have been clearly speaking for itself that she has died homicidal death, as said injuries by no stretch of imagination could be caused once suicide was being effectuated on the spot by the deceased on her freewill, and further the factum of DBBL gun being used in the commission of offence has also been substantiated in the facts of the present case. 19. This Court at the cost of repetition mentions that wife of appellant No. 1 has been killed inside the house in question under unnatural circumstances and the most surprising feature of the case is that in the statement that has been so made under Section 313 Cr.P.C such incriminating circumstance has been put to the accused appellants and but for denial nothing concrete has come forward giving the fact as to under what circumstances death has taken place in side the house. 20. 20. Issue is that where offence in question has been committed inside the dwelling house where husband and family members are residing and no explanation is offered as to how unfortunate lady in question has died can with the aid of Section 106 of Evidence Act, conviction in question could be recorded. While dealing with the case of death of housewife, and only deceased and accused were in house, the Apex Court in the case of Balram Prasad Agarwal v. State of Bihar, 1997 (9) SCC 338 , ruled as follows: “His evidence further shows that the cruel conduct of the respondent-accused did not abate and appeared to have continued till the fateful night when the situation became unbearable to the deceased which resulted in her unfortunate death by drowning in the well in the Courtyard of the house of the accused. “it is necessary to appreciate that on that fateful night apart from the victim only the accused ware in the house. Thus what happened on that night and what led to the deceased failing in the well would be wholly within the personal and special knowledge of the accused. But they kept mum on this aspect. It is of course true that burden is on the prosecution to prove the case beyond reasonable doubt. But also the prosecution is found to have shown that the accused were guilty of persistent conduct of cruelty qus the deceased spreed over years as is well established from the unshaken testimony of P.W.6, father of the deceased girl, the facts which were in the personal knowledge of the accused who were present in the house on that fateful night could have been revealed by them to disprove the prosecution case.” 13. It must, therefore, be held that the prosecution had fully established its case against the accused that on the fateful night between 30th October and 31st October 1988 deceased Kiran Devi was subjected to cruelty by her mother-in-law, her husband accused No. 1 and his elder brother accused No. 3 which forced her to commit suicide. It is easy to visualize the unbearable state of affairs on that night when a young housewife having two minor children, the younger only four and a half years of age, had to jump in the well to end her miserable existence in the house of the accused. It is easy to visualize the unbearable state of affairs on that night when a young housewife having two minor children, the younger only four and a half years of age, had to jump in the well to end her miserable existence in the house of the accused. Unless the torture to her had become unbearable in the common course of human conduct such a young housewife having commitments to life could not have taken the drastic step to end her life, leaving her infant sons in the lurch and at the mercy of the accused especially when her husband accused No. 1 was contemplating a re-marriage. As the Special Leave Petition of accused No. 2. mother-in-law of deceased Kiran Devi has been dismissed we need not say anything about her culpability. However the aforesaid evidence clinchingly established beyond of reasonable doubt that respondents, original accused Nos. 1 and 3, by their wilful and parslatent conduct of cruelty on Kiran Devi had driven her to commit suicide by jumping in the well in the compound of their house. It is not possible to agree with the contention of learned counsel for the respondents that she might have accidentally fallen in the well. It has to be kept in view that at 3.00 O’clock in winter night while the deceased would be sleeping in the house there would have been no occasion for her to go in the back verandah and fall accidentally in the well which was 25 ft. away from the back door of the house as seen from the evidence of P.W.8 the Investigating Officer. On the contrary the prosecution evidence clearly indicates beyond shadow of reasonable doubt that because of the mistreatment by the accused and the consistant course of cruelty perpetrated on her, she had on the fateful night suffered from the last straw that broke the camel’s back. Earlier she had jumped in the same well to put and end to her miserable existence but was saved by the neighbours. Yet the life for her in the household of the accused did not improve subsequently. She was, therefore, driven to once again try to commit suicide by failing in the very same well in which she had earlier fallen. Yet the life for her in the household of the accused did not improve subsequently. She was, therefore, driven to once again try to commit suicide by failing in the very same well in which she had earlier fallen. But on the second occasion on that fateful night when she jumped in the well there was no neighbour to save her and her life got extinguished. Under these circumstances it cannot be said that the accused were not responsible for bringing to a tragic and the life of this young housewife aged 28 years, mother of two children, who having suffered in such a drastic manner at the hands of the accused was driven to take the extreme step of committing suicide. This is neither the case of murder nor the case of accident. But it is only the case of suicide for which the persistent hostile conduct of the accused over years as deposed to by P.W.6 complainant and also the act of cruelty perpetrated on her on the fateful night as revealed by the aforesaid wall established clinching circumstances, were directly responsible. It is also pertinent to note that the learned Trial Judge reached that conclusion in para 8 of the judgment. However in his view this was no a dowry death as contemplated by Section 304-B, IPC as the deceased had died more than seven years after her marriage. But unfortunately the learned Trial Judge failed to examine alternative case under Section 498-A which got squarely attracted on the facts of the present case. It must, therefore, he held that on the facts of the present case the prosecution has been able to bring home to the accused beyond shadow of reasonable doubt offence under Section 498-A, IPC read with Explanation (a). When she was driven to take such a drastic step all the accused including acquitted accused mother-in-law were in the house and alongwith them rasided the victim and her two minor children. Hence the accused alone must be held responsible for driving her to commit suicide by their misconduct which had led to a quarrel and shouting revealing the voice of a woman as admitted even by the hostile witness P.W.3 who actually heard the same being the next door neighbour. All the circumstances proved by the prosecution clinchingly establish the culpability of the accused themselves and no one else. All the circumstances proved by the prosecution clinchingly establish the culpability of the accused themselves and no one else. These established circumstances wholly rule out any reasonable possibility of innocence of the accused from any viewpoint. In other words the chain in the circumstantial evidence is so complete against the accused as to rule out any other hypothesis about their innocence. We accordingly convict respondent No. 2 Paran Prasad Agrawal and respondent No. 3 Girbar Prasad Agrawal of offences punishable under Section 498-A, IPC. 21. Apex Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State Of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , while dealing the case of demand of dowry from the parent of bride wherein the husband and in-laws have gone to the extent of killing the bride on the demand being not met, has opined that these crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence and has proceeded to deal the said situation in following terms: 13. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in 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 antagonize 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. 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 Prosecution, 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. 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.” 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 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. 21. 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)]. Apex Court in the case of Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu, (2008) 5 SCC 587 , has proceeded to mention that if the wife was found missing ordinarily the husband would search her and if she has died in unnatural circumstances when she was in his company, he is expected to offer an explanation and lack of such explanation on the part of the husband itself would be a circumstance against him. Apex Court recently in the case of Ravirala Laxmaiha v. State of Andhra Pradesh, (2013) 9 SCC 283 , wherein no eye-witnesses account has been available and case in question has been based on circumstantial evidence held as follows: “It is a settled legal proposition that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, where no eye-witnesses account is available, the principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation for the same, 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. (Vide: State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 ; Gulab Chand v. State of M.P., AIR 1995 SC 1598 ; State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran, AIR 1999 SC 3535 ; State of Maharashtra v. Suresh, (2000) 1 SCC 471 ; and Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 731 ). In Neel Kumar @ Anil Kumar v. State of Haryana, (2012) 5 SCC 766 , this Court observed : 30. It is the duty of the accused to explain the incriminating circumstance proved against him while making a statement under Section 313 CrPC. Keeping silent and not furnishing any explanation for such circumstance is an additional link in the chain of circumstances to sustain the charges against him. Recovery of incriminating material at his disclosure statement duly proved is a very positive circumstance against him. (See also: Aftab Ahmad Anasari v. State of Uttaranchal, AIR 2010 SC 773 ). In cases where the accused has been seen with the deceased victim (last seen theory), it becomes the duty of the accused to explain the circumstances under which the death of the victim has occurred. (Vide: Nika Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 ; Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 ; and Ponnusamy (supra). (Vide: Nika Ram v. The State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 ; Ganeshlal v. State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 ; and Ponnusamy (supra). In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681 , this Court held as under: 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. (See also: Prithipal Singh and others v. State of Punjab and another, (2012) 1 SCC 10 ) In view of the above discussion, we reach the inescapable conclusion that appellant had been doubting the character of his wife and therefore, had adequate motive to eliminate her. In spite of the fact that he had been in the same room, he failed to furnish any explanation as under what circumstances his wife was found dead. Particularly, in view of the fact that the Courts below had excluded the theory of suicide. The same conclusion stands fully fortified by the fact that the saree of deceased was lying in the corner of the room and the version given by the appellant that he had found his wife hanging with a saree around her neck and he cut the same by knife stands fully falsified as in such a fact-situation, part of the saree should have been found hanging with the ceiling of the room. The conduct of the appellant that he had given a false information to his in-laws and while dead body was lying in his house he stayed in a Krishna Guest House; further that he had absconded from the city itself, suggest that he is guilty of the offence. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgments and orders of the Courts below. The appeal lacks merit, and is accordingly dismissed. 22. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgments and orders of the Courts below. The appeal lacks merit, and is accordingly dismissed. 22. In the present case this much is clearly reflected that crime in question has been committed inside the house wherein a young bride who recently had gone to in her laws house has been murdered as is fully reflected from the injuries that are available on her body. Post-mortem report clearly indicates that death in question is homicidal. The family member of the bride are far away from the scene of commission of offence and are not in a position to give direct evidence which may inculpate the real accused except for the fact of demand of dowry etc. The neighbour, whose evidence may be of some importance and assistance, are reluctant to depose in Court as they want to keep aloof and do not intend to antagonise neighbourhood family. Similarly no member of the family even if he is witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against any other family member. Here the inmates of the house amongst themselves have taken a resolve, not to throw any light qua the way and manner of killing of bride. The fellow villagers in the present case have also not come forward to support the prosecution and have chosen to maintain silence and those who have chosen to come forward by participating in inquest proceeding have chosen to support the accused by opining that Satyakali has committed suicide. Once such is the position, that offence has taken place inside the house, where assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstance of their choice, it will be difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of accused if strict principle of circumstantial evidence in insisted. 23. Once such is the position, that offence has taken place inside the house, where assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in circumstance of their choice, it will be difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of accused if strict principle of circumstantial evidence in insisted. 23. Here prosecution has discharged its part of the burden by leading evidence of which it was capable by substantiating the fact (i) that there has been demand of dowry (ii) deceased has been taken to her in laws house (iii) at the time of death, deceased has been staying with in her laws and appellants are the inmates of the house (iv) death in question has taken place inside the house (v) injuries caused clearly reflects that it is case of murder (vi) story of suicide set up by appellant No. 2 was not at all supported by medical evidence (vii) DBBL gun has been used in the commission of offence and once chain of events are clearly linked up then in view of Section 106 of Evidence Act, as young bride in question has been killed inside the house, then there is corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give 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. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and said accused does not offer any explanation which on the face of it is found false or untrue, then the same becomes additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. 24. Counsel for the appellant, Sri Apul Mishra, Advocate at this juncture has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court, in the case of Sewal Das v. State of Bihar, 1974 SC 192, wherein view has been taken that prosecution cannot absolve itself from the duty of proving the prosecution case beyond the reasonable doubt. 24. Counsel for the appellant, Sri Apul Mishra, Advocate at this juncture has placed reliance on the judgment of Apex Court, in the case of Sewal Das v. State of Bihar, 1974 SC 192, wherein view has been taken that prosecution cannot absolve itself from the duty of proving the prosecution case beyond the reasonable doubt. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Apex Court in the case of Sharad Birdhi Chanda Sharda v. State of Maharashtra, 1984 CAR 263 (SC), wherein five golden principles constituting of the proof of case based on circumstantial evidence has been provided for and the principle that prosecution must stand on its own leg has been reiterated and cannot derive any strength from the weakness of the defence has been reiterated. Reliance has also been placed on the judgment of Apex Court, in the case of Padala Veera Reddy v. State of A.P., SCC 1990, wherein view has been taken that circumstances do create suspicion but no one can be convicted on mere suspicion however strong it may be. Lastly reliance has been placed on the judgment of Apex Court, in the case of Lekh Ram v. State of Punjab, 1992 SCC 516, wherein it has been reiterated that it is for the prosecution to establish the guilt and burden cannot be placed on the accused to prove his innocence. 25. There is no dispute to the preposition, as has been laid down there, as it is a general rule, but where an offence like murder is committed inside the house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence 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 comparatively lighter character, keeping in view the peculiar characteristic of the case. Once offence has been committed within the four walls of the house, with no eye-witness, then 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. Where murder of wife is committed and the offence has taken place inside the dwelling home where husband and others admittedly reside then explanation has to be offered by the husband and other inmates of the house, as to how she has received injuries that proved fatal. The duty of prosecution is to lead evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the fact and circumstances of the case, and when offence is committed in veiled manner inside the house, from there Section 106 of Evidence Act operates, as accused persons who are admittedly inmates of the house have special knowledge of the fact and circumstances, as to how deceased suffered injuries, that proved fatal and they are obligated in law to disclose the same failing, which adverse inference would be drawn. 26. Accused Tribhuwan in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C admitted the relationship between the accused persons as well as the fact that he was wedded with the deceased in 1981 and she was brought in Gauna on 15.3.84. He also admitted that till her death after 15.3.84 the deceased remained in his house. He has denied of having given any gun to the I.O but admitted that the next day, the S.O. had got his signatures on memo Ext. Ka.16 but has not allowed him to read the same. He admitted that he was arrested on 19.4.84 and was lodged at Hawalat of P.S. Kishanpur on that day. He further stated that because the police was demanding money which he did not pay, he has been falsely implicated. In his detailed statement, he stated that one day before the occurrence, he was in the house of one Taran Singh, situate at 3 PVC road, Allenganj, district Allahabad, where in connection with his studies he was residing on rent alongwith three other boys. He came to his house on 19.4.84 and reached the village at about 9.30 or 10 pm. No soon he reached the village one Sri B.D. Singh, the then S.O Khaga called him and took him to police station Kishanpur on the pretext that he had some work there and no soon he arrived from the jeep at P.S. Kishanpur, he was beaten in presence of Rajendra and Satendra Singh and lodged in hawalat threatening that in case he made any complaint, he would be jailed by registering a case. He also admitted that there is one separate Baithak out of the house with the rooms and Chandra Bawan Singh used to keep his gun in that room. 27. Accused Chandra Bhawan Singh denied that he has ever given any information regarding the suicide of Smt. Satyawati to police station. He however, admitted the recovery of the dead body and preparation of the inquest etc. in his Court-yard, but has stated that the police had not come on information furnished by him. He also admitted that his mother and Tribhwan were arrested on 19.4.84 by Sri. B.D.Singh at his house in presence of Rajendra and Satyendra Sharma and after one hour, another Jeep came and took her mother. He also admitted that S.O. Sri K.P.Singh has taken his gun, the licence and the live cartridges from him on 18.4.84 and called him and Jwala Singh on 20.4.84 and arrested them. He did not tell as to how Satyawati died and stated that the murderer must be knowing as to how she had met her death. He also admitted that he use to keep his gun, license and the cartridges in her Baithka which is a separate room from the house. He further stated that SO Sri K.P.Singh pressed him to name the murderer but because he did not know him, he refused to do so, and as such, he was called on 18.4.84 by Sri K.P.Singh at police station who made a demand of Rs. 25,000/- saying that he would save him and on refusal next day, he took his brother and his mother and on the third day, him and Jwala Singh. On that day too, he demanded the sum and on refusal, put him behind the bar. On 18.4.84 when he had gone to police station, Rajendra and Satyendra were also present there. 28. Accused Makoi Devi also admitted the recovery of the dead body from her Court-yard, brining the deceased in gauna on 15.3.84 and stated that at the time when her daughter in law died, she was not inside the house, rather had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of the nephew Sunder Singh, her neighbour. 28. Accused Makoi Devi also admitted the recovery of the dead body from her Court-yard, brining the deceased in gauna on 15.3.84 and stated that at the time when her daughter in law died, she was not inside the house, rather had gone to attend the marriage ceremony of the nephew Sunder Singh, her neighbour. Qua the incriminating circumstances that has come on record as against accused-appellants they have been confronted in the statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C and except for denial they have come up with the case that they have no concern with the incident in question and not even a single explanation has been mentioned by them as to under what contingency the lady has died. Tribhuwan Singh, appellant No. 1 has admitted in his statement made under Section 313 Cr.P.C of marriage having taken place in the year 1981 and has also accepted part of the prosecution story that initially she stayed for 8 days and had gone back with her brother. This much has also been accepted that Gauna ceremony took place on 15.3.1984, however factum of dowry has been denied. In reference of question Nos. 7 & 9 he has denied of any information having been furnished by his brother Chandra Bhawan Singh and Tribhuwan Singh has proceeded to mention that he was not at all present on the date when she has died and he was at Allahabad, Chandra Bhawan Singh, the other accused has also accepted the theory of marriage and stay of girl for 8 days and thereafter Gauna ceremony took place on 15.3.1984, however he has proceeded to deny that he has not given any written report and he has also proceeded to deny he has not killed and to the specific query made to him as to how she has died, he has proceeded to mention, in regard to question No. 17, he did not know as to how she has died but and it must be known to them who has committed the murder and then he has proceeded to give reply in regard to DBBL gun. Smt. Makoi Devi in her statement accepted the factum of marriage and Gauna and she has also not given any explanation as to how her daughter in law has died. 29. As stated above, the dead body was found in the Court-yard of the accused persons themselves. Smt. Makoi Devi in her statement accepted the factum of marriage and Gauna and she has also not given any explanation as to how her daughter in law has died. 29. As stated above, the dead body was found in the Court-yard of the accused persons themselves. The accused persons have given different versions regarding the incident. At the first instance, Chandra Bhawan Singh informed the police that she had committed suicide by his DDBL gun. To PW-1 Rajendra Singh, it was suggested that it was Satendra Prakash, the scribe of his report who had committed the murder of his sister and when he came to know this, he got Satendra Prakash killed. Chandra Bhawan Singh has in his report stated of suicide and he himself to be thrashing in field and has stated that he did not know as to how the death took place and one who has committed murder must be knowing it. The mother Makoi Devi who is expected to be in the house at such hour, has stated that she was not present at that time in her house, rather was in the house of her neighbour Sunder Singh in connection with the marriage of his nephew. Accused Tribhuwan on the other hand, has stated that he was on that day at Allahabad in connection with his education and had returned on 19.4.84. Two out of them, namely, Tribhuwan Singh and Smt. Makoi Devi in pith and substance have pleaded alibi, but have miserably failed to prove the same. The evidence to prove their absence from the place of occurrence on that day was under their control, but they did not examine the same. 30. Apex Court in the case of Mussauddin Ahmad v. State of Assam, 2009 (14) SCC 541 , took the view that it is the duty of party to lead evidence in its possession which could throw light on the issue in controversy and in case such material evidence is withheld, the Court may draw adverse inference under Section 114 (g) of Evidence Act, 1872 notwithstanding that the onus of proof did not lie on such a party and it was not called upon to produce such an evidence. 31. 31. Therefore, a reasonable presumption under Section 114 Illustration (g) Evidence Act, can be drawn against them that in case they would have produced that evidence that it would have gone against them. The accused, as stated above, did not produce Taran Singh, the master of the house or the students alongwith whom accused Tribhuwan was residing at Allahabad on that day. Even the neighbour Sunder Singh has not been produced to prove that there was some marriage of nephew on that day and Smt. Makoi Devi was in his house at that time. There is also no other person to prove that Smt. Makoi Devi was present at marriage ceremony alongwith him. Thus, the alibi has not at all been substantiated in the facts of the present case and they have failed to prove their absence from the place of occurrence when incident took place. 32. Once such is the factual situation that all these three accused appellants admittedly were inmates of the house and murder has taken place inside the house then they cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish their case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. Presumption of fact is rule of law, and same empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which thinks likely to have happened. In that process the Courts are required to have regard to the normal course of natural events, human conduct etc, in relation to the facts of the case while covering the distance between may be true and must be true. Here young bride Satyakali has been killed inside the house within a short span of her second vidai and initially accused appellant - Chandra Bhawan Singh came up with the theory of suicide having been committed by DBBL gun and said part of the story has been given up as it was running counter to medical evidence and other attending circumstances and DBBL gun has been recovered at the instance of appellant No. 1 Tribhuwan Singh and same has been used in commission of offence is fully substantiated from the report of ballistic expert. Active participation of appellant Nos. Active participation of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 in committing murder cannot be ruled out in the facts of the case, and as far as appellant No. 3 is concerned her active participation is not reflected as here murder has been committed by use of DBBL gun, and she as a typical mother to shield her sons has maintained complete silence as to how crime was committed inside the house when she was there. In respect of appellant No. 3 Makoi Devi looking to the facts of the case there are doubts about safety of conviction, as such benefit of doubt is being extended to her. Once such is the factual situation then chain of events are complete. Deceased has died on account of gun shot injury and deliberately facts to their knowledge has been keep on hold by the appellants in view of this adverse presumption has to be drawn against them on account of failing to submit cogent explanation as to how crime was committed inside the house when they were there. Consequently, this Court concludes that Trial Court has rightly proceeded to record conviction of appellant Nos. 1 and 2 followed by sentence, in view of this, appeal on their behalf fails, the judgment and order of trial Court is affirmed. The appeal preferred on behalf of Smt. Makoi Devi is allowed. The accused appellants, who are alive, namely Tribhuwan Singh and Chandra Bhawan Singh both sons of Harpal Singh be taken into custody to serve out the remaining sentence. Bail bonds are cancelled. Appeal is partly allowed.