Research › Search › Judgment

Rajasthan High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 1793 (RAJ)

Rukmani Devi v. State of Rajasthan

2014-11-12

J.K.RANKA, KANWALJIT SINGH AHLUWALIA

body2014
JUDGMENT : 1. The present criminal appeal has been preferred by Rukmani Devi wife of Ramumal, Ramumal son of Vastumal and Nirmal Kumar son of Ramumal. They were tried by the court of Additional Sessions Judge, Gangapurcity for the offence under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 498-A IPC. The learned Judge vide judgment dated 30.7.2004, held the appellants to be guilty of offence under Sections 302/34, 201/34 and 498-A IPC. 2. Vide a separate order of even date, the appellants have been sentenced under Section 302/34 IPC to life imprisonment with a fine of Rs. 2,000/-, in default thereof to undergo R.I. for six months. For the offence under Section 201/34 IPC, the appellants were sentenced to three years R.I. and were directed to pay a fine of Rs. 1,000/-, in default thereof to undergo three months' R.I. For the offence under Section 498-A IPC, they were sentenced to undergo one year R.I., and to pay fine of Rs. 1000/-, in default thereof to undergo three months' R.I. 3. Dropadi (Jaya) was married with Nirmal Sindhi son of Ramumal, the appellant No. 3, 8/9 years before the occurrence. She died in her matrimonial home due to burn injuries, due to pouring of kerosene oil. The occurrence, admittedly, had taken place in the house of accused, which is matrimonial home of the deceased. 4. Criminal proceedings were set into motion on written complaint Exhibit P-15, made by Narendra Peshwani, PW-2, brother of the deceased Dropadi. It will be apposite to reproduce the written complaint made by Narendra Peshwani, after translating the same into English, as under : "To SHO, Police Station, Gangapurcity. Sub:-for lodging of FIR. Sir, It is submitted that on 10.8.2003, at about 7:00 PM, I received a telephonic information that my sister Dropadi (Jaya) has been burnt to death by her husband, Nirmal Sindhi son of Ramumal, father-in-law Ramumal son of Vashumal, mother-in-law Rukmani Devi wife of Ramumal, brother-in-law (Devar) Bablu son of Ramumal, sister-in-law (Nanad) Kaushallya (Koki), after kerosene oil was poured over her. Her dead body has been found in the room in burnt condition. Dead body is lying in a house in Sindhi Colony in Gangapurcity. I, Narendra Peshwani, Rajkumar, Govindram, Shyam Lal, Ishwar Das and others came from Sawaimadhopur to Gangapurcity and found that dead body of sister was kept by her in laws in a room in a burnt condition. Her dead body has been found in the room in burnt condition. Dead body is lying in a house in Sindhi Colony in Gangapurcity. I, Narendra Peshwani, Rajkumar, Govindram, Shyam Lal, Ishwar Das and others came from Sawaimadhopur to Gangapurcity and found that dead body of sister was kept by her in laws in a room in a burnt condition. My sister was married with the accused 8/9 years ago. She had given birth to two sons. My sister has been killed by my brother-in-law, his parents, sister and brother, by putting her on fire, after pouring kerosene oil. The report is submitted to you and action be taken. The accused used to harass my sister for not bringing adequate dowry." 5. The above said FIR was investigated and report under Section 173 Cr.P.C. was filed and the charge-sheet along with the accused was committed to the court of Sessions and was entrusted for trial to the court of Additional Session Judge, Gangapurcity. The appellants were charged for the offence under Section 302 IPC, in alternate, for offence under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, 498-A and 201/34 IPC. The accused pleaded not guilty and clamed trial. 6. The prosecution commenced its evidence. 7. Kamal Pal Singh, PW-1, has stated that he is running a shop of photographer under the name and style of Amar Photo Studio at Gangapurcity. He had gone to the spot on 11.8.2003 at the asking of the police and had taken photographs of the place of occurrence. He produced the photographs Exhibit P-14. This witness was not cross-examined. 8. Narendra Peshwani, PW-2, the first informant reiterated as what was stated in the FIR. He further stated that at the time of marriage, they had given 10/12 tola's of gold, cloths and other house-hold articles and Rs. 20,000/- in cash. He further stated in the court that all the accused i.e. mother-in-law, brother-in-law, husband, father-in-law and sister-in-law were maltreating the deceased Dropadi, his sister for bringing less dowry. He further stated that about the conduct of the accused her sister had complained to him. Admittedly, the first informant PW-2, Narendra Peshwani, on the day of occurrence was residing at Sawaimadhopur and is not an eye witness. He has only testified regarding the demand of dowry, solemnization of marriage of her sister 8/9 years ago with the accused Nirmal Kumar. 9. Admittedly, the first informant PW-2, Narendra Peshwani, on the day of occurrence was residing at Sawaimadhopur and is not an eye witness. He has only testified regarding the demand of dowry, solemnization of marriage of her sister 8/9 years ago with the accused Nirmal Kumar. 9. The same facts have been stated by PW-4, Govind Ram, who is maternal uncle of deceased Dropadi (Jaya), resident of Sawaimadhopur. He stated that Dropadi was married with Nirmal Kumar in the year 1994. He also stated that the deceased Dropadi was harassed for bringing inadequate dowry and he reached along with Narendra Peshwani at the place of occurrence and attested various memos and the site plan, by which dead body, cloths, bed sheets were taken into possession. He also attested preparation of site plan. 10. PW-5, Rajesh Garg, is friend of Narendra Peshwani, the complainant. He had accompanied Narendra Peshwani on receipt of information and he has also attested the memos along with PW-4, Govind Ram. 11. PW-6, Kirodi Lal, was posted as Constable at police station Gangapurcity. He had carried the viscera from the Hospital to the Malkhana. 12. PW-7, Satya Narayan Sharma, had conducted autopsy on the dead body on 11.8.2003. He stated that the deceased Dropadi aged 30 years had died due to burn injuries. Entire body, except, palms and fingers were having burn injuries, which were superficial. This witness stated that on the neck of the deceased homotoma of size of 6 cm was present. According to witness, this injury had proved fatal. He further stated that injury on neck, which was homotoma was ante-mortem in nature and cause of death was asphyxia. 13. PW-8, Smt. Leela, mother of the deceased Dropadi, also testified that her daughter was married with the accused Nirmal Kumar nine years ago and when her daughter came at the time of Rakhi, she had informed that her in-laws used to harass her for not bringing sufficient dowry and they were also compelling her to demand share in her parental property. 14. PW-9, Pradeep Kumar, was posted as Circle Officer, Gangapurcity. He proved the registration of formal FIR Exhibit P-16 and other facet of investigation. Thereafter, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to them. The accused appellant Nirmal Kumar stated that he was having a hand-cart for selling of cloths. 14. PW-9, Pradeep Kumar, was posted as Circle Officer, Gangapurcity. He proved the registration of formal FIR Exhibit P-16 and other facet of investigation. Thereafter, the statement of the accused were recorded under Section 313 Cr.P.C. All incriminating evidence was put to them. The accused appellant Nirmal Kumar stated that he was having a hand-cart for selling of cloths. At about 5:00 PM, he came to his house. Nobody was inside the house. In one room, he heard noise of whispering of a lady and a male person. He asked his wife to open the door. She had not opened the door. He had given pushes to the door. Bolt of the door was broken and he found one person Lal Chand inside the room who seeing him ran away. At that time, his wife was lying on the bed wearing underwear and bra. Under the grave and sudden provocation, he strangulated his wife and ran away from the spot. Thereafter, realising that he will be prosecuted for murder, he came back to the house and to depict that the deceased had committed suicide, he had poured kerosene oil upon his wife and put her on fire. 15. Rukmani Devi, denied all incriminating circumstances and stated that she was not present at the house. To similar effect is the statement of Ramumal, the father-in-law of the deceased Dropadi. 16. In defence, the accused have examined Khushiram, as DW-1. He stated that on 10th date of occurrence, at about 4-4.15 PM, he had gone to the house of Nirmal Kumar. He found his wife, Dropadi along with one boy named Lal Chand. Dropadi had given her money towards donation after taking same from Lal Chand. 17. DW-2, Bhagwan Das, had testified regarding alibi of Rukmani and Koki by deposing that both of them came to his house for taking meals. 18. Mr. S.R. Surana, the learned Senior Counsel appearing for the appellants, has stated that in the present case, the prosecution has cited no person as eye witness. He has submitted that neighbour and residents of the locality, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not been examined and have been withheld from the court. He has contended that since marriage had taken place before 8/9 years, presumption under Section 113-B for conviction under Section 304-B is not attracted. He has submitted that neighbour and residents of the locality, whose statements were recorded under Section 161 Cr.P.C. have not been examined and have been withheld from the court. He has contended that since marriage had taken place before 8/9 years, presumption under Section 113-B for conviction under Section 304-B is not attracted. Counsel submits that the prosecution has to stand on his own legs to prove its case to the hilt. He submitted that since no presumption can be drawn against the accused and there is no direct evidence of murder, the conviction of the present appellants for the offence under Section 302 IPC cannot be sustained. 19. Before we deal with the arguments raised, it is necessary for us to notice reasons given by the trial court to convict the appellants. 20. The trial court held that there is no doubt that the deceased Dropadi had died and she was muredered, as it has been proved by the medical evidence that cause of death was asphyxia. The trial court further held that it has been proved that Dropadi was married with the accused Nirmal Kumar and accused Ramumal and Rukmani are parents-in-law. The trial court further stated that since Nirmal Kumar had lodged no report regarding the death of his wife and when the family members of Dropadi reached, Dropadi was dead, therefore, from the conduct of the accused, it is to be assumed that the appellants are involved in commission of the offence. The trial court further stated that since occurrence had taken place inside the house owned and possessed by accused, presumption under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act is to be drawn against the accused. 21. Mr. N.S. Dhakad, appearing for the State has also pressed into service of presumption under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act against the appellants. He has contended as to how Dropadi died are facts which are especially in the knowledge of the accused appellants and they are bound to disclose the same to the court. 22. Giving due consideration to the arguments raised by Mr. S.R. Surana, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Abhishek Bhargava, we are of the opinion that in view of the medical evidence, there is no doubt that the deceased had died due to asphyxia and 6 cm homotoma on the neck proved that it is a case of strangulation. 22. Giving due consideration to the arguments raised by Mr. S.R. Surana, the learned Senior Counsel, assisted by Mr. Abhishek Bhargava, we are of the opinion that in view of the medical evidence, there is no doubt that the deceased had died due to asphyxia and 6 cm homotoma on the neck proved that it is a case of strangulation. Since, it is not a case of suicide, but of a culpable homicide amounting to murder, it was incumbent for the residents of the house to explain as to how the deceased Dropadi had died. 23. Justice M.M. Punchhi, as His Lordship was then Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in Amarjit Singh v. State of Punjab, has held that in a case of bride burning, direct evidence is generally not available. In the said judgment, it was observed as under : "15. It is commonly said that rules of evidence in civil and criminal cases are in general, the same, but some provisions in the Indian Evidence Act are peculiar to criminal cases and others peculiar to civil cases. There is, however, a marked difference as to the effect of evidence in civil and criminal cases. Thus, whereas in a civil case a mere preponderance or probability is a sufficient basis of decision, in a criminal case persuasion of guilt must amount to "such a moral certainty as convinces the minds of the tribunal as reasonable men beyond all reasonable doubt." (Citation in. Best, in R.V. Sterns picked up from Law of Evidence by M. Monir, 1986 Edition). Where, therefore, there is no such moral certainty, and there is reasonable doubt as to the guilt of the accused, the benefit of the doubt is given to the accused. This rule nowhere finds specifically enacted in the Evidence Act but being a rule of prudence is founded on public policy. As to the degree of such moral certainty required in a criminal case, burden of proof is sometimes on the accused, as go sections 105 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which are in the following terms : "105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions. As to the degree of such moral certainty required in a criminal case, burden of proof is sometimes on the accused, as go sections 105 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, which are in the following terms : "105. Burden of proving that case of accused comes within exceptions. When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Indian Penal Code (XLV of 1860) or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence is upon him, and the Court shall presume the absence of such circumstances. 106. Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge. When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustrations. (a) When a person does an act with some intention other than that which the character and circumstances of the act suggest, the burden of proving that intention is upon him. (b) A is charged with travelling on a railway, without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him." 16. It would be prudent simultaneously to keep in mind the distinction between direct and circumstantial evidence. Broadly stated,. direct, evidence is that which goes expressly to the very point in question and which, if believed, proves the point in question without aid from inference or reasoning. Indirect or circumstantial evidence, on the other hand, does not prove the point in, question directly but establishes it only by inference. It is well settled by a catena of precedents that following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against the accused based on circumstantial evidence can be said to be fully established : "(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned must or should and not 'may' be established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. The circumstances concerned must or should and not 'may' be established. (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty. the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency. (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and, (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. 17. Ordinarily the burden of proving every ingredient of the offence, even though negative averment be involved therein, is on the prosecution, but it seems that under this section, burden of proving the fact would be upon the accused person, if the subject of the averment, whether in affirmative or negative, is peculiar within his knowledge. 18. Vivian Bose, J. in Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer, AIR 1956 SC 404 , while defining the scope of section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, observed as follows : (11) This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible, or at any rate disproportionately difficult, for the prosecution to establish facts which are "especially" within the knowledge of the accused and which he could prove without difficulty or inconvenience. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. The word "especially" stresses that. It means facts that are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge. If the section were to be interpreted otherwise, it would lead to the very startling conclusion that in a murder case the burden lies on the accused to prove that he did not commit the murder because who could know better than he whether he did or did not It is evident that this cannot be the intention and the Privy Council has twice refused to construe this Section, as reproduced in certain others Acts outside India, to mean that the burden lies on an accused person to show that he did not commit the crime for which he is tried. These cases are Attygalla v. The King, AIR 1936 PC 169 and Seneviratna v. R. 1936 (3) All. ER 36 at p. 49." 19. Much water has flown under the bridges since them. Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, stands rusted by dis-use in criminal, cases. In the backdrop of thousands and thousands of dowry-death cases in which direct evidence of the crime is not available due to the set-up of homes in India, we feel a time has come to employ the said provision to meet an exceptional situation; in appropriate case when it would be disproportionately difficult by the prosecution to establish facts. By and large in such cases, the young bride, by tradition is displaced from her parental roof to go under the roof of her husband's family. Being a stranger in that environment and the trauma she experiences by her transplantation, it is her legitimate due that the people who have brought her to that house, look after her needs and give her the necessary protection, physical and mental, so that she takes roots in the new soil. It is elementary that she has freedom from fear in the first few years till she gains ground. If fear be instilled in her mind by the attitude of the husband and/or his family members she may even be afraid to go to sleep, lest anything be done to her while asleep. It is elementary that she has freedom from fear in the first few years till she gains ground. If fear be instilled in her mind by the attitude of the husband and/or his family members she may even be afraid to go to sleep, lest anything be done to her while asleep. If the tradition bound society puts the bride in the four walls of a new house and those four-walls not remain open to the view and gaze of others all the time, and in that closeted set-up her live body is turned into a corpse or is made to turn into a corpse I see then no reason why the society cannot insist the inmates of the house, being accountable in terms of section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to disclose facts especially within the knowledge of the accused. As it seems to us, this is one of the exceptional situations the provision was designed to meet. Vivian Bose. J. says further in the same report preserving the exceptional situation "This is a section which must be considered in a commonsense way and the balance of convenience and the disproportion of the labour that would be involved in finding out and proving certain facts balanced against the triviality of the issue at stake and the ease with which the accused could prove them, are all matters that must be taken into consideration. The section cannot be used to undermine the well established rule of law that, save in a very exceptional class of cases, the burden is on the prosecution and never shifts." 20. As it appears to us, in the changing social pattern, With the greed for dowry and lust for money respect for human life, and more so of the female-victim involved, has gone with the wind. The closed doors behind. which such crimes are committed, the opportunity to choose the time of the commission of crime with the accused, the non-availability of direct evidence and the non-availability of even circumstantial evidence, which would complete the chain of guilt, has led to a deplorable situation putting to ridicule the rules of trial and the role of the judge 21. which such crimes are committed, the opportunity to choose the time of the commission of crime with the accused, the non-availability of direct evidence and the non-availability of even circumstantial evidence, which would complete the chain of guilt, has led to a deplorable situation putting to ridicule the rules of trial and the role of the judge 21. It is well recognised in criminal law of breach of trust that where property is entrusted to another, it is the duty of that other to give the true account of what he did with the property so entrusted to him and his failure to do so raises under section 105 a presumption that he had criminally misappropriated the property so entrusted to him. We view that the position of a bride, cannot be worse. Her welfare and physical protection is also in trust with the people in whose care she has been put in and if she has been deprived of her life, the person to whom she stood entrusted must necessarily account for as he or she alone is supposed to have a special knowledge about the crime especially when he or she was the last person to be seen together or expected to be together with the deceased. It would not be out of place to note a quotation from Syrus-Judex-damnatur-cum-nocens absolvitur. "The Judge is condemned when the guilty is acquitted."" 24. Having held that the presumption under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act be drawn against the accused, we have to ponder and answer whether this presumption will be available against the parents-in-law also? The trial court has acquitted brother-in-law Bablu, and sister-in-law Kaushallya (Koki). They were also residents of the house. It is a primarily duty of the husband to safeguard his wife, act as protector and saviour of wife, thus explanation has to be furnished by the husband as to how she (wife) had died. 25. In the present case, it has not been proved by the prosecution that at the relevant time, Ramumal and Rukmani were present in the house. Rather both the accused have stated in categorical terms that at the time of occurrence, they were not present at the house. Nirmal Kumar, husband of the deceased in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he committed the murder after seeing his wife in compromising position with one person named Lal Chand. Rather both the accused have stated in categorical terms that at the time of occurrence, they were not present at the house. Nirmal Kumar, husband of the deceased in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. has stated that he committed the murder after seeing his wife in compromising position with one person named Lal Chand. In the context of categorical stand taken by Nirmal Kumar, we have to examine as to what extent the statement made by the accused under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used in favour of the prosecution. We are conscious of the fact that the statement made by the accused is not a statement made upon oath, and said statement cannot be made sole basis for conviction of the accused, but can be used to corroborate the prosecution evidence. 26. One of us, Kanwaljit Singh Ahluwalia J., being Judge of Punjab and Haryana High Court, in the case of State of Haryana v. Rajbir, has held as under:- "15. In 'Narain Singh v. State of Punjab, (1963) 65 PLR 561, it was held that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure (Section 342 in old Code of Criminal Procedure) is to be taken as a whole and the Court cannot rely upon a part of the statement, which is incriminative in nature and exclude the exculpatory part of the statement. The 3-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court in Narain Singh's case (supra) observed as under: 8. ...Examination under Section 342 is primarily to be directed to those matters on which evidence has been led for the prosecution to ascertain from the accused his version or explanation - if any, of the incident which forms the subject-matter of the charge and his defence. By Sub-section (3), the answers given by the accused may "be taken into consideration" at the enquiry or the trial. If the accused person in his examination under Section 342 confesses to the commission of the offence charged against him the Court may, relying upon that confession, proceed to convict him, but if he does not confess and in explaining circumstance appearing in the evidence against him sets up his own version and seeks to explain his conduct pleading that he has committed no offence, the statement of the accused can only be taken into consideration in its entirety. It is not open to the Court to dissect the statement and to pick out a part of the statement which may be incriminative, and then to examine whether the explanation furnished by the accused for his conduct is supported by the evidence on the record. If the accused admits to have done an act which would but for the explanation furnished by him be an offence, the admission cannot be used against him divorced from the explanation. 16. Hon'ble the Apex Court, in 'Nishi Kant Jha v. The State of Bihar, 1969 (1) SCC 347 , considered the statement Ex.P6 made by the accused to Mukhiya of the village. An issue arose as to whether the Court can rule out a part of the statement, being untrue, and rely upon the part which lend aid to the prosecution version ? The 5-Judge Bench of Hon'ble the Apex Court answered the question in affirmative, holding that a part of the statement of the accused can be used in support of the prosecution version. 17. The law on Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure was very well summed up in an erudite judgment by Hon'ble the Supreme Court in 'Mohan Singh v. Prem Singh and Anr., (2002) 10 SCC 236. Their Lordships held that the statement of the accused recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence or a substitute for the evidence of prosecution. Their Lordships, relying upon Nishi Kant Jha's case (supra), observed as under: 27. The statement made in defence by the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure can certainly be taken aid of to lend credence to the evidence led by the prosecution, but only a part of such statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure cannot be made the sole basis of his conviction. The law on the subject is almost settled that statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure of the accused can either be relied in whole or in part. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. xxxx xxxx 30. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence. It may also be possible to rely on the inculpatory part of his statement if the exculpatory part is found to be false on the basis of the evidence led by the prosecution. xxxx xxxx 30. The statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is not a substantive piece of evidence. It can be used for appreciating evidence led by the prosecution to accept or reject it. It is, however, not a substitute for the evidence of the prosecution. As held in the case of Nishi Kant by this Court, if the exculpatory part of his statement is found to be false and the evidence led by the prosecution is reliable, the inculpatory part of his statement can be taken aid of to lend assurance to the evidence of the prosecution. If the prosecution evidence does not inspire confidence to sustain the conviction of the accused, the inculpatory part of his statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure can-not be made the sole basis of his conviction. 18. A Division Bench of Madhya Pradesh High Court, in 'Mohan v. State of Madhya Pradesh', has summed up the law regarding use of statement made by the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure It was held therein that the purpose of the Court for recording a statement of the accused under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure is to acquaint him with all incriminating circumstances, which had emerged against him, so that he is not condemned unheard. But the statement recorded under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, being without oath, cannot be made the sole basis for conviction of the accused, as it is not a substantive piece of evidence. The statement under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure can be used only for corroboration of the prosecution case. It was held that the proof of the prosecution case against the accused must depend not on the absence of explanation on his part, but upon the positive and affirmative evidence of his guilt given by the prosecution. It was further observed that where the prosecution evidence was positively held to be untrue, the Court cannot consider the piecemeal statement of the accused." 27. It was further observed that where the prosecution evidence was positively held to be untrue, the Court cannot consider the piecemeal statement of the accused." 27. Thus, considering that the dead body was found inside the house in a burnt condition and cause of death was asphyxia, due to strangulation, we are of the view that the statement of Nirmal Kumar made under Section 313 Cr.P.C. can be used to corroborate prosecution evidence to the extent that murder was committed by him. Therefore, taking above all factors relied by the trial court along with the statement made by the accused Nirmal Kumar under Section 313 Cr.P.C., we hold that the accused-appellant Nirmal Kumar was responsible for murder of his wife, for bringing inadequate dowry. We will rely upon the statement of relatives of the deceased, medical evidence and the fact that the dead body was found in the matrimonial home owned and possessed by the accused Nirmal Kumar, by using presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act along with the statement made by him under Section 313 Cr.P.C. 28. We extend the benefit of doubt to the accused-appellants Nos. 1 and 2, namely Rukmani Devi and Ramumal, respectively, as prosecution has not proved their presence in the house at the time of alleged occurrence, qua offence of murder and disappearance of evidence. Hence, they are acquitted of the offence under Section 302 IPC read with Section 34 and Section 201 IPC. However, conviction and sentence awarded upon them under Section 498-A IPC is maintained. 29. As a result of above discussion, we accept the present appeal partly qua the appellant Nos. 1 and 2, Rukmani Devi and Ramumal; and set aside the conviction and sentence awarded upon them qua the offence under Section 302/34 and 201 IPC and they are acquitted of the above charges. Their conviction and sentence for offence under Section 498-A IPC is maintained. However, we find that prosecution has succeeded to prove guilt of appellant No. 3, Nirmal Kumar and the appeal preferred by him is dismissed while affirming his conviction and sentence.