The Bombay High Court recently acquitted a man who was convicted for murder and demanding dowry from his wife, observing that merely because the body of the wife was found in his house, the burden cannot be put on him to prove the circumstances in which the wife died.
“Merely because the dead body was inside the house and it was the normal place of abode for the accused, we cannot employ the principle under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and put a burden on the accused that he should explain the circumstances in which his wife was murdered inside the house,” the order reads.
A division bench of the high court at Aurangabad, comprising Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay Waghase, was hearing an appeal filed by the husband who was convicted under Section 302 and Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) by the trial court.
The father of the deceased filed a complaint alleging that after eight-nine months of marriage, the man and his family had started harassing her and demanded Rs 15,000, which they claimed they needed for constructing a house under the ‘Gharkul Yojana’.
The father was initially informed that the deceased had died due to a snake bite. However, upon reaching the spot, he observed strangulation marks on her neck, leading to the filing of a First Information Report (FIR).
The counsel for the appellant argued that the two other accused in the case were acquitted, and merely because he is the husband, it cannot be said that he should give an explanation regarding the circumstances in which his wife was found dead.
The counsel added that the allegations of harassment and ill-treatment were false. Furthermore, he submitted that the alleged evidence of the discovery of the rope cannot be considered as it does not fulfill the requirements under Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act.
The Additional Public Prosecutor submitted that the appeal itself is not maintainable, given ample evidence against the man.
The division bench stated that the trial court had not properly appreciated the evidence concerning Section 302. “It was not considered that the said evidence is not fulfilling the golden principles above said in respect of circumstantial evidence and also the burden had never shifted or was on the shoulders of accused as contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain the circumstances, in which his wife was found dead inside the house,”
The high court, while acquitting the man, also stated that the evidence was not sufficient to prove the offence under Section 498A.
“None of these four witnesses have stated as to after she went matrimonial home with the child whether the ill-treatment repeated or continued and, therefore, whatever evidence has been led in the form of examining these four witnesses was not sufficient to prove the offence under Section 498-A of the Indian Penal Code beyond reasonable doubt,” the HC said.
Comments
0 comment