The Supreme Court has reiterated that where an offence such as murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden remains on the prosecution, but by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act there is a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the victim died. Where the prosecution establishes that the wife suffered homicidal death in the dwelling home where the husband was residing, and the husband fails to explain the injuries or offers a false case of suicide, such failure constitutes a strong incriminating circumstance consistent with his guilt.
Applying that principle, and in view of the medical evidence ruling out suicide, the Apex Court held that the appellant’s silence and failure to discharge the burden of explanation reinforced the prosecution case and justified the conviction under Section 302 IPC, apart from sustaining the conviction under Section 498A IPC on the evidence of dowry-related cruelty.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justice K.V. Viswanathan affirmed the concurrent finding that the death was homicidal and not suicidal. Relying on the post-mortem evidence, the Bench noted the presence of injuries on the chest, jaw and head, the absence of a typical ligature mark, and the doctor’s clear opinion that death was caused by head injury by a blunt weapon and that the deceased was later put on hanging, making it a case of “homicidal hanging.”
The Bench further observed, with support from standard medical jurisprudence texts, that the ante-mortem injuries and the absence of normal signs of suicidal hanging substantially undermined the defence version of suicide. On facts, the Bench also found clear evidence of sustained cruelty linked to dowry demands and held that the appellant alone was present in the dwelling unit with the deceased when she was found dead, yet he offered no plausible explanation under Section 313 CrPC as to how she sustained the fatal injuries.
Briefly, the appellant-husband was tried along with his mother, brother and father in relation to the death of his wife, Soma Acharjee, who died on June 16, 2007 within about fifteen months of marriage. The prosecution case, based on the FIR lodged by the deceased’s father, was that Soma had been subjected to persistent torture and harassment in connection with dowry demands, particularly for a motorcycle and cash, and that repeated village interventions and compromise meetings had taken place before she was sent back to her matrimonial home.
On June 16, 2007, information was received that she had allegedly committed suicide by hanging, but the prosecution alleged that the in-laws were responsible. The Trial Court convicted the appellant under Sections 302 and 498A IPC, while the other family members were ultimately acquitted; the present appeal concerned the correctness of the appellant’s conviction.
