The circumstances should be of conclusive nature and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved

Ravikiran Shukre | Manikchand Pahade Law College, Aurangabad | 3rd March 2020  

Kalu @ Laxminarayan v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Criminal Appeal no. 1677 of 2010)

Facts of the case:

1. The deceased was married to the appellant approximately six to seven years back. Both of them were living alone in the house with their minor child. 
2. On 14.10.1994, late in the evening, family members of the deceased, who resided about 35−40 kms. away, received a telephone call that their daughter had died. 
3. They came the next morning at 06.00 AM and found the body of the deceased in the middle room of the house, lying on the ground covered with a white sheet. The first information report was lodged at about 07 am, the inquest report was prepared same day as also the post mortem was done in the afternoon. 
4. The police after completing investigation submitted charge sheet under Section 306 and 498A, IPC. During the course of the trial, considering the nature of evidence that emerged, the Sessions Judge also added Section 302, IPC in the charges. 
5. The Sessions Judge held the charge under Section 302 to be established as the deceased had been strangulated to death. The High Court in appeal opined that the deceased had been hanged to death. Both the courts have unanimously held that the deceased did not commit suicide but that it was a homicidal death.
6. Appellant, aggrieved by the decision of High Court convicting him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, come before Hon’ble Supreme Court.

Judgment:

1. Learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, submitted that the deceased had committed suicide. The conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC was not justified. The appellant has been acquitted of the charge under Section 498A. It was impossible for the appellant to have alone forcibly hanged the deceased from a height of 11 feet.
2. Learned Addl. Advocate General appearing on behalf of the respondent State, submitted that all the circumstances in the case inevitably point towards the guilt of the appellant. Death was homicidal in nature. The nature of oral, physical and medical evidence completely rules out the defence of a suicide by the deceased.
3. The injuries on the person of the deceased, as noticed in the inquest report as also in the post mortem report, are clearly indicative of a struggle or resistance put up by the deceased in the last hour. It is unusual that if the deceased had committed suicide by hanging herself, her right hand would be lying on the stomach and the left hand would be on the ground with both fists half open. This is more of a probability if the deceased was strangulated when life ebbed out of her slowly. The fact that the neck of the deceased was not found stretched and elongated, considering that the body was still fresh, rules out any possibility of suicide by the deceased. The tongue was not protruding. Scratches and abrasions would not be present in case of a suicide. There is no fracture or dislocation of the bones in the neck area. 
4. The High Court opined that the deceased had been hanged to death. Suicide was ruled out as the wooden log in the room used for storing grains from which a piece of a rope was found hanging was 11 ft. 2 inches in height from the floor.
5. Court while coming towards conclusion opined that, the general rule in a criminal case is that; 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.
6. 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. 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. 

Therefore, Supreme Court has stated that, in view of section 106 of the Evidence Act, there will be a corresponding burden on inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates cannot get away simply acting quiet. Supreme Court thus dismissed the appeal.