http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 1 of 9  

CASE NO.: Appeal (crl.)  1133 of 2000

PETITIONER: State of Rajasthan

RESPONDENT: Jaggu Ram

DATE OF JUDGMENT: 04/01/2008

BENCH: G.P. Mathur & G.S. Singhvi

JUDGMENT: J U D G M E N T                                                 G.S. Singhvi, J.

       This appeal is directed against the judgment dated  27.10.1999 of the learned Single Judge of Rajasthan High Court  whereby he allowed the appeal preferred by respondent \026 Jaggu  Ram and acquitted him of the charge under Section 304-B and  201 Indian Penal Code.                 The facts necessary for deciding the appeal are as under:         On 30th March, 1993 one Suresh Khateek informed Atma Ram  (PW-1) that his daughter Shanti @ Gokul had died at her in-laws  place.  Upon this Atma Ram lodged First Information Report at  Police Station Srimadhopur stating therein that his daughter  Shanti @ Gokul was married to Jeevan Ram, son of Jagdish Balai  (Jaggu Ram), resident of Nathusar about eighteen months ago;  that he gave dowry according to his capacity; that immediately  after the marriage, Jaggu Ram, his son Jeevan Ram and wife  Nathi started harassing Shanti in connection with dowry; that  after three days of marriage they left  Radio, Press etc. and  demanded watch and jewellery;  that they with a view to save his  daughter from harassment, he gave silver ornaments viz. Paizeb  (anklet), Tagadi, Locket and Ear-rings apart from cash of  Rs.  10,000/- to her in-laws, but this did not satisfy them and after  three months, they again started harassing her and left her at  village Abhawas, where she stayed at his house for 8 months;  that a meeting was held at village Abhawas which was attended  by 22-25 people including Jaggu Ram (the respondent herein),  Rameshwar Mali, Chhitar Kheteek and Bhagega Balai of village  Nathusar.  In that meeting Jaggu Ram assured that he will keep  Gokul without creating any problem; that thereafter he went to  Nathusar six to seven times to bring her daughter to Abhawas but  her husband and in-laws did not send her and demanded colour  television.  They also threatened that if additional dowry is not  brought, then his daughter will be finished. He told the villagers  about the demand made by Jaggu Ram and his family and the  threat given by them.  Upon this, the villagers sent a message to  Jaggu Ram that it was not proper.   Jaggu Ram and his family  members got annoyed by this development and they killed his  daughter by burning with kerosene and cremated her body at 5.00  a.m. on 30.3.1993.  Thereupon, the police registered Criminal  Case No.48/93 under Sections 498A, 304-B and 201 of the IPC.   During the investigation, the police recorded the statements of  Atma Ram and other persons under Section 161 Cr.P.C., collected  the hospital record and arrested the appellant, his wife Nathi and  son Jeevan Ram.  A lathi was recovered at the instance of Jeevan  Ram.  After completing the investigating, the police filed challan  against all the accused in the court of Addl. Chief Judicial  Magistrate, Shrimadhopur, who committed them to the Sessions

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 2 of 9  

Court for trial.           The prosecution examined PW-1 Atmaram, PW-2 Kaluram,  PW-3 Babulal, PW-4 Doctor Vijay Kumar, PW-5 Kamal Surana,       PW-6 Shankar Lal, PW-7 Kanaram, PW-8 Gopiram, PW-9  Mewaram,      PW-10 Rameshwar, PW-11 Banwari Lal, PW-12 Ram  Kishore,       PW-13 Chhitar, PW-14 Maliram, PW-15 Saidduram,  PW-16 Suresh, PW-17 Shrawan Singh, PW-18 Jamal, PW-19  Ramdhan, PW-20 Doctor Shyam Lal Khuteta and PW-21 Om  Prakash Godara and also produced documents marked Exhibit P1- Indoor Ticket deceased Gokul, Exhibit P3A to P5A \026 Recovered  blood stained clothes, Exhibit P6-Recovered bones and ash and  Exhibit P7- Original report, PW 8- First Information Report, Exhibit  P9-Statement of Rameshwar given to the Police, Exhibit P10- Site  map of the spot, Exhibit P11-Statement of Chhitar given to the  Police, Exhibit P12- Recovered Lathi, Exhibit P13-Recovery site  map, Exhibit P14-Staement of Suresh given to the Police, Exhibit  P15-Receipt of FSL, Exhibit P16 and Exhibit P17-Statement of  Jamal to the Police, Exhibit P18-Photo copy of Register of Store,  Exhibit P19-Injury report of Gokul Devi, Exhibit P20-Arrest  Jeevanram, Exhibit P21-Arrest Jagguram, Exhibit P22- Arrest  Nathi Devi and Exhibit P24-Information.         The accused were examined under Section 313 Cr.P.C.  In his  statement, Jeevan Ram gave out that he had gone out of village  on 29.3.1993 to appear in an examination and that he had been  falsely implicated.  He denied the allegation of demand of dowry.   He gave out that the deceased was suffering from fits and she  died due to injuries caused when she collided with the door  (chaukhat) of the house.  The other accused  denied the charges  levelled against them.  The defence produced the documents  marked Exhibit D1-Statement of Shankar Lal given to the Police,  Exhibit D2-Statement of Gopiram given to the Police, Exhibit D3- Statement of Mevaram given to the Police, Exhibit D4-Statement  of Atmaram given to the Police, Exhibit D5-Statement of Ram  Kishore to the Police, Exhibit D6-Programme of examination of  Secondary School, Exhibit D7-Admission Certificate for the  examination, Exhibit  D8 and Exhibit D9-Entrance Card of  examination.         The Learned Additional Sessions Judge, Neem Ka Thana  (hereinafter referred to as \021the Trial Judge\022), framed the following  points for determination: 1.      Whether Shrimati Gokul died due to the injuries on  her body? 2.      Whether Shrimati Gokul died within 7 years of her  marriage? 3.      Whether Shrimati Gokul was subjected to cruelty  and harassment by her husband, mother-in-law and  father-in-law immediately after the marriage and till her  death in connection with the demand of dowry? 4.      Whether the accused destroyed the evidence  relating to the death of Shrimati Gokul by cremating her  without informing her family members and the police  and without getting the postmortem conducted?

        The learned Trial Judge  analysed the facts, evaluated the  prosecution and defence evidence and concluded that the  prosecution has  succeeded in proving the charge of demand of  dowry by the accused and that they were guilty of torturing and  treating her with cruelty immediately after marriage till her death.   The learned Trial Judge further held that Shanti @ Gokul died due  to head injuries within seven years of her marriage.   He then held  that the defence has failed to explain the cause of death of Shanti  @ Gokul. He rejected the defence theory that the deceased was  suffering from epilepsy and she died due to injuries suffered  because during the bout of fits, her head collided against the door  of the house. Accordingly, he convicted the respondent and his wife

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 3 of 9  

Shrimati Nathi under Section 304-B and sentenced them to seven  years rigorous imprisonment.   He also convicted them under  Section 498A and sentenced to one year\022s rigorous imprisonment  and imposed a fine of Rs.500/- with a direction that if they fail to  deposit the amount of fine, the accused shall undergo further  imprisonment of three months.  The respondent and his wife were  also convicted under Section 201, IPC and sentenced to one year  rigorous imprisonment with a fine of Rs.500/- and in default to  undergo simple imprisonment of three months.  The learned Trial  Judge directed that all the sentences shall run concurrently.  He,  however, accepted the defence version that Jeevan Ram was not in  the village at the time of death of Shanti and acquitted him.               On appeal, the learned Single Judge of the High Court  confirmed the finding that the respondent and his wife Nathi were  guilty of demanding dowry but acquitted them  of the charge under  Section 304-B IPC on the premise that Jeevan Ram had been  acquitted and the State had not preferred appeal against his  acquittal.  However, he upheld their conviction under Section 498A  and confirmed the sentence of one year\022s rigorous imprisonment  with fine of 500/- and to undergo further imprisonment of three  months in the case of default.           We have heard Shri Naveen Kumar Singh, learned advocate  appearing for the appellant-State of Rajasthan and scrutinized the  entire record.        At the outset we consider it proper to mention that with a view  to curb the growing menace of dowry deaths, the Parliament  amended the Indian Penal Code and the Evidence Act and inserted  Section 304-B and 113-B respectively in the two statutes.  This was  done keeping in view the recommendations made by the Law  Commission of India  in its 21st Report.  Section 304-B (1) IPC lays  down that where the death of a woman is caused by burns or bodily  injury or occurs otherwise than under normal circumstances within  seven years of her marriage and it is shown that soon before her  death she was subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband  or any relative of her husband for, or in connection with, any  demand for dowry, such death shall be called \023dowry death\024, and  such husband or relative shall be deemed to have caused her  death.  Explanation appearing below sub-section (1) of Section  304-B declares that for the purpose of this sub-section, \023dowry\024  shall have the same meaning as in Section 2 of the Dowry  Prohibition Act, 1961.  Sub-section (2) of Section 304-B prescribes  the minimum punishment for dowry death as seven years which  can be extended up to imprisonment for life.  The ingredients  necessary for the application of Section 304-B IPC are : 1.      that the death of a woman has been caused by  burns or bodily injury or occurs otherwise than under  normal circumstances, 2.      that such death has been caused or has occurred  within seven years of her marriage and,          3.      that soon before her death the woman was  subjected to cruelty or harassment by her husband or  any relative of her husband in connection with any  demand for dowry.       Section 113-B of the Evidence Act lays down that if soon  before her death a woman is subjected to cruelty or harassment  for, or in connection with any demand for dowry by the person who  is accused of causing her death then the court shall presume that  such person has caused the dowry death. The presumption under  Section 113-B is a presumption of law and once the prosecution  establishes the essentials ingredients mentioned therein it becomes  the duty of the court to raise a presumption that the accused  caused the dowry death.          A conjoint reading of Section 304-B IPC and Section 113-B  Evidence Act shows that in order to prove the charge of dowry  death, prosecution has to establish that the victim died within 7

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 4 of 9  

years of marriage and she was subjected to cruelty or harassment  soon before her death and such cruelty or harassment was for  dowry.  The expression \021soon before her death\022 has not been  defined in either of the statutes.  Therefore, in each case the court  has to analyse the facts and circumstances leading to the death of  the victim and decide whether there is any proximate connection  between the demand of dowry, the act of cruelty or harassment  and the death \026 State of A.P. v. Raj Gopal Asawa & Anr. [2004  (4) SCC 470], Arun Garg v. State of Punjab & Anr. [2004 (8)  SCC 251], Kaliyaperumal & Anr. v. State of Tamil Nadu [2004  (9) SCC 157], Kamesh Panjiyar @ Kamlesh Panjiyar v. State of  Bihar [2005 (2) SCC 388], Ram Badan Sharma v. State of  Bihar [2006 (10) SCC 115].        In the light of the above, we shall now consider whether the  prosecution succeeded in establishing the existence of the  ingredients of Section 304-B IPC and the High Court committed an  error by acquitting the respondent only on the ground that Jeevan  Ram had been acquitted by the trial court and the State did not  appeal against his acquittal.           In order to prove that  Shanti @ Gokul died as a result of  injuries inflicted on her body, the prosecution examined PW-1 Atma  Ram who largely reiterated the story set out in the first information  report.  He also explained  the apparent discrepancy in the First  Information Report and medical report regarding the cause of the  death  by stating that he mentioned about the burning of his  daughter because she had earlier told about such threat held out by  her in-laws,  but on reaching the spot, he came to know that she  died due to injuries  on her head.  In cross-examination he gave  details of dowry items.  He categorically denied that his daughter  was mentally ill and that he and the accused had taken her out to  Dr. Shiv Gautam, a Psychiatrist at Jaipur.  He also denied that he  had kept the daughter with him for her treatment or that the story  of Panchayat was fabricated. The prosecution also examined PW-6  Shankar Lal PW-7 Kana Ram and PW -12 Ram Kishore, who  supported the statement of Atma Ram.  In their corss-examination  each of these witnesses denied the suggestion that the deceased  was suffering from epilepsy and she used to get fits.  PW-4 Dr.  Vijay Kumar gave out that Gokul Devi was admitted in the hospital  with head injuries.  He was told by the relatives of the injured that  the injuries were caused due to fall.  They also told that she was an  old patient of epilepsy.  According to Dr. Vijay Kumar, Shanti  remained in the hospital till 4\022 o clock and in the evening her  relatives took her by saying that they will be going to Jaipur.  PW- 20 Dr. Shayam Lal Khuteta supported the version of Dr. Vijay  Kumar that Shrimati Shanti had two injuries on her head.  He gave  out that first injury \026 3 =\024  x =\024 was a bone deep crushed wound  on the right side of the temple and the second  was punctured  wound of  = cm. deep in the bone from which the fresh blood was  oozing.  According to Dr. Shyam Lal Khuteta  injury No. 1 was  inflicted by heavy weapon and injury no. 2 was inflicted by blunt  weapon.  The learned Trial Judge relied on the statements of these  witnesses in conjunction with the medical reports and concluded  that Shanti @ Gokul died as a result of the injuries sustained by her  on her head.  He then considered the defence plea that Gokul was  suffering from epilepsy and she sustained head injuries by colliding  with the frame of the door during the bout of fits.  This plea of the  defence was based on the statement of Jeevan Ram that he used to  

take Shanti to the doctors for treatment and on one occasion he  had taken her to Dr. Shiv Gautam, a mental doctor at Jaipur as also  the statements of PW-10 Rameshwar Mali, PW-13 Chittar, PW-14  Maliram, PW-16 Suresh, who were declared hostile, that Gokul was  suffering from Epilepsy.  In their cross-examination, these  witnesses generally stated that Shanti @ Gokul suffered from fits  and Jeevan Ram used to take her to Jaipur for treatment.  In his

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 5 of 9  

cross-examination,  PW20- Dr. Shyam Lal Khuteta also stated that   long time ago, the deceased had come to him for her treatment of  Epilepsy.  The learned Trial Judge observed that the story of Gokul  suffering from Epilepsy and her having suffered injuries on the head  due to fall and consequential striking against the door frame was  concocted and was not acceptable  because no evidence was  produced regarding her treatment for Epilepsy and held that in the  absence of any cogent explanation, it was reasonable to infer that  the injuries on the head of the deceased were caused by her in- laws.  In this regard the learned trial judge also referred to the  factum of recovery of lathi at the instance of Jeevan Ram.           The High Court overturned this finding by observing that the  prosecution has failed to prove the allegation that the deceased was  burnt to death.  The learned Single Judge took note of the so-called  discrepancy in the First Information Report and the statement of  PW1-Atma Ram and held that injuries on the head of Gokul were  caused due to her having collided with door frame during bout of  fits.  For this purpose, he relied on the statements of PW10- Rameshwar , PW13-Chhiter, PW16-Suresh and PW20-Dr. Shyam Lal  Khuteta.  The learned Single Judge also opined that in view of the  acquittal of Jeevan Ram, the other accused cannot be convicted for  offence under Section 304B IPC.          On the third point framed by him, the learned Trial Judge  relied on the testimony of PW-1 Atma Ram (father of the  deceased), PW-6 Shankar Lal and PW-12 Ram Kishore (brothers of  the deceased), PW-5 Kamal Surana, who was in-charge of Mahila  Jagran, Shrimadhopur, PW-7 Kanaram, PW-8 Gopiram and PW-9  Mewaram who had participated in the Panchayat and held that the  detailed narration given by the father and the brothers of the  deceased about cruel treatment and harassment meted out to the  Gokul was amply supported by the contents of First Information  Report, the Panchayat held at village Abhawas to discuss the issue  relating to dowry and the statement of PW-5 Kamal Surana in  whose presence the dowry case of Gokul @ Shanti, daughter of  Atma Ram, was discussed.  The learned Trial Judge held that the  evidence produced by the prosecution was sufficient to show that   Gokul was subjected to harassment and torture and was being  treated with cruelty immediately after the marriage till her death  because she did not bring sufficient dowry.  The High Court  reversed this finding only on the premise that  the Panchayat was  convened two and half months before the death of Gokul and  nothing had been brought on record to prove that during that  period she was subjected to cruel treatment.  The learned Single  Judge heavily relied on some discrepancies and omissions in the FIR  and held that the prosecution has not been able to prove that  Shanti @ Gokul was subjected to cruelty or harassment soon before  her death.              On point no. 4, the learned Trial Judge relied on the   statements of PW-1 Atma Ram, PW-6 Shankar Lal, PW-7 Kanaram,  PW-8 Gopiram, PW-9 Mewaram, PW-12 Ram Kishore, all of whom  stated that Shrimati Gokul was cremated before they reached  Nathusar.  The learned Trial Judge noted that the defence has not  produced any evidence to show that the in-laws of the deceased  had informed the police about the death or that the postmortem  was got conducted.  They also did not inform the parents of the  deceased.  In the opinion of the Trial Judge, all this was sufficient to  prove the charge of destroying evidence.  Learned Single Judge of  the High Court did not at all discuss this issue.           In our considered view, the High Court committed serious  illegality by acquitting the respondent of the charge under Sections  304-B and 201, IPC on the premise that Jeevan Ram had been  acquitted.  It is true that the learned trial judge accepted the  defence version that Jeevan Ram was not present in the village  Nathusar  at the time when Shanti @ Gokul suffered injuries on her  heard and acquitted by giving benefit of doubt and the State did not

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 6 of 9  

challenge the same by filing appeal but that by itself did not justify  a conclusion that the prosecution had failed to prove the charge  under Sections 304-B & 201 IPC against the remaining accused.                     A critical analysis of the facts and evidence brought on record  shows that the prosecution had succeeded in proving that Shanti @  Gokul died within one and a half years of her marriage.  In their  statements, PW1-Atma Ram, PW6-ShankarLal and PW12-Ram  Kishore (father and brothers of the deceased) categorically stated  that the deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty by her  husband-Jeevan Ram, father-in-law-Jaggu Ram, mother-in-law,  Nathi Devi, immediately after marriage on the ground that she did  not bring sufficient dowry.   When the deceased visited her parent\022s  house, she made a complaint about the harassment.  Thereupon,  Atma Ram gave Silver jewellery and Rupees ten thousand cash.   Even this also did not satisfy the accused who continued to harass  her.  After sometime, the deceased was left at her father\022s place.   She stayed there for eight months.  About two and a half months  before the death, a meeting was convened in the village, which was  attended by 20-25 persons, including PW1-Atma Ram, PW6-  Shankar Lal, PW12-Ram Kishore,  PW7-Kana Ram, PW8-Gopi Ram,  PW9-Mewaram(ex-Sarpanch of Gram Panchayat), Jaggu Ram and  four others of village Nathusar also attended the Panchayat.  PW7- Kana Ram, PW8-Gopi Ram, PW9-Mewa Ram were independent  witnesses.  They confirmed that a meeting was held in village  Abhawas to discuss the issue of dowry and reiterated what PW1- Atma Ram had told them about the demand of dowry.  They were  cross-examined at length but the defence could not shake their  testimony.  Rather,   they reiterated the factum of holding the  meeting of Panchayat at Amawas wherein the issue of dowry was  generally discussed.    PW5-Kamal Surana, In-charge, Women  Development Agency, Data Ramgarh, is also an independent  witness.  She gave details of the discussion made in the meeting  held on 11.8.1992 where the case of dowry of Shanti @ Gokul,  daughter of Atma Ram was considered.  According to Kamal  Surana, Shanti was very scared and was not able to say anything  but her father gave the details of harassment.  PW5 also stated that  she had gone to the in-laws whereupon, the respondent is said to  have objected to her intervention.  She also produced a diary  maintained by her in which the factum of her meeting at Amawas  and Nathusar were recorded.          If the prosecution evidence is considered in the backdrop of  the fact that the defence failed to produce any evidence to  controvert the facts relating to the demand of dowry, it must be  held that the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment in  connection with dowry immediately after her marriage and such  harassment continued till her death and the learned trial judge  rightly held the charge under Section 304-B IPC as proved, against  the accused.  The learned Single Judge of the High Court gave  undue weightage to the minor discrepancies in the first information  report and the statement of PW 1 \026Atma Ram and some alleged  omission in the first information report and acquitted the accused  ignoring the most important factor that the deceased suffered  injuries in a dwelling unit belonging to her in-laws and in their  presence, that she died due to those injuries and that the defence  failed to offer any satisfactory explanation for the injuries on the  head of the deceased.  The defence did introduce the story of the  deceased suffering with epilepsy and her being treated for the  same, but no documentary evidence was produced to show that she  was ever treated for epilepsy.  In their cross-examination, the  father and brothers of the deceased and the other prosecution  witnesses categorically denied that the deceased was suffering from  epilepsy and she used to have bouts of fits.  Atma Ram also denied  the suggestion that she and the accused had taken Shanti @ Gokul  for treatment to a Psychiatrist at Jaipur.  Some of the Prosecution  witnesses who were declared hostile, did try to support the theory

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 7 of 9  

that the deceased used to have fits, but their statements can be of  no help to the accused because no documentary evidence in the  form of prescriptions of doctors or the bills of the treatment and  purchase of medicines were produced to prove that the deceased  was suffering from epilepsy and used to have fits.  The statement of  Dr. Shyam Lal Khuteta is also of no help to the accused because he  too did not produce record relating to the treatment allegedly given  to the deceased for epilepsy long time ago.  The conduct of the  accused and his family members in not informing the parents of the  deceased about the injuries caused on her head and consequential  death and the fact that the cremation of the dead body was  conducted in the wee hours of 30.3.1993 without informing the  parents or giving an intimation to the Police so as to enable it to get  the post-mortem of the dead body conducted go a long way to  show that the accused had deliberately concocted the story that  Shanti @ Gokul was suffering from epilepsy and she suffered  injuries on her head by colliding against the door bar during the  bout of fits.  The disposal of dead body in a hush-hush manner  clearly establish  that the accused had done so with the sole object  of concealing the real cause of the death of Shanti @ Gokul.         In our considered view, this was a fit case for invoking  Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which lays down that when any  fact is especially within the knowledge of the any person, the  burden of proving that fact is upon him.  In Ram Gulam  Chaudhary vs. State of Bihar [2001 (8) SCC 311] this Court  considered the applicability of Section 106 of the Evidence Act in a  case somewhat similar to the present one.  This Court noted that  the accused after brutally assaulting a boy carried him away and  thereafter the boy was not seen alive nor his body was found. The  accused, however, offered no explanation as to what they did after  they took away the boy. It was held that for the absence of any  explanation from the side of the accused about the boy, there was  every justification for drawing an inference that they had murdered  the boy. It was further observed that even though Section 106 of  the Evidence Act may not be intended to relieve the prosecution of  its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable  doubt, but the section would apply to cases like the present, where  the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts from which a  reasonable inference can be drawn regarding death. The accused by  virtue of their special knowledge must offer an explanation which  might lead the court to draw a different inference.          In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra [2006  (1) SCC 681], a two judge-bench of which one of us (G.P.Mathur,J.)  was a member, considered the applicability of Section 106 of the  Evidence Act and observed: \024The demand for dowry or money from the parents  of the bride has shown a phenomenal increase in the  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 antagonise 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

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 8 of 9  

harassment caused to the bride. But, it does not  mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the  houses should go unpunished.       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 Prosecutions [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:  \023(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway  without ticket. The burden of proving that he  had a ticket is on him.\024        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  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.\024          Similar view has been expressed in State of Punjab vs.  Karnail Singh [2003 (11) SCC 271], State of Rajasthan vs.  Kashi Ram [2006 (12) SCC 254], Raj Kumar  Prasad Tamakar  vs. State of Bihar [2007 (1) SCR 13].          We are sure, if the learned Single Judge of the High Court  had adverted to Section 106 of the Evidence Act and correctly  applied the principles of law, he would not have committed the  grave error of acquitting the respondent.           In the result, the appeal is allowed.  The impugned judgment  is set aside and the conviction of the respondent under Section  304-B read with 201, IPC is restored.  He is sentenced to seven  years rigorous imprisonment.  He shall also pay fine of Rs.500/-  and suffer further imprisonment of three months in case of default.   If the respondent has already undergone sentence of one year  under Section 498A, IPC in furtherance of the judgment of the High

http://JUDIS.NIC.IN SUPREME COURT OF INDIA Page 9 of 9  

Court, then he shall serve out six years\022 imprisonment, apart from  paying fine.  The respondent shall be immediately taken into  custody to serve out his sentence.