| Headnote |
[2012] 7 S.C.R. 1083 TULSHIRAMSAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR.A v. STATE OF MAHARASHTRA (CriminalAppeal No. 507 of 2008) SEPTEMBER14, 2012. [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.) PENAL CODE, 1860: B ss. 302134, 304-8134 and 498-A/34-Murder of amarried c womanin matrimonialhome, for dowry -Circumstantial evidence-Convictionand sentence of life imprisonment awardedby trialcourt to all thethreeaccused,namely, the husband of deceasedand his parents,affirmed by HighCourt - SLP of husb5md alreadydismissed-Appealby hisparents 0 -Held:Medicalevidencesupportedprosecutioncase - 1//- treatmentmeted out to deceasedby all thethreeaccused established - Recoveries proved -The circumstances constitutea chaineven strongerthan an eye-witnessaccount and,therefore,conviction of appellantsis fullyjustified- E Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 106 and 114. The appellants-couple and theirson (A-3)were prosecutedfor ill-treating their daughter-in-law,the wife of A-3, fornot fulfilling theirdemandof dowry, and for committingher murder by drowningher intoa well afterF tying her hands and feet. The trial courtconvicted all the threeaccusedu/ss 302/34, 304-8134 and 498-A/34 and sentencedeach of themto imprisonmentfor life.The HighCourt upheld the judgment.The SLP filed by A-3 was dismissed. G Dismissingthe appeal,the Court HELD: 1.1 It is not in disputethat the convictionof 1083 H 1084 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A the appellants (A-1 and A-2) is based on circumstantial evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda'scase*, this Court after referring to various earlier decisions, formulated the conditionsto be fulfilled before a case against an accusedcan be said to be fullyestablished B basedon circumstantialevidence. (Para 4-5) (1090-D-E] *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, 1985 (1) SCR 88 = (1984) 4 sec 116 -relied on 1.2 In the instantcase, the firstcircumstance relied c uponby theprosecutionis that all thethreeaccused ill treatedthe deceased.A perusal of the evidence of PW-1 (father of thedeceased) shows thathis daughterwas treated wellonly for a period of 5 monthsfrom the date of her marriageand thereafter, all of the accusedstarted 0 ill-treating her by way of beatingand by not providing sufficientfood. He also stated that A-3, who at the relevant timewas employed as a driver, on theinstigation of A-1 andA-2,wasdemanding Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a jeep. PW-2, whoacted as the mediatorin themarriage of the deceasedwith A3, lodged the complaint (Exh. 26) and E explained about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased at her matrimonial home. It was he who intimatedthe police that the deadbody of the deceased wasseen floating in the well. He statedthat all the 3 accusedwere living together and his housewas at a Fdistance of 2 kms.awayfrom their house. He also stated that all theaccusedused to demand Rs.50,000/- fromthe · deceasedand they also usedto beatand abuseher. Fromthe evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it is clearlyestablished that all the 3 accused ill-treated thedeceased. (Para 9-11) G (1092-D-E, H; 1093-A-B, C-E] 1.3 Thesecondcircumstance heavily relied on by the prosecutionis thedistancebetween the house of the accusedand the well whereinthe body of the deceased Hwasfound to be floating.It was PW-2, who first noticed thedeadbody of the deceasedin the well and filed a TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1085 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA complaint to the police. He stated that A-3along with A anothercame to hishouseand reported about missing of the deceasedand enquiredabout her. Thereafter, PW- 2, along with others,startedsearchingher for the whole night. He alsostatedthat whenhe attemptedto gonear the well, theaccusedpreventedhim fromdoingso. It wasB only on the next day, when PW-2 carried out further search for the deceased,that he cameto know from his nephewthat the body of the deceasedwas foundlying in the well and after seeing the dead body he filed a complaintto thepolice.The assertion of PW-2 thathe was c prevented from going to the side of the well by the accused fully establishesanother circumstance which shows that all the accusedwere responsible for the death of the deceased. Further, without the support and assistance of A-1 andA-2, it would not be possible for A3 0 alone to carry the deceased to the well which is at a distance of 400 ft. fromtheir house. [Para 12] [1093-F-H; 1094-A-C] 1.4 Another important circumstance reliedon and provedby theprosecutionis thatthe legsand hands of E thedeceasedwere tied at the time of throwingher into the well. PW-1 stated that whenthe dead body of the deceasedwas removedfrom the well, he noticedthat the handsand legs of the deceasedwere tied by means of theborder of a saree. He provedarticle Nos. 5, 6 and7F asthepieces of the border of the saree with which the handsand legs of the deceasedwere tied. This fact was also strengthened by the evidence of PW-2 and supportedby PW-6, the doctor who conductedthe post mortem (Ext. 35) on thedeadbody. PW-6 furtheropinedG that the tying of thehandsand legswas not possibleby thevictimherself. She also opinedthat the deathwas due to drowning.From the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6, it is clearthat the legsand hands of the deceasedwere tied bytheuse of the border of a saree. It hasalsocomein evidencethat it would not be possible for A-3 alone to tieH 1086 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A boththe legsand handswithoutthe assistance of A1 and A2 whowerepresentin thehouse. (Para 13-14] (1094-C E, G-H; 1095-A-C] 1.5 Anothercircumstancerelied on andprovedby the 8 prosecutionis therecovery of the border of the saree whichis an importantpiece of evidence and the same was establishedby PW-7, the panch witness for the memorandum. He statedthat he was called at thePolice Station for the recording of panchnama.PW-7 also proved Ext. 40 as the panchnamarecorded for the said C purposewhich bears his signature. He furtherdeposed aboutthe handingover of theborder of the sareeby A-2 to thePolice. The Policerecordedthe panchnama of the seizure of theborder of the sareeand PW-7 also admitted hissignaturetherein. In addition to theevidence of PW- D 7, anotherresident of the localitywas examinedas PW- 5, who deposedthat the deadbody was takenout from the well inhispresenceand he noticed that the hands andlegs of the deceasedwere tied by means of a red colourborder of a saree. The policedrew inquestin his E presence. He alsosignedthe memorandumwhich is Exh. 29. Fromthe evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 (theDoctor, whoconductedthe postmortem) PWs 5 and7 (thepanch witnesses)and in thelight of the principlesregarding s.27 of theEvidenceAct, it has beenestablishedthat the F materialobject, namely,the border of thesareeused for tying legs and hands of the deceased was correctly identified andmarkedand the samehas been rightly relied on by theprosecutionand acceptedby thecourts below.The evidence of both PWs 5 and7 fully supports G the contents of memorandumwhich are Ext.Nos. 29 and 40 respectively. [Para 15-17](1095-D-E, F-H; 1096-A,1097- C-D] AnterSingh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657 H = 2004 (2) SCR 123 -referredto. TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1087 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 1.6Theevidence led by theprosecution also showsA thatat the relevant point of time,the deceasedwas living with all the 3 accused.Thus, the appellants, their son-A3 andthe deceasedwere the only occupants of the house and it was,therefore,incumbenton the appellants to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any B suspicionas to their guilt.[Para 18] [1097-E-F] 1.7 All thesefactorsare undoubtedly circumstances which constitute a chaineven stronger than an eye witness account and, therefore, this Court is of the opinion that the conviction of the appellants is fully C justified. [Para 18] [1097-F] 2.1 It is settledlaw that presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidencethat a factotherwise doubtful may be inferredfrom certainother provedfacts. WheninferringD theexistence of a factfromotherset of provedfacts, the court exercisesa process of reasoningand reachesa logical conclusion as the most probable position.This positionis strengthenedin view of s.114 of theEvidence Act,1872. It empowersthe courtto presumethe existenceE of any factwhich it thinks likely to havehappened. In that process, the court shall haveregard to the common course of natural events,human conductetc in addition to thefacts of the case.[Para 19][1097-G-H;1098-A-B] 2.2 In these circumstances,the principles embodied F in s.106 of the Evidence Act can also be utilized. It is made clear that this Section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accusedbeyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to caseswherethe prosecutionhas succeededin provingG factsfrom which a reasonable inferencecan be drawn regardingthe existence of certainother facts, unless the accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding suchfacts, failed to offer any explanation which might drivethe court to draw a differentinference. [Para 19] H 1088 SUPREMECOURT REPORTS[2012] 7 S.C.R. A [1098-B-D] State 9f WestBengal vs. Mir Mohammed Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382 = 2000 (2) Suppl.SCR 712 -relied on. 3. In the instant case, this Court does not find any B serious flaw in the investigation which can affect the case. On theotherhand,the prosecutionhas established all thecircumstancesby placing acceptable evidence. On the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the conclusion arrived at bythe trial court andthe High Court C is affirmed.[Para 20-21] [1099-A-C] D Case Law Reference: 1985 (1) SCR 88 2004 (2) SCR 123 relied on referred to 2000 (2) Suppl.SCR 712 relied onpara 5 Para17 Para19 CRIMINAL AP PELLA TE JURISDICTION : CriminalAppeal No. 507 of 2008. E From the Judgment & Order dated 09.04.2007 of the Court of Judicatureof Bombay,Bench at Aurangabad in Crl. Appeal No. 238of 2005. HarinderMohan Singh, Shabanafor the Appellants. FShankar Chillarge, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent. TheJudgmentof the Court was delivered by P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal hasbeenpreferred againstthe final judgment and order dated 09.04.2007 passed Gby the High Court of Judicatureat Bombay,Bench at Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2005 wherebythe DivisionBench of theHigh Court dismissedthe appeal filed by the appellants herein. H 2. Brieffacts: TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1089 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] (a)The present appeal pertainsto thedeath of oneA Ashabai, resident of Chanda Taluk, Karjat District, Ahmednagar. She was married to one Nitin Tulshiram Suryawanshi-AccusedNo. 3 herein (specialleave petition with respectto this accused has already been dismissed on 02.11.2007). Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi (A-1)andB SindhubaiSuryawanshi(A-2) are the parents of A-3.At the relevant time,A-3 wasworkingas a driver. (b) SampatMadhavraoSuryawanshi (PW-2) is the relative of KisanBhanudasSule (PW-1 )-the fatherof thedeceasedand C was the mediator of thesaidmarriage. On 28.02.2003,the deadbody of Ashabaiwas foundto be floating in the well of one SarjeraoSuryawanshiwith boththe legs and handstied bymeansof theborder of a Saree. PW-2lodged a complaint againstthe appellants herein with regardto theaboveincident withthe Karjat P.S., Ahmednagar, alleging theill-treatmentD metedout to thedeceased in orderto fulfill the demandof Rs. 50,000/- for thepurchase of a Jeep. (c) On 28.02.2003,on thebasis of thesaid complaint, Accidental DeathNo. 3 of 2003 and,afterinvestigation,Crime E No.24 of 2003 wasregisteredat thesaid police station. ( d) After filing of thechargesheet, the casewas committed totheCourt of Sessionsand numberedas Sessions Case No. 102 of 2004. On 03.08.2004, the 5thAd hoc Additional SessionsJudge, Ahmednagar,framed chargesagainst the appellants under Sections 302, 498-Aread with Section34 of the Indian Penal Code,1860 (in short'the IPC'). Again, on 28.09.2004, an additional charge of Section304-B read with Section34 of the IPC was alsoframedagainstthe appellants. (e)By orderdated 10.01.2005, the 5th Adhoc Additional SessionsJudge, convicted all the accused personsand sentencedthem to undergorigorous imprisonmentunder variousheads mentionedabove including life sentenceand all F G thesentenceswere to runconcurrently.H 1090 SUPREMECOURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A (f) Being aggrieved,the appellants preferred an appeal beingCriminalAppeal No. 238of 2005 beforethe HighCourt ofBombay. By impugnedorder dated 09.04.2007, the Division Benchof theHighCourtwhile confirmingthe orderof conviction andsentencepassed by theSessions Court, dismissedthe B appeal filed by the appellants herein. (g)Aggrievedby thedecision of theHigh Court, the appellants hereinhave filed this appealby way of specialleave beforethis Court. C 3. HeardMr. HarinderMohan Singh, learnedamicus curiaefor theappellants-accusedand Mr. Shankar Chillarge, learnedcounsel on behalf of theRespondent-State. 4. It is not in disputethat the convictionof theappellants 0 A-1 andA-2 is based on circumstantialevidence, hence, we haveto seehowfar theprosecutionhas established the chain andableto proveits casebeyondreasonabledoubt. E F G HCircumstantial Evidence: 5. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 sec 116, this Court afterreferringto variousearlier decisions,formulatedthe followingconditionsto befulfilled beforea caseagainst an accusedcan be saidto befully establishedbased on circumstantialevidence:- (1)thecircumstancesfrom whichthe conclusionof guilt is tobedrawnshouldbe fully established. It may be noted here that this Court indicatedthat the circumstancesconcerned "must or should"and not "may be"established.There is not onlya grammaticalbut a legal distinctionbetween "may be proved"and "mustbe or should be proved"as washeldby this Court in Shivaji SahabraoBobade v. State of Maharashtra where the observationswere made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC (Cri) p. 1047] TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1091 STATEOF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] Certainly, jt is a primary principle thatthe accusedA must be and not merely may be guilty before a courtcan convictand the mental distancebetween 'may be' and 'mustbe' is long anddivides vagueconjectures from sure conclusions." (2) thefactsso establishedshould be consistent only with thehypothesis of the guilt of the accused,that is tosay, they should notbe explainable on anyotherhypothesis exceptthat theaccusedis guilty, B (3)thecircumstances should be of a conclusive natureand C tendency, (4)they shouldexclude every possible hypothesisexcept theoneto beproved,and (5)theremust be a chain of evidenceso complete as notD to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistentwith the innocence of the accusedand must showthat in all human probability the act musthave been doneby theaccused. 154. These five goldenprinciples, if we may say so, constitutethe panchsheel of the proof of a casebasedon circumstantialevidence." 6.Keepingthese principles in mind, let us analyze the circumstances relied onby theprosecution.E F 7. As mentioned earlier, the case of theprosecutionis that A3-husband of thedeceasedand A-1 and A-2 -parents of A3 killed thedeceasedby throwingher intothe well by tyingher handsand legs with the border of a Saree because of the non- G fulfillment of the demand of Rs.50,000/- madeby theaccused personsfor thepurchase of a Jeepas A3 was a driver.The father of thedeceasedwas examinedas PW-1. PW-2 acted asa mediatorin the settlement of marriage of thedeceased H 1092 SUPREMECOURT REPORTS[2012] 7 S.C.R. A withA3. Thedoctor.who performedthe postmortem on the deceased,was examined as PW-6. B 8. The circumstances relied on by the prosecutionare:- i) all the accused ill-treated thedeceased; ii)the well in whichthe body of thedeceasedwas recovered is situatedat a distance of 400 ft. fromthe house; iii) legs andhandsof thedeceasedwere tied usinga C borderof a saree;and iv)recoveryof thesaidborderof thesaree. 9. KisanBhanudas Sule (PW-1) -thefather of the deceased, in hisevidence,has statedthat the deceased- DAshabaiwas his only daughterand she wasmarried to A3.A- 1andA-2 are parentsof A3. According to him, aftermarriage, Ashabaiwent to reside with the accusedand she wastreated decently for a periodof 5 monthsbut, thereafter,they started ill-treatingher by beating and by not providingsufficient food. E He also statedthat A-3, on the instigationof A-1 and A-2, was demanding Rs.50,000/- for the· purchaseof a jeep.According tohim,at the relevant time, A3 was employed as a driverand Ashabaihad disclosed the demand as well as theill-treatment to PW-1 whenever he had gone to her house to meet her. When F PW-1 broughther daughter to his home on theoccasionof Sakrant, she informed him thatshe would not go back to her matrimonialhome as herhusband had threatened her not to comeback without Rs. 50,000/-. A perusa.1 of the evidence of PW-1 showsthat her daughterAshabai was treated well only fora period of 5 monthsfrom the dateof hermarriage and after Gthesaidperiod, all of themstartedill-treatingher by way of beatingand by not providingsufficient food. In his Chief examination, he has implicatedall thethreeaccused by stating that "they started ill-treatment. ....... " H 10. PW-2, whoacted as the mediator in the marriageof TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1093 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA~ [P. SATHASIVAM, J.) the deceasedwith A3, lodged a complaint(Exh. 26) andA explained about the ill-treatmentmeted out to the deceasedat her matrimonial home. It was he whointimatedthe police tl"'at the deadbody of the deceased-Ashabaiwas seen floating in a well belonging to one SarjeraoSuryawanshi. On the basisof thesaidinformation, on 28.02.2003 at 4.15p.m., Accidental B Death No. 3 of 2003 wasregistered.After investigationand on the basis of thePostMortemReport (Exh. 35), Police Inspector Shinde(PW-8)attached to Karjat P.S. registereda casebeingCrimeNo. 24 of 2003 underSections 302 and 498- Areadwith Section34 of IPC. PW-2 has also statedthat all c the 3 accusedwere living together and his houseis ata distance of 2kms.awayfrom the house of theaccusedand heassertedthat he wasthe mediatorfor theperformance of marriagebetween the deceased and A3. He also deposedthat thedeceasedwas treated well for 4-5months after the 0 marriageand, thereafter, all the accusedstarted ill-treatingheL He also stated that all the accusedused to demand Rs.50,000/ -fromher andtheyalso used to beatand abuseher. 11. From the evidence of PWs 1and2, the first circumstancethat all the 3 accused ill-treated thedeceasedis E clearly establishedand rightly relied on and acceptedby the trialCourtand the HighCourt. 12.Thesecondcircumstanceheavily relied on by the prosecutionis thedistancebetween the houseof theaccused andthe well whereinthe body of the deceasedwas found to be floating.It was PW-2,who first noticedthe deadbody of the deceased in the well and filed a complaint to the police. PW-2 hasstatedthat A-3 andone Prahlad came to his house and reported about missing of Ashabai(the deceased) and enquiredwhether she hadcome to his house.Thereafter,PW- 2, along with others,started searchingher for the whole night F F in order to verifyher whereabouts. He also statedthat when he attemptedto gonearthe well, the accusedpreventedhim from goingto the wellbelonging to oneSarjeraoSuryawanshi. It H 1094 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A furthershows that only on the nextday, when PW-2 carriedout furthersearchfor Ashabai,he cameto knowfrom his nephew thatthe body of Ashabaiwas found lying in the well and after seeingthe deadbody,he filed a complaint to the police. The assertionof PW-2 that he was preventedfrom going to the side Bof the well by theaccused fully establishanother circumstance whichshowsthat all the accusedwere responsiblefor thedeath ofthedeceased.Further, without the supportand assistance of A-1 and A-2,it would not be possible to carrythe deceased byA3 alone to the well whichis ata distanceof 400 ft. c 13. Anotherimportantcircumstance relied on and proved bytheprosecutionis thatthe legs and handsof thedeceased weretied at thetimeof throwingher intothe well.PW-1, in his evidencehas statedthat, aftercomingto knowof herabsence in thematrimonialhome, based on the complaintof PW-2, the Ddeadbody of the deceasedwas removedfrom the well by meansof a woodencot. He furthernoticedthat the handsand legsof Ashabaiwere tied by meansof theborder of a saree. PW-1 furtherproved Article Nos. 5, 6 and7 asthepieces of theborder of thesareewith whichthe handsand legsof the Edeceased-Ashabaiweretied. This fact wasalsostrengthened bytheevidence of PW-2. Aftergettinginformationfrom his nephewthat body of Ashabaiwas found lying in the well of Sarjerao,PW-2, after verification,made a complaintto the policeand, because of the same,police came to thespotand Fcarried on furtherformalities.He furtherdeposedthat "her hands and legswere tightly tied.The handsand legsweretied bymeans of theborder of a saree..... " He alsoaffirmedthat afterseeingthe body of Ashabaiwith her legsand handstied, hewentto Karjat P.S. and filed a complainttherein. G H 14. In additionto theevidenceof PWs 1 and2 abouttying of the legsand handsof thedeceasedby use of theborder of a Saree, Dr. Rajashri Pagaria(PW-6), who conductedthe Post Mortem (Exh. 35) on the deadbody of thedeceasedfound that thelowerextremitiesand anklejointswere tied by means of a f- TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1095 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] piece of sareeand the upperextremitieswere foundto beA tightenedby means of a clothat thewristjoint. She further opinedthat the tying of thehandsand legswasnot possible bythevictimherself. She explainedthat externalinjuries were postmortemand aquaticinjuries.Her stomachwas found to be containingabout 200 ml. of water. he large intestineB containedfecal matter. She also opinedthat the deathwas due todrowning.From the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6, itisclear thatthe legsand hands of the deceased were tiedby theuse of theborder of a saree. It hasalsocome in evidencethat it wouldnot be possiblefor A-3alone to tie boththe legsand c handswithoutthe assistance of A 1 and A2 whowerepresent in the house. It hasbeenfurthernoticedthat exceptthe three accusedand the deceased,none wereresiding in their house. 15.Anothercircumstancerelied on and provedby the prosecution is therecovery of the border of the sareewhich is D an importantpiece of evidence and the samewas established byAmrutAkhade(PW-7) -panchwitnessfor thememorandum. PW-7, in hisevidence,stated that on 05.03.2003, he was calledat P.S. Karjat for therecording of panchnama. He further deposedthat all theaccusedwere presentthere and A-2 gaveE astatementbefore him thatall theaccusedtied the legsand hands of thedeceasedand threwher intothe well.Aftertaking downthe statement,the policeobtainedthumb impression of A-2 and signature of PW-7.Accordingto him,she also disclosedthat she wouldgive out theclothes by meansof whichF herhandsand legsweretied. PW-7also provedExh. 40 as thepanchnamarecorded for thesaidpurposewhich bears his signature. Another panchato thesaid panchnama was Hanumant Shelke andthe samewas alsoreadover to him. He furtherdeposedthat he along with policeand anotherPanchaG wentto thebastiof Sindubai(A-2) in a policejeep. Sindubhai (A-2)askedthe police to stopthe jeepand thenshe handed overthe border of the sareewhichwas kept in a chapper(top portion).The Policerecordedthe panchnama of theseizure of H 1096 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A theborder of the sareeand PW-7also admittedhis signature therein. 16. In additionto theevidence of PW-7, oneDada S. Suryawanshi, resident of Rehkuri, Tai. Karjat, Dist. B Ahmednagar,was examinedas PW-5. In his evidence,he deposedthat the deadbody was takenout fromthe well in his presencewith the help of a woodencot. He furthernoticedthat handsand legs of thedeceasedwere tied by meansof a red colour border of a saree.The police drew inquestin his presence. He also signedthe memorandumwhich is Exh. 29. C He den.ied the suggestionthat Sampat and otherpersonsgot intothe well, tied the handsand legs of thedeceasedand then thedeadbody was takenout. 17.ThisCourt, in Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, D (2004)10 SCC 657, held thatevenif panchwitnessturned hostile, the evidenceof thepersonwho effectedthe recovery would not standvitiated.After consideringthe scopeand ambit of Section 27 of theEvidenceAct, 1872this Court enumerated the followingprinciples to beadheredto. E F G H "16. Thevariousrequirements of the sectioncan be summedup as follows: .. (1)Thefact of whichevidence is soughtto begivenmust berelevantto theissue. It mustbe borne in mindthat the provisionhas nothingto dowiththe question of relevancy. Therelevancyof thefactdiscoveredmust be established accordingto theprescriptions relating to relevancy of other evidenceconnectingit withthe crime in orderto makethe factdiscovered admissible. (2) Thefact musthave beendiscovered. (3)Thediscoverymust have been in consequence of someinformationreceived from the accusedand not by theaccused'sown act. TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1097 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] (4) Thepersongiving the informationmust be accusedof A anyoffence. (5) He must be in thecustodyof a police officer. (6)Thediscovery of a fact in consequence of information receivedfrom an accused in custody must be deposed to." (7) Thereupon only thatportionof theinformationwhich relates distinctly or strictly to the factdiscovered can be proved.The rest is inadmissible." Fromthe evidence of PW-1,PW-2, PW-6 -theDoctor,who conductedthe postmortem, PWs-5 and 7 -thepanchwitnesses B c and in the light of the principlesenumeratedabove, we are satisfiedthat the material object, namely, the border of the sareeused for tying legs andhands of the deceasedwas 0 correctly identified and markedand the samehas been rightly relied on bytheprosecutionand acceptedby thecourts below. Theevidence of both PWs 5 and7 fully supportthe contents ofmemorandumwhich is Exh. Nos. 29 and 40 respectively. 18. Theevidence led in by the prosecution also showsthat E atthe relevant point of time,the deceasedwas living with all the 3 accused. In otherwords,the appellants, their son-A3and thedeceasedwere the only occupantsof thehouseand it was, therefore,incumbent on the appellants to have tenderedsome explanation in orderto avoidany suspicionas to their guilt. All F thefactorsreferredabove are undoubtedlycircumstances whichconstitutea chaineven strongerthan the accountof a eye-witness and, therefore, we areof theopinionthat conviction of the appellants is fully justified. 19. It is settledlaw that presumptionof fact is a rule in law G ofevidencethat a factotherwise doubtful maybe inferredfrom certainother provedfacts. Wheninferringthe existenceof a factfromotherset of provedfacts, the Court exercisesa process of reasoningand reachesa logical conclusion as the most probable position.The aboveposition is strengthened in H 1098 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 7 S.C.R. A view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process, the Courts shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct eto in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances, B the principles embodied in Section 106 of the EvidenceAct can also be utilized. We make it clear that this Section is not intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts c from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existenceof certainother facts, unless the accused by virtue of his specialknowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different inference. It is useful to quote the following observation in State D of WestBengal vs. Mir Mohammed Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382: E F G H "38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section 106 of the EvidenceAct is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution to establish certain facts which are particularly within the knowledge of the accused. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmerthe learned Judge has stated the legal principle thus: "This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the burden ofproof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is certainlynot intended to relieve it of that duty. On the contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases in whichit would be impossible, orat anyrate 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' $tresses that. It means factsthat are pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge." TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1099 STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.] 20. In the light oftheabove principles, in thepresentcase, A wehavenot comeacrossany serious flaw in the investigation whichhad affectedthe case. On theotherhand,we are satisfied that the prosecution has established all the circumstancesby placing acceptable evidence.We are also satisfiedthat the chainis complete and withoutthe involvement B andassistance of A-1 andA-2,A3 alonecould not havetied thehandsand legs of thedeceasedwith the border of the saree andthrewher intothe well which is at a distance of 400 ft. from theirhouse. 21. In the light of theabovediscussion, we fully agree with C the conclusion arrivedat bythe trial Courtand the HighCourt, consequently, the appealfails and the sameis dismissed. R.P. Appeal dismissed. |
