Court No. - 87
Reserved on 29.10.2021 Delivered on 17.12.2021
Case :- CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 3657 of 2018
Appellant :- Sonu Nishad
Respondent :- State of U.P.
Counsel for Appellant :- Surnedra Prasad Shukla,Kali Charan Yadav,Nilam Shukla
Counsel for Respondent :- G.A.
Hon'ble Mrs. Sadhna Rani (Thakur),J.
This appeal is preferred by the appellant against the judgement and order dated 11.05.2018 passed by the Additional Sessions Judge/F.T.C. Court No. 1, Basti in Sessions Trial No. 80 of 2017 (State Vs. Sonu Nishad) Case Crime No. 1061 of 2016 under Section 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act, Police Station Chhawni, District Basti.
By the impugned judgement the appellant has been convicted under Sections 304 B I.P.C. for ten years rigorous imprisonment, under section 498A I.P.C. for three years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 5000/-, under Section 4 D.P. Act two years rigorous imprisonment and fine of Rs. 1000/- with default stipulation. The accused has been acquitted of the charge under Section 3 of D.P. Act.
The facts procuring to this appeal are that on 28.10.2016 at 10.30 a.m. the complainant Mannu Nishad got registered F.I.R. No. 1061 of 2016 under Sections 304B, 498-A I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act at police station Chhawni, Disrict Basti against Sonu Nishad and Monu Nishad both sons of Jagdish with the allegations that the marriage of his daughter Deepa was solemnised with the accused Sonu Nishad on 09th July, 2016. Yesterday on 27.10.2016 at 4 o'clock Sonu Nishad and his brother Monu Nishad caused death of the girl Deepa by strangling. At 5 o'clock. Raj Kumar s/o Ram Achal communicated this information to him by his mobile no. 9598490246. He came at the residence of her daughter and found the mark of strangling on her neck. The girl was being harrassed for dowry prior to the incident. The action be taken.
After recording first information report, the inquest and post mortem were conducted the same day i.e. on 28.10.2016. The investigation was took over by the Circle Officer, Haraiya, Sri Krishna Murari, who recorded the statemens of the witnesses, got prepared site plan, copied the documents in the C.D., arrested the accused and after following due procedure filed the charge sheet against the accused Sonu Nishad only under Sections 498-A, 304-B I.P.C. and ¾ D.P. Act.
After receiving the charge sheet cognizance was taken by the Chief Judicial Magistrate, Basti on 06.01.2017. The file was committed to the Sessions Court on 25.03.2017 wherein the Sessions Judge, Basti charged the accused Sonu Nishad under Sections ¾ D.P. Act, 498-A and 304-B I.P.C. on 24.04.2017.
To bring home the guilt of the accused, the prosecution produced as many as six witnesses in the lower Court:-
1. P.W. 1 Mannu is the complainant and father of deceased, who proved the first information report and the inquest report and deposed regarding demand of dowry and the harassment by the accused.
2. P.W. 2 is the wife of the complainant, who reiterated the facts regarding demand of dowry and the harassment as a result of this demand.
3. P.W. 3 is Vijay Singh, Naib Tehsildar, who conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased and prepared the documents regarding the same.
4. P.W. 4 is Krishna Murari the Circle Officer, who investigated the case. He has proved the site plan prepared, the investigation done and the charge sheet filed by him.
5. P.W. 5 Manoj Kumar Singh is the doctor who has proved the post mortem report.
6. P.W. 6 is S.I. Ram Prakash the then Head Moharir, who has proved the chik F.I.R. and the G.D.
As the documentary evidence, the prosecution proved written tehrir of complainant as Exhibit Ka-1, inquest report as Exhibit Ka-2, inquest papers as Exhibit Ka-3 to Ka-7, site plan as Exhibit Ka-8, charge sheet as Exhibit Ka-9, post mortem report as Exhibit Ka-10, chik F.I.R. as Exhibit Ka-11 and copy of G.D. as Exhibit Ka-12.
Thereafter the statement of accused Sonu Nishad was registered under Section 313 Cr.P.C. wherein he denied all the evidence produced against him and stated that his wife had love affair with one Pardeshi since before their marriage. She married with him under pressure. In separation of her lover she committed suicide. At the time of incident he was doing his repairing work.
The accused did not adduce any evidence in defence.
After hearing the rival arguments and perusing the record, the lower court found the prosecution evidence sufficient to bring home the guilt of the accused and passed the impugned judgement and order dated 11.05.2018 convicting the accused Sonu Nishad as noted above.
Being aggrieved by this judgement the accused appellant filed this appeal on the ground that the trial court has committed manifest error on the face of record by not properly appreciating the evidence present on the record. P.W. 2 the mother of the deceased in her cross examination has admitted that there was no demand of dowry prior or after the marriage. The doctor has clearly stated that it was a case of hanging. No external injury was found on the body of the deceased. In the first information report there is no description of demand of dowry and the demand of one T.V. and motorcycle has for the first time come up in the evidence of P.W. 1 in the court. There is no electric connection in his house which is a hut of 10'x12'. So the demand of T.V. and motorcycle is bogus. In fact, the deceased was in love affair with one Pardeshi and wanted to marry him, the same has been stated by D.W. 1 in his statement. The marriage of the girl was solemnized against her will P.W. 1 has admitted in his cross examination that the mother of the deceased had to convince the girl to marry with the appellant only then the marriage could be solemnized. The Investigating Officer was also not made aware of the demand of dowry by the neighbors. The accused at the time of incident was at his shop in Chhawni market repairing the vehicles. After getting the information, he reached on the spot. This fact has been supported by the evidence of the D.W. 2. The parties belong to very poor labourer families so no demand of dowry arises. The judgement and order impugned is not sustainable in the eyes of law being wholly incorrect, illegal and improper.
Heard Sri Surnendra Prasad Shukla, learned counsel for the appellant and learned A.G.A. for the State.
It is true that there is no eye witness of the incident. The case is based on the circumstancial evidence.
It is admitted fact that the marriage of the deceased and the accused had been solemnized on 09.07.2016 and the death of the deceased took place on 27.10.2016 at her matrimonial house in the suspicious circumstances and as per post mortem report the death was caused due to ante mortem hanging.
The prosecution witness P.W. 1 in his statement has deposed that when for the first time his daughter came to his house after one month of the marriage she disclosed that her husband and his brother used to demand T.V. and motorcycle from her and used to taunt her and when the husband of the deceased i.e. present accused came for her adieu (vidai) then he made this demand to him also. He persuaded him then only the vidai of his daughter was done. After one month of this vidai when he went to visit the house of his daughter, his daughter narrated her plight and the harassment conducted on the part of her husband and brother in law following the demand of T.V. and motorcycle.
P.W. 2, the mother of the deceased has reiterated about the demand of dowry by her son-in-law. She has contended that when her daughter came after one month of the marriage she disclosed that her husband Sonu and brother in law Monu used to demand T.V. and motorcycle and because of non fulfilment of this demand they used to taunt her. When her son in law came for vidai he put this demand before her and her husband too. She has further stated that one month prior to the incident her husband visited the house of the deceased. The girl narrated about the demand and harassment following the same to her father and the father of the deceased narrated the whole incident to her.
Rest witnesses are the formal witnesses who have proved the documents prepared by them.
The appellant's counsel has argued that the accused is innocent as there is no electricity connection in their house, they live in a hatched roof house, their status is not so good that they can demand T.V. and motorcycle. They cannot afford petrol of the motorcycle rather. The allegation of demand of dowry is totally false. The girl was in relation with a boy named Pardeshi and due to segregation she has committed suicide. The doctor has found it to be a case of suicide so the accused deserves to be acquitted.
While the learned A.G.A. argued that on the basis of evidence produced by the prosecution, it is proved to be a case of strangulation and not of hanging and the girl is said to have died due to harassment of her husband following the demand of T.V. and motorcycle in dowry.
The prosecution has successfully proved its case against the appellant beyond all reasonable doubt and the learned trial court has not at all erred in returning guilty verdict against the appellant and he has been appropriately sentenced through impugned judgement, which does not suffer from any factual or legal infirmity.
It is argued on behalf of the accused that the incident took place at 4.00 p.m. on 27th October, 2016 but the first information report was got registered next day i.e. on 28th October, 2016 at 10.30 a.m.. This delay of 15- 16 hours has not been explained while the complainant is said to have reached his daughter's house on 27th October, 2016 itself.
It is true that after the incident on 27th October, 2016 at 4.00 p.m. the first information report has been lodged next day in the morning at 10.30 a.m.. It is admitted by the complainant that after receiving phone call of Raj Kumar at 4-5 p.m. informing the death of his daughter he and his family members and some villagers immediately reached at the residence of the girl. The police was informed in writing on next day when he got the report escribed by Akash of his village and after the contents of the first information report were read over to him he put his signature on the report. The witness has proved his report as Exhibit Ka-1.
Though, no specific explanation of the delay has been given by the complainant in the evidence but it is true that it was the case of unnatural death of the deceased within four months of her marriage. The complainant and his family was shocked to get this news and as per version of the P.W. 2, the wife of the complainant, her husband went to the house of the deceased soon after getting the information but she along with other family members visited the house of the deceased next day in the morning. In my opinion, the shock ridden father of the deceased girl, whose marriage was solemnized just 3-1/2 months prior to the incident, cannot be said to be in a position to understand and explain the things and it cannot be said to be imperative on his part to get the first information report lodged immediately. If he has lodged the same in the morning when his wife or rest family members arrived on the spot it cannot be said to be harmful in any way. Hence the delay of 15-16 hours in lodging the first information report specifically when the complainant is coming from another village, cannot be said to be inordinate or harmful to the prosecution.
It is also argued on behalf of the appellant that the first information report is ante time. The time of lodging of first information report is mentioned as 10.30 a.m. in the chik F.I.R. and the inquest is also said to have started at the same time i.e. at 10.30 a.m.. More over the inquest report does not bear the particulars of the first information report which indicate that the first information report was registered after preparation of the inquest report.
It is true that the inquest report does not bear the case crime number and also the name of the accused but as per Section 174 Cr.P.C. under which inquest report is prepared, there is no requirement to mention the crime number, section, name of the accused and other particulars. When there is no provision or column for the same in the inquest proforma then in my opinion the non mentioning of the particular of the first information report or name of the accused do not indicate that the first information report was ante time. The same view was taken by the coordinate Bench of this Court in Shyam Bihari and another Vs. State of U.P. 2015 (6) ALJ 354, that if the crime number, section and name of the accused and other particulars are not mentioned in the inquest report, it does not invalidate the report on that ground, more over the first information report has been registered on 10.30 a.m. as per time mentioned in the chik F.I.R. P.W. 3 Naib Tehsildar who conducted the inquest and prepared the inquest report though has mentioned and stated in his statement in the Court that the inquest started at 10.30 a.m. and completed at 12.05 p.m. but if we go through the inquest report it is mentioned therein that the procedure of inquest was started at 10.50 a.m. which came to an end at 12.05 p.m. so there is gap of 20 minutes between lodging of the first information report and the preparation of inquest report otherwise also the P.W. 1 in his statement has stated that he dictated the first information report to one Akash Nishad of his village and after the same was escribed, explained and signed finally it was given at the Chhawni Police Station next day in the morning, which shows that he simply handed over the report to the police station in the morning and it was up to the staff of the police station that when they register the same. It is not necessary that the staff registers the first information report immediately after receiving the same. Therefore, this argument of the learned counsel for the appellant also has no force.
Next argument raised by the learned counsel for the appellant is that there was no demand of dowry as the appellant is not having electricity connection at his home and both the parties belong to very poor background. The boy could not even afford the expenses of the petrol of motorcycle so allegation of demand of dowry is false. It is admitted fact that the accused lives in hatched roof house and the Investigating Officer P.W. 4 has admitted that there was no electricity connection in the house of the accused and the neighbours did not made him apprise that death of the deceased was caused as a result of demand of dowry. But only this version of the Investigating Officer cannot be the proof of the fact that no demand of dowry was made specifically when he himself has filed charge sheet against the accused under Sections 498-A, 304 B I.P.C. along with Section ¾ D.P. Act. Apart from this, witness P.W. 4 has also stated in his evidence that during investigation he was not apprised of the fact that the mother of the deceased had to convince the deceased and put pressure upon her deceased daughter to make her agree for this marriage. If it is so, then the stand of the accused itself comes to an end that had there been a demand of dowry the neighbors must have apprised the investigating officer of this fact. The Investigating Officer is neither said to have knowledge of dowry demand nor the knowledge of the rival argument that the mother of the deceased had to convince her daughter for this marriage. In fact, both the parties have to prove their allegations/counter allegations by the evidence produced by them in the Court.
So far as the circumstances are concerned, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established. The circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain to complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else and the circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of guilt of the accused and such evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence.
This is the admitted fact that the death of the girl took place within four months of her marriage in the matrimonial home that too in the suspicious circumstances and the complainant or his family members were admittedly not present at the time of incident at the place of occurrence and death is said to be dowry death. Learned A.G.A. contended that presumption under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act is there that the fact of death is specially within the knowledge of the husband (in-laws of the deceased).
In judgement Vikramjit Singh Vs. State of Punjab, (2006) 12 SCC 306, the Supreme Court held that Section 106 of Evidence Act, does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused the onus may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same subject to certain statutory exceptions.
In Vikramjit Singh (supra), the discussion in paragraph Nos. 14 & 15 are relevant to be noted as under:-
14. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt. Only when the prosecution case has been proved the burden in regard to such facts which was within the special knowledge of the accused may be shifted to the accused for explaining the same. Of course, there are certain exceptions to the said rule, e.g., where burden of proof may be imposed upon the accused by reason of a statute.
15. It may be that in a situation of this nature where the court legitimately may raise a strong suspicion that in all probabilities the accused was guilty of commission of heinous offence but applying the well-settled principle of law that suspicion, however, grave may be, cannot be a substitute for proof, the same would lead to the only conclusion herein that the prosecution has not been able to prove its case beyond all reasonable doubt.
In the judgment of Nupur Talwar vs. State of UP and others, 2018 (102) ACC 524, the Division Bench of this Court had extensively dealt with the consequence of Section 106 of the Evidence Act by referring to the landmarks decisions of the Apex Court and held in paragraphs No. 246:-
"246. Thus, what follows from the reading of the law reports referred to herein above, is that prosecution has to establish guilt of the accused filtered of all reasonable prognosis favourable to accused to secure conviction and it is never relieved of its initial duty. It is only when the initial burden has been discharged by the prosecution that the defence of the accused has to be looked into. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act can not be applied to fasten guilt on the accused, even if the prosecution has failed in its initial burden.”
Thus, the prosecution has to establish its case beyond reasonable doubt it cannot derive strength from the weakness of the defence put up by the accused. It is only when the initial burden of prosecution has been discharged that the defence of the accused has to be looked into. The death of the deceased is said to be caused as a result of tightening the throat. It may be strangulation or hanging. As per post mortem report the death is caused by ante mortem hanging.
The post mortem report discloses the following injuries on the person of the deceased:-
“The neck circumference is 28 cms. and neck ligature mark is 22 cms.
and absent towards the left side, 3 cms. below from the lower border of left ear pinna. 4 cms. below from chin and 7 cms below from the lower border of right ear pinna. Ligature mark on cutting appear whitish in colour a elongated mark size 1x0.5 cm on left side seen, 3 cm below from the lower border of left ear pinna. Trachea, ousphagus, larynx and vocal cords were conjested. Hyoid bone was fractured. Right chamber of heart was full and left chamber was empty. In stomach there was 100 gms fluid. There was white discharge from vagina. Immediate cause of death was respiratory arrest due to ante mortem hanging.”
The concerned doctor appeared as P.W. 5 in the lower court and deposed that except ligature mark there was no other injury on the person of the deceased and opined the cause of death to be ante mortem hanging.
It is argued on behalf of the prosecution that it was not hanging rather it was a case of strangulation. The report of the doctor is simply an opinion. The court is not bound by the same. In the judgment in Gunthu Dhule Vs. State of Maharashtra, 2013 (1) All. Cr.J. 83, the Apex Court hold that post mortem report must be corroborated with the ocular evidence. Accused cannot be held guilty only on the basis of post mortem report. Thus, if on the basis of evidence on record, the death is proved to be otherwise then opinion of the doctor can be ignored.
The lower court has broadly discussed the Modi Jurisprudence and came to the conclusion that as the hyoid bone of the deceased was fractured and on one side of the neck of the deceased there was more injury than that of other part of the neck. The lower court also found that the prosecution by the oral evidence has proved that there was demand of dowry and harassment in this regard. It was also found that the intimacy of the deceased with Pardeshi is not proved by the evidence on record. The lower court found it to be a case of strangulation.
If we go through the allegation of the prosecution both witnesses of the fact i.e. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have very well stated in the statements that the girl was being harassed by her husband for T.V. And motorcycle in dowry. It is true that in the cross examination of P.W. 2, the mother of the deceased it has been stated that before and after the marriage no demand of dowry was made to her. It means demand was not made to 'her'. She has not denied the demand from her husband or daughter. Apart from this if the demand of dowry is not made before the marriage it is not the parameter to reach at the conclusion that no demand can be made after marriage also.
In the present case P.W. 1 has clearly narrated in his examination in chief that the demand of T.V. and motorcycle was made to him also by his son in law. The torturing and harassment on the ground of demand of dowry is not mentioned in the first information report. He has stated the same for the first time in the Court, has been admitted by him in his cross examination. Though, the specific demand of T.V. and motorcycle is not mentioned in the first information report but it is very clearly mentioned therein that his daughter was being harassed for demand of dowry before this incident. In my opinion as the first information report is not the encyclopedia if there is mere mention that the girl was being harassed for demand of dowry and if the same is proved by the prosecution evidence then non mentioning of the demand of particular article in first information report will not be harmful to the prosecution. The P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 have clearly stated about this demand of dowry and harassment of their daughter by their son in law both in their statements under Section 161 Cr.P.C. and also in the statements made in the Court. It is stated in the statements of both P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 that when the girl visited her parental house one month prior the incident she narrated the whole of her plight following the demand of dowry. Though, in the initial statement of complainant under Section 161 Cr.P.C. only 'the demand of dowry and harassment' word is used but in his additional statement under Section 161 Cr.P.C. on 03.11.2016 and in the initial statement of his wife under Section 161 Cr.P.C. the specific demand of motorcycle and T.V. has come so it is wrong to say that the specific demand of T.V. and motorcycle has come in the evidence of the complainant for the first time in the court only.
It is argued on behalf of appellant that for conviction under Section 304-B I.P.C. soon before her death the deceased was subjected to cruelty and harassment by her husband is necessarily to be proved and the same cannot be said to be proved from the record. In this regard, the judgement of Apex Court in Hira Lal & others Vs. State (Govt. of NCT) Delhi decided on 25.07.2003, 2003 (5)Supreme 112 can be looked into, wherein it has been held that the concerned woman must have been “soon before her death” subjected to cruelty or harassment “for or in connection with demand of dowry” presumption under Section 113B Evidence Act can be raised only on proof of these essentials. Expression “soon before” is a relative term and not strait jacket formula could be laid down. Interval should not be much between concerned cruelty or harassment and death in question and there must be a proximate and live link between effect of cruelty based on dowry demand and concerned death.
If we look into the evidence of present case, in the examination-in- chief of P.W. 1, he has stated that prior one month of the incident he had gone to the matrimonial house of his daughter and met his daughter. She was crying. She narrated that her husband and brother-in-law use to harass her demanding television and motorcycle. They used to harass her by making taunts and using filthy words. He somehow postulated her daughter and persuaded her to stay over there and came back. P.W. 1 has not been cross examined by the accused counsel on this point. P.W. 2 at page-'2' in the examination-in-chief has reiterated the same fact and stated that one month prior to the incident her husband went to the house of their daughter. The girl narrated the whole plight in respect of demand of dowry and harassment. She was crying. When her husband came back, he narrated the whole story to her also.
Thus, both the witnesses of fact have stated the fact in their statements that one month prior to the incident the girl was being harassed for dowry and this fact she got narrated to her father also. The statement of P.W. 1 in this regard being not cross examined is uncontroverted. Thus, the fact of 'soon before her death' she was subjected to 'cruelty or harassment' in connection with 'demand of dowry' can be said to be proved. Hence, the argument of learned counsel for the appellant in this regard has no force.
It is also claimed on the part of the accused that the deceased was having some intimacy with one Pardeshi of the neighboring village where the elder sister of the deceased was married. The statement of P.W. 1 in his cross examination has been pointed out wherein he has stated that it is true that his wife had to convince his daughter hardly for this marriage and that his wife had expostulated his daughter that the marriage has been fixed it is the matter of honor and only then the girl became agree for the marriage. But P.W. 2 the mother of the deceased has neither narrated this fact in her statement nor she has been given the suggestion by the defence counsel that she expostulated her girl for this marriage. Even if the argument of appellant's counsel is accepted that the deceased was hardly convinced for this marriage it does not prove that she was in love with some one so she was not ready for the marriage. Both witnesses P.W. 1 and 2 have denied the allegation that the deceased was having intimacy with the boy named Pardeshi and the marriage was done against her will so she committed suicide.
In this regard, the statement of the D.W. 1 is also on the record. It is pointed out by the accused counsel that D.W. 1 is the brother in law of the sister of the deceased. He has stated in the Court that the deceased was not ready for this marriage and she was forcibly convinced for this marriage as her mother expostulated her that a handsome amount of money has been spent now the marriage is to be solemnized. He and his wife also urged when Deepa is not ready for the marriage so do'nt make pressure on her but this marriage was forcefully solemnized. Deepa had affair with Pardeshi of village of this witness and she wanted to marry him. There was no demand of dowry and Deepa committed suicide for this reason only. It is true that such statement of D.W. 1 is on record but it is strange that when the real sister and brother in law of the deceased were there in the same village then what was the reason that they did not try to expostulate the parents of the deceased and only D.W. 1 the said brother in law of the sister of the deceased and his wife tried to expostulate the parents of the deceased. This fact makes the statement of this witness suspicious.
It has come in the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. of the accused that his wife had intimacy with Pardeshi and was not ready to marry with him and she had married with him in compulsion of her parents and in segregation she committed suicide. But no solid and trustworthy evidence has been produced on behalf of the accused that the deceased was having love affair with a boy named Pardeshi specially when P.W. 1 and 2 have specifically denied this fact. Thus, the statement of D.W. 1 cannot be said to be reliable and helpful to the accused.
So far as the statement of D.W. 2 is concerned, he has stated that when the accused got the news of death of his wife he was working at his garage and when accused Sonu went to his house after getting this news he also accompanied him.
At the time of incident as per accused counsel nobody was present at the house of Sonu Nishad his wife alone was there, when she committed suicide. It is noteworthy that the prosecution has not blamed the parents of Sonu for the demand of dowry or for harassment. The name of the brother of the present accused Monu has been expunged at the time of investigation and the charge sheet has also been filed against the present accused only.
As per defence version, the deceased is said to have died committing suicide by hanging herelf. As per post mortem report also the death is caused by respiratory arrest due to ante mortem hanging. In the site plan Exhibit Ka-8 no place has been shown where the girl committed suicide. After spot inspection the Investigating Officer has mentioned the place in the site plan where the deceased was lying dead. Nothing has come on the record as to how the girl hanged herself in the hatched roof house as there was neither any hook or fan there being no electric connection in that house of the accused. It has not been made clear by the accused as to where and how without the help of rope or cloth the deceased hanged herself, who opened the loop and who brought the body down and laid it down on the floor. More over the rope or the cloth used in the alleged hanging were not found on the spot. In the post mortem report it is clearly mentioned that hyoid bone of the girl was fractured, which is very rare in the case of suicide. So the probability cannot be ruled out that the present accused Sonu after committing offence went back to his work place which is in the same village and afterwards when he got call from his house regarding death of his wife he reached there again and posed himself to be innocent.
Thus, from the above discussion the fact of demand and harassment of the deceased for dowry and that too soon before her death is proved. The evidence from the appellant's side is not enough to prove his defence. Even if the deceased was in love with one Pardeshi since before her marriage the accused had to prove further that in segregation of Pardeshi she committed suicide and there is no evidence on record on this point. More so, there is absence of instrument (rope or cloth) used in the case of suicide. The girl is found lying dead on the floor. No place of suicide or hook where she hanged herself is pointed out by the accused. The deceased cannot hang herself without the help of any rope or cloth and without any noose or hook. All these things are missing from the spot. The girl is found lying near the bed with the alleged ligature mark on her neck. All these circumstances very well indicate that the death was not suicidal rather it was the death caused by the accused by strangling following the demand of dowry. Hence, the judgement of lower court is well discussed and well founded and there is no reason to disbelieve it. Therefore, the judgement of the lower court deserves to be upheld.
The appeal is dismissed. The judgement of the lower court is confirmed.
Order Date :- 17.12.2021 gp