Paragraph numbers below are the court’s original numbering, recovered from the source text.
21. Shri S.K. Jain, learned senior counsel, on behalf of the appellants drew our attention to the case of Tomaso Bruno and another v. State ofUttar Pradesh4, and argued that to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act the prosecution must have proved presence of the appellants in their house at the time of the incident. We have carefully gone through the case cited before us. It was a case where CCTV footage of the hotel was available but not produced to show the presence of the accused in the hotel and, as such, the plea of alibi that the accused had gone to witness "Subah-e-Bararas" from the hotel was accepted. The present case relates to a different kind of incident where a bride has been brutally murdered inside the house and her body, after cutting into pieces, was thrown in the park.
22. In Trimuk/1 Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maliaras/1tra-', which is a case similar in nature to the present one, this Court has held as under:- "15. 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 c 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 I 06 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."
23. Now we come to the plea of alibi taken by the appellants that they were in the shop at the time of the incident. On behalf of the appellants reliance has been placed on the case of Narendra Singh and another v. State of M.P. 6, in which it has been held that even in a – • (2015) 1 sec 178 '(2006) 10 sec 681 • (2004) 10 sec 699 c case where a plea of alibi is raised, the burden of proof remains on the prosecution, and it has been further observed that presumption of innocence is a human right.
24. In response to above Shri C.D. Singh, learned counsel for the State of Madhya Pradesh has referred to the case of Sureslt and another v. State ofHaryana7, wherein, discussing the issue in paragraph 19, this Court observed: – "9 ………… No doubt, the burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section l 06 is not meant to relieve it of that duty but the said provision is attracted when it is impossible or it is proportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish facts which are strictly within the knowledge of the accused …… "
25. Undoubtedly, as proved on the record in the present case the deceaseci was murdered inside the house and her body was thrown in the park, and was not missing from the house after going to her relative's place, as pleaded by the appellants in their statements under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. They have taken a blatant false plea.
26. In Ku/deep Singlt and-otlters v. State of Rajastlian", in paragraph 18 a three-Judge Bench of th is Court has held that in a case of circumstantial evidence when the accused offers an explanation and that explanation is found to be untrue, then the same offers an additional link in the chain of circumstances, to complete the chain.
27. Similar view has been taken by this Court in Rumi Bora Dutta v. State of Assam9, wherein it has been accepted that a false answer. offered by the accused when his attention is drawn to the circumstances, it renders a circumstance to be of inculpating nature, i.e. in such a situation a false answer can also be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain.
28. In an answer to above, the appellants have placed reliance on Rajkumar v. State of M.P. 10, wherein it has been held that mere false plea does not absolve the prosecution of burden to connect the accused '<2015) 2 sec 221 ' (2000J s sec 1 '(2013) 1sec417 10 (2004) 12 sec 11 JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] with the crime. On careful reading of the case referred to above, we find that it was a case where two views were possible, and the trial · court took the view that charge cannot be said to have been proved, but the High Court reversed it. In the case at hand there is consistent view taken by both the courts below that the appellants had acted in common intention with co-accused Dhanwantari in commission of murder of the deceased.
29. Defence version of the appellants in the present case is that appellant Jamnadas is a businessman having his shop at 5/2, Murai Mohalla, Sanyogitaganj, Indore. His working hours at the shop were from 9 a.m. till 8-9 p.m. It is contended that it is the usual practice for the sl.opkeepers in parts of Northern India to have lunch at their shops and that the appellants did not come to their residence for lunch. It is further pleaded that on the date of incident, i.e. 16.9.2006, at about 7.30 p.m. appellant Jamnadas was in his shop along with appellant Manoj and younger son Vishal when he got a .telephone call from his wife (Dhanwantari) who was at home and got information that Richa @ Bhoomi (deceased) had gone to her relative's place and did not return home. On hearing this, Jamnadas with both his sons came home and launched a search for his daughter-in-law. It is further pleaded that on 16.9.2006 till 9 p.m., when Richa@ Bhoomi did not return home, Jamnadas along with his two sons went to the police station for lodging missing report. At about 10 p.m. Jamnadas 's wife Dhanwantari and their minor daughter Reena@ Madhuri also came to the police station and that thereafter, the police illegally detained them for 3 days without formnlly arresting them. But this defence story get completely belied as prosecution has proved to the hilt that Bhoomi@ Richa was murdered inside the appellants' house, and there was no question of her going to her relative's place or missing.
30. The chain of circumstances proved on the record against the appellants is as under: – (i) It is established that Bhoomi@ Richa (deceased) was living in the house of the appellants, after her marriage on 16.04.2006 with appellant Manoj. (ii) It is also established beyond reasonable doubt that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature which occurred on 16.09.2006. c (iii) It is also established that the deceased was murdered c in the house of the appellants where blood stains were found. (iv) It is also conclusively established that after commission · of murder, the body of the deceased was cut into two pieces. (v) It is further proved that the dead body was thrown in the park by Dhanwantari (mother-in-law of deceased) who was seen doing so by PW I to PW 5. (vi) Perusal of the number of anti mortem and post mortem injuries mentioned in autopsy report read with statement of PW 15 Dr. N.M.
Unda establish beyond reasonable doubt that the crime could not have been committed by one person alone. (vii) There were in all five members in the family excluding the deceased – three male members (Jamnadas father- in-law, Manoj – Husband and Vishal brother-in-law of the deceased) and two female members (Dhanwantari mother-in-law and Heena @ Madhuri minor sister-in- ., law). (viii) PW 32 Heena@Madhuri (minor daughter of appellant no. I) was too young. She was a student of class VIII when her statement was recorded during trial and she has stated that she had gone to school on the day of incident and after her return she slept. (This witness was declared hostile as she did not fully support the prosecution case). It is nobody's case that she had any role in commission of the crime. This leaves four accused named in the chargesheet, out of whom Vishal, brother- in-law, was acquitted by the trial court (Rather discharged in respect of offence of murder).
His acquittal is upheld by the High Cow:t, and nobody has challenged the same. The remaining three in the field are Dhanwantari (mother-in-law) and the appellants. (ix) The appellants have failed to disclose as to how deceased has died which was especially within their knowledge. JAMNADAS v. STATE OF M.P. [PRAFULLA C. PANT, J.] (x) It is nobody's case that any outsider came in the house. (xi) There is no report lodged to police by the appellants regarding homicidal death of the deceased who was wife of appellant Manoj and daughter-in-law of appellant Jamnadas as discussed above. (xii) False explanation has been given by the appellants in their statements under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the deceased had gone to her relative's place and that she was missing which is an additional link on the record against them, in the chain of circumstances.
31. The above chain of circumstances against the appellants is complete, and the defence theory that they were in the shop cannot be accepted. Therefore, having re-appreciated the entire evidence on record, we concur with the courts below that appellants Jamnadas and Manoj had common intention with Dhanwantari in commission of brutal murder of Bhoomi @ Richa. It is not a fit case where impugned order requires any interference.
32. For the reasons, as discussed above, th!'lse appeals are liable to be dismissed, and the same are accordingly dismissed. Kalpana K. Tripathy Appeals dismissed. c