Incident Took Place Within Four Walls Of In-Law’s House; Death By Burns Is Within Their Knowledge: Rajasthan HC Overturns Acquittal In 2001 Dowry Death Case
The Rajasthan High Court has overturned acquittal in 2001 Dowry Death Case saying that the incident took place within four walls of the house of in-laws.
The Court was deciding a Criminal Appeal preferred by the State against the Judgment of acquittal passed by the Trial Court.
A Division Bench comprising Justice Pushpendra Singh Bhati and Justice Madan Gopal Vyas observed, “… the incident took place within the four walls of the accused-respondents’ house and the factum of death of the victim by burns is a circumstance which is specially within the knowledge of the accused-respondents. Further, the prosecution in the present case, has discharged its initial burden by proving the essential ingredients Section 304-B IPC, thereby shifting the onus on the accused-respondents under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to explain the circumstances within which the same took place. However, in the instant case the accused-respondents have remained silent and have not provided any cogent explanation on this point.”
Advocate C.S. Ojha appeared on behalf of the Appellant while Advocate B.S. Rathore appeared on behalf of the Respondents.
Facts of the Case -
A written report was submitted by a person stating that his younger sister (deceased) was married to the accused 3 years ago and that the dowry was given in the said marriage as per social status and standard. The deceased informed her family regarding the dowry demands and the incessant harassment in connection with the same from last 7-8 months by her father-in-law and mother-in-law on the pretext that her family gave insufficient dowry.
Based on the aforesaid report, a case was registered under Sections 304-B, 498-A, and 201 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). Accordingly, the accused was arrested and was later released on bail. The Trial Court acquitted the accused i.e., the Respondents giving them the benefit of doubt. Resultantly, the State approached the High Court.
The High Court in view of the facts and circumstances of the case, said, “… upon perusal of the Naksha Mauka (Ex.P. 4) it is clear that burnt clothes, clay and an empty plastic container were found at the place of incident. Further, the house had smell of kerosene in it. The same not just strengthens the prosecution’s case, but it also puts onus upon the accused respondents to explain the existence of the aforementioned in their house by virtue of Section 106 IEA, which in absence of any explanation from their side tilts the case against them.”
The Court further noted that the prosecution has discharged its initial burden and have thereby made out the case in its favour by proving the essential ingredients of the offence in question and at the same time, the accused failed to discharge the onus put upon them by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (IEA).
Accordingly, the High Court allowed the Appeal, quashed the impugned Judgment, and overturned the acquittal.
Cause Title- State of Ramdin and Anr. (Neutral Citation: 2024:RJ-JD:43838-DB)
