The division judge bench of Justice Sudhir Singh and Justice Chandra Prakash Singh of the Patna High Court in the case of Girja Chaudhary vs. The state of Bihar held that failure on the part of the accused in not giving any response or explanation in regard to Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act becomes an additional link in the chain of events.
Brief Facts:
The factual matrix of the case is that as per the written report of the informant dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the accused who stated that he married his daughter to the son of the accused about 20 years ago. It was furthermore stated that the accused wanted to give the property to the deceased’s nanad and the deceased always protested this transaction due to which Girja Chaudhary, Rubi Devi, and her in-laws used to torture and beat the daughter of the informant and they threatened to kill her and after assaulting ousted her from the matrimonial house.
Thereafter, it was stated that his son-in-law and his nati came to the village to take a scholarship and his daughter Munni Devi was residing in her matrimonial house. Then, the accused informed him through a call that theft took place in his house and his daughter was murdered by cutting her neck.
On the basis of the written report, the case was filed and the chargesheet was also framed. The trial court convicted and sentenced the appellants.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the trial court's judgment was not sustainable in the eyes of the law. It was furthermore contended that no eyewitness was present there.
Contentions of the State:
The learned counsel appearing on behalf of the state contended that the prosecution has proved its case beyond a reasonable doubt. It was furthermore contended that only the accused people were present in the house on the day of the incident, leaving the deceased's husband and son out, giving them the chance to murder their daughter-in-law. Also, the burden to explain the injuries the victim sustained lies on the appellant as per section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.
Observations of the court:
The Hon’ble court observed that while making a statement pursuant to Section 313 of the code of criminal procedure, the appellants have a duty to explain the incriminating circumstances proven against him. If the appellants fail to do so, it adds another piece to the chain of evidence supporting the charges against him and furthermore, the investigating officer didn’t find any sign of commission of theft.
Furthermore, the in-laws didn’t inform the police about the death, didn’t even bother to take her to the hospital, and left her in a pool of blood, which is unnatural.
It was noted that the appellant and the deceased live in the same house so the burden of Section 106 of the Evidence Act falls on the appellants in the present case as facts regarding the commission of murder in their house are especially within their knowledge.
Based on these considerations, the court affirmed the decision made by the trial court.
The decision of the court:
With the above direction, the court dismissed the appeal.
Case Title: Girja Chaudhary vs The State of Bihar
Coram: Hon’ble Mr. Justice Sudhir Singh and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Chandra Prakash Singh
Citation: Criminal Appeal (DB) No.248 of 2018
Advocates for the Appellant: Mr. Bipin Kumar, Advocate Mr. Ajay Kumar Sinha, Advocate
Advocate for the Respondent: Mr. Abhimanyu Sharma, A.P.P.
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
Picture Source :
