Brijmohan And 2 Ors. vs The State Of Madhya Pradesh
2023 Latest Caselaw 15517 MP

                                                           1


                                IN THE HIGH COURT OF MADHYA PRADESH
                                                    AT I N D O R E
                                                       BEFORE
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE VIVEK RUSIA
                                                           &
                                        HON'BLE SHRI JUSTICE ANIL VERMA
                                          CRIMINAL APPEAL No. 1029 of 2012

                          BETWEEN:-
                          1.   BRIJMOHAN S/O BABULAL SONI, AGED
                               ABOUT 26 YEARS, OCCUPATION: JEWELRY
                               REPAIR, R/O 313/4, SARVHARA NAGAR,
                               INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          2.   BABULAL S/O BALDEVPRASAD SONI,
                               AGED ABOUT 59 YEARS, OCCUPATION:
                               BUSINESS, R/O 313/4, SARVHARA NAGAR
                               INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)

                          3.   SUSHILABAI W/O BABULAL SONI, AGED
                               ABOUT    50   YEARS,   OCCUPATION:
                               HOUSEHOLD, R/O 313/4, SARVHARA
                               NAGAR, INDORE (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                          .....APPELLANTS
                          (BY SHRI AMIT DUBE - ADVOCATE FOR APPELLANTS)

                          AND
                          THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH GOVT.
                          THRU.P.S. PARDESHIPURA, DISTT. INDORE
                          (MADHYA PRADESH)
                                                                          .....RESPONDENT
                          (BY SHRI KUSHAL GOYAL - GOVT. ADVOCATE)

                          Reserved on           :      09/08/2023
                          Pronounced on         :      21/09/2023




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/22/2023
3:05:58 PM
                                                                2


                                This appeal having been heard and reserved for orders, coming
                          on for pronouncement this day, the Justice Anil Verma pronounced the
                          following:
                                                      JUDGMENT

The appellant has preferred present criminal appeal under Section 374 of Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (in short 'Cr.P.C.') against the impugned judgment of conviction dated 09/07/2012 passed by 21 st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore (M.P.) in Sessions Trial No.488/2010, whereby the appellants have been convicted for the offence under Sections 302, 304-B and 498-A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'IPC') and sentenced to undergo Life Imprisonment with fine of Rs.5,000/-, 10 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- and 03 years RI with fine of Rs.1,000/- respectively with usual default stipulation.

2. It is an admitted fact that the deceased Annapurna Bai was the daughter of Jaidevi and Prakash Soni and her marriage was solemnized four years prior to the incident with the appellant No.1 Brijmohan as per the Hindu rituals and customs and due to the wedlock she was blessed with a son namely Ujjawal. Appellants No.2 and 3 Babulal and Sushilabai are the mother-in-law and father-in-law of the deceased. On 05/03/2010 deceased was found dead in her matrimonial house.

3. The facts of the case in brief are that the parents of the deceased has given a motorcycle as a dowry at the time of marriage of the deceased with the appellant Brijmohan, but after some time accused persons demanded car as a dowry and on account of non-fulfillment of their demand, they started mentally and physically harassing the deceased. Appellant/accused Brijmohan after consuming liquor oftenly

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

used to beat his wife deceased Annapurna. So many times appellants had thrown out the deceased from his house, even though after settling the dispute the deceased was residing with the accused persons.

4. On 01/03/2010, when the deceased went to her parental house, accused persons told her to bring Rs.40,000/- cash from her parents. Upon this parents of the deceased assured the appellant Brijmohan that after making arrangement they will give money to him, only thereafter appellant Brijmohan took his wife Annapurna with him. He has also threatened that if money is not arranged, he will leave her wife for forever. After four days, on 05/03/2010 at about 09:00 AM parents of the deceased to came to know that deceased has been burnt. When they reached at the matrimonial house of the deceased, they found that deceased was lying dead on her bed in burned condition and bedding were also burned. Mark of the injury and burn seen over the body of the deceased. Some blood stains were also found in that room. It has been gathered that all the appellants have brutally murdered the deceased. On the basis of the information provided by the Jaidevi a merg has been registered at Police Station Pardeshipura, Indore and dead body of the deceased was sent for postmortem. Dr. A. K. Lanjewar performed autopsy of the deceased and found various injuries over the body of the deceased and opined that the death of the deceased is caused due to cardio respiratory failure as a result of electrocution.

5. Prosecution story is further that police had prepared a spot map and recovered rope, kerosene oil, electric wire, hammer, gas wick stove, blood stained soil from the spot. All the articles were sent to the FSL, Sagar for its chemical examination and accused persons were arrested by

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

the Investigating Officer.

6. After due investigation, the charge sheet has been filed against the appellant and other accused persons before the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Indore, who committed the case to the Court of Sessions, which was later on transferred to the 21st Additional Sessions Judge, Indore for trial. Thereafter, the trial Court framed charges under Section 302, 304-B and 498 of IPC. The appellant abjured their guilt and pleaded that he is completely innocent and they have been falsely implicated in this matter. In order to bring home the charges, the prosecution has examined as many as 30 witnesses, but defence did not examine any witness. After completion of trial, the trial Court on due appreciation of the evidence available on record arrived at a conclusion that the prosecution has duly proved the case. Consequently, all the appellants have been convicted and sentenced as mentioned herein above. Hence, the appellants have preferred this appeal.

7. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that impugned judgment is contrary to the law and facts on record. There is material contradictions and omissions in the statement of the prosecution witnesses. No substantive evidence is available on record to establish that demand of dowry was made by the appellants. Appellants used to visit matrimonial house of the deceased on every occasions and they were having cordial terms. Prior to the incident, no report was made by the deceased or her parents regarding the ill treatment meted out to her. The trial Court has erred in giving undue importance to the prosecution witnesses Rajkumar Soni and Manohar Soni, who happens to be residing opposite to the house of the appellants. Hence, he prays that appellants

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

be acquitted from all the charges and the judgment of conviction and sentence passed by the trial Court be set aside.

8. On the other hand, learned counsel for the respondent / State opposes the prayer by supporting the impugned judgment passed by the trial Court and prays for dismissal of this appeal by submitting that there is ample evidence available on record against the appellants, which is sufficient to affirm the findings recorded by the trial Court. The trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence available on record in detail came to the conclusion that deceased was murdered by the present appellants. The trial Court has not committed any error in holding that the appellants are guilty of the aforesaid offence. Hence, no interference in the impugned judgment is warranted, therefore, present appeal deserves to be dismissed.

9. We have duly examined the entire record and have considered the rival contentions of both the parties.

10. First of all, it should be considered that as to whether the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature or not. The statement of Dr. A. K. Lanjewar (PW-14), postmortem report (Ex.-P/16) and short postmortem report (Ex.-P/17) shows that the following injuries have been found over the person of the deceased:-

"4& pksVksa dk fooj.k%& v& ?kksis gq, rFkk dVs gq, ?kko] bdkbZeksfll ds lkFk rFkk Dyhu dV ekftZu ds lkFk fuEu Hkkxksa ij ik;s x, & 1- nkfguh vkSj ds ekFks ij gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd okyk ?kko 0-7X0-3X0-2 ls-eh- vkdkj] 2- nkfgus ,axy vkWaQ esafMcy ds Hkkx ij nks dh la[;k esa ftldk vkdkj 1X0-4 ls-eh- rFkk 1-7X0-5 ls-eh- gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd] 3- cka;s iSj ds mijh Hkkx ij rhu dh la[;k esa mij okyk 1-7 X0-7 ls-

eh-] chp okyk 2-5X1 ls-eh- rFkk fupyk 1X0-4 ls-eh- vkdkj dk peM+h dh xgjkbZ rd okyk] 4- nkfgus QzaVy Hkkx ij gM~Mh

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

dh xgjkbZ rd okyk 2-5X1X0-2 ls-eh- vkdkj dkA c& fMQasflo dVk gqvk rFkk ?kksik gqvk ?kko Dyhu dV ekftZu ds lkFk fuEu Hkkxksa ij ik;k & 1- nkfgus fjax fQaxj ds vk/kkj Hkkx ij ekl isf'k;ksa dh xgjkbZ rd 1 X0-5X0-5 ls-eh- dVk gqvk rFkk ?kksik gqvk] 2- ck;s ehfMy fQaxj ij 0-5 X0-2 ls- eh- peM+h dh xgjkbZ rd] 3- nkfgus dksguh ij gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd okyk 0-5X0-2X0-3 ls-eh- vkdkj dk A l& nkfgus VsEiksjy Hkkx ij dVk gqvk ?kko ftldk vkdkj 4X1X0-3 ls-eh- vkdkj dk gM~Mh dh xgjkbZ rd okyk ?kko ekStwn Fkk A n& daV~;qTM ,czstj fuEu Hkkxksa ij ik;k & ¼lkeus dh rjQ½ 1& nkfgus vka[k ds pkjksa vksj rFkk nkfgus rjQ ds pgjs ij 16X7 ls-eh- dk] 2- ukdj ij 3X2 ls-eh- dk] 3- ckabZ vksj ds pgjs ij 13X11 ls-eh- dk] 4& ckabZ vkSj dh Nkrh ij 28X11 ls-eh- dk] 5& ckab tka?k ds mijh Hkkx ij 5 X1 ls-eh- dk] 6& cka;s gkFk ds MklZy Hkkx ij 3X1 ls-eh- dk] 7& nkfgus gkFk ds MklZy Hkkx ij 5X0-5 ls-eh- dk ¼ihNs dh rjQ½ 8& ckabZ vksj ds iqV~Bs ds Hkkx ij 28X20 ls-eh- dk] 9& nkfgus Hkqtk ls ysdj nkfgus gFksyh rd 65X23 ls-eh- dk] 10& nkfgus isyfod Hkkx ij 25X16 ls-eh-] 11& nkfgus ?kqVus rFkk iSj ds Hkkx ij 25X17 ls-eh- Hkkx ij] 12& cka, ?kqVus ls ysdj iSj ds fupys Hkkx ij 33X15 ls-eh- Hkkx ij] 13& ck;s Hkqtk ls ysdj cka;s gkFk dh gFksyh rd 36X25 ls-eh- dk] 14& /kM+ ds nkfguh vksj mijh rFkk e/; Hkkx ij 39X20 ls-eh- dk ftles fyfu;j bEizslu Hkh fn[k jgs Fks] 15& ckbZ vkSj /kM+ ds fiNys Hkkx ij mijh rFkk e/; Hkkx ij 23X11 ls-eh-dk] p& bysDV~ksdq'ku ekdZ fuEu Hkkxksa ij ik;k x;k & 1& nkfgus iSj ds vaxwBs ij rFkk lksy ij ckgj dh vkSj nks dh la[;k esa ftudk vkdkj 1-5X1 ls-eh- rFkk lksy rFkk iSj dh maxfy;ksa ij 10X7-5 ls-eh- vkdkj dk tyus dk Hkh fu'kku ekStwn Fkk] 2& cka;s baMsDl rFkk ehfMy iSj dh maxfy;ksa ij nks dh la[;k esa ftudk vkdkj & 2X1 ls-eh- vkdkj dk ekStwn FkkA 5& vkarfjd ijh{k.k & vkarfjd ijh{k.k djus ij eSaus ik;k fd & flj dh peM+h eas ck;k QzaVy Hkkx] nkfgus iSjkbVy Hkkx rFkk vkfDlfiVy Hkkx ij bdkbeksfll ekStwn FkkA [kksiM+h

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

rFkk efLr"d rFkk lh,l,Q datsLVsM gksdj LoLFk FkkA blh rjg Mk;Qzke mij dh vkSj vR;ar rukoiw.kZ fLFkfr esa FkkA isV rFkk NksVh vkar esa yxHkx 80 ,e,y Hkwjk nzo rFkk isLVh inkFkZ ekStwn gksdj E;wdl datsLVsM Fkk] fyoj] fLifyu rFkk fdMuh isy lQsnh fy, gksdj LoLFk Fkk] ew=k'k; esa yxHkx 20 ,e,y ew= ekStwn gksdj LoLFk] Hkhrj vkSj ckgjh tuu bfUnz;k LoLFk FkhA 6& mijksDr of.kZr lkjh pksVksa esa ykfyek fy;s gq, bdk;eksfll ekStwn gksdj l[r] /kkjnkj] ?kksius okyh] l[r ,oa cksFkjh rFkk bysfDV~d djaV ls vkbZ gksdj e`R;q ds 24 ?kaVs ds Hkhrj dh FkhA"

11. Dr. A. K. Lanjewar opined that the death of the deceased was caused due to the cardio respiratory failure as a result of electrocution and duration of death is within 24 hours since the postmortem examination. All the injuries were caused by hard, blunt and sharp object and also by electric current. Injuries are homicidal in nature and can cause death in ordinary course of nature. He has categorically stated in his statement that the aforesaid injuries were antemortem. Dr. Lanjewar, who has examined the various weapons and articles sent by the SHO, Pardeshipura and opined that injuries mentioned in the postmortem report may be caused by these seized articles. His query report is Ex.- P/18. The statement of Dr. Lanjewar is well supported by the Modi's Medical Jurisprudence & Toxicology. Nothing has been brought on record to disbelieve the statement and opinion given by the Dr. Lanjewar (PW-14), autopsy report (Ex.-P/16 and P/17) and query report (Ex.- P/18). On the basis of the aforesaid medical evidence available on record, the trial Court has rightly held that the death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and caused by hard and blunt object and also by electrocution.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

12. The entire case of the prosecution is based upon the circumstantial evidence. In the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (1984) 4 SCC 116, the Hon'ble Apex Court has held as under:-

"1. The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn must or should be and not merely 'may be' fully established;

2. The facts so established should be consistent with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

3. The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

4. They should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and

5. There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

13. The factors to be taken into account in adjudication of cases of circumstantial evidence is laid down by the Supreme Court in Anjan Kumar Sarma and others vs. State of Assam reported in (2017) 14 SCC 359 thus:-

"(1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established. The circumstances concerned "must" or "should" and not "may be" established;

(2) the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to No.2031/2009 hypothesis except that the accused is guilty;

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

(3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency;

(4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; and (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

14. In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 1 SCC 681, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has held as under:-

"12. In the case in hand there is no eyewitness of the occurrence and the case of the prosecution rests on circumstantial evidence. The normal principle in a case based on circumstantial evidence is that the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established; that those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; that the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and they should be incapable of explanation on any hypothesis other than that of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with his innocence."

15. The principles of circumstantial evidence is reiterated in Nizam and Another Vs. State of Rajasthan reported in (2016) 1 SCC 550, wherein the Supreme Court has held that:-

"8. Case of the prosecution is entirely based on the circumstantial evidence. In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled law is that the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

must be conclusive in nature. Moreover, all the circumstances should be complete, forming a chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further, the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused totally inconsistent with his innocence."

16. In the instant case the trial Court has relied upon the testimony of Jaidevi (PW-1), Prakash Soni (PW-2), Abhimanyu Soni (PW-3), Shivprasad (PW-4), Chagan Soni (PW-5), Sunil (PW-6), Shailesh Jaiswal (PW-7), Bhuramali (PW-8), Nandimin (PW-9), Dhananjay Verma (PW-10), Rajkumar Soni (PW-11), Manohar Soni (PW-12) and Anil Soni (PW-13). All these witnesses have categorically stated in there statements that appellants earlier used to frequently maltreat the deceased and they were constant threatening the deceased for bringing Rs.40,000/- cash and car from her parents and on account of non- fulfillment of their demands they used to mentally and physically harassed her. On several occasions, they thrown out her from their home. The conduct of the appellants clearly indicates that their relations with the deceased were not cordial, therefore, it is proved that there is sufficient motive for the appellants to kill the deceased.

17. Prakash Soni (PW-2), who happens to be the father of the deceased also deposed that on 01/03/2010 on the occasion of Holi his son-in-law accused Brijmohan came with his daughter at his home and asked him whether he has arranged the money or not? He replied that he will arrange the same within two to three months. Brijmohan demanded Rs.40,000/- cash and a car from him. On that day, Brijmohan returned back to his home along with his daughter by saying him to arrange the money otherwise he will not find his daughter. On the day of

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

Rangpanchmi he came to know that his daughter Annapurna has been died.

18. Jaidevi (PW-1), who happens to be the mother of the deceased, also corroborated the statement of her husband Prakash Soni by stating that her son-in-law finally told her that if they will not give money to him, he will desert their daughter. On the next day, her daughter Annapurna was found dead inside her room. Abhimanyu Soni (PW-3), who is the brother of the deceased also corroborated the statement of Prakash Soni by stating that when the accused Brijmohan last time came their home, he threatened them that if they will not arrange the amount of Rs.40,000/- and car he will left his sister. There is no material contradictions and omissions in the statement of all these witnesses, therefore, on the basis of the statement of aforesaid witnesses, it is proved that soon before the death of deceased, appellant Brijmohan threatened and pressured the parents of the deceased for demand of Rs.40,000/- cash and car.

19. A ground has been raised by the appellants that all these witnesses Jaidevi (PW-1), Prakash Soni (PW-2), Abhimanyu Soni (PW-3), Shivprasad (PW-4), Chagan Soni (PW-5), Sunil (PW-6), Shailesh Jaiswal (PW-7), Bhuramali (PW-8), Nandimin (PW-9), Dhananjay Verma (PW-10), Rajkumar Soni (PW-11), Manohar Soni (PW-12) and Anil Soni (PW-13) are closely related with the deceased, therefore, being interested witnesses, their testimony cannot be relied upon.

20. It is well established principle of law that the evidence of a witness cannot be discarded merely on the ground that he is relative or interested witness.

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

21. The Supreme Court in the case of Mahavir Singh vs. State of M.P. reported in (2016) 10 SCC 220 has held as under:-

"18. The High Court has attached a lot of weight to the evidence of the said Madho Singh (PW 9) as he is an independent witness. On perusal of the record, it appears that the said person already had deposed for the victim family on a number of previous occasions, that too against the same accused. This being the fact, it is important to analyse the jurisprudence on interested witness. It is a settled principle that the evidence of interested witness needs to be scrutinised with utmost care. It can only be relied upon if the evidence has a ring of truth to it, is cogent, credible and trustworthy. Here we may refer to chance witness also. It is to be seen that although the evidence of a chance witness is acceptable in India, yet the chance witness has to reasonably explain the presence at that particular point more so when his deposition is being assailed as being tainted.

19. A contradicted testimony of an interested witness cannot be usually treated as conclusive."

The Supreme Court in the case of Harbeer Singh vs. Sheeshpal reported in (2016) 16 SCC 418 has held as under:

"18. Further, the High Court has also concluded that these witnesses were interested witnesses and their testimony was not corroborated by independent witnesses. We are fully in agreement with the reasons recorded by the High Court in coming to this conclusion.

19. In Darya Singh v. State of Punjab, this Court was of the opinion that a related or interested witness may not be hostile to the assailant, but if he is, then his evidence must be examined very carefully and all the infirmities must be taken into account. This is what this Court said: (AIR p. 331, para 6) "6. There can be no doubt that in a murder case when evidence is given by near relatives of the victim and the murder is alleged to have been

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

committed by the enemy of the family, criminal courts must examine the evidence of the interested witnesses, like the relatives of the victim, very carefully. ... But where the witness is a close relation of the victim and is shown to share the victim's hostility to his assailant, that naturally makes it necessary for the criminal courts to examine the evidence given by such witness very carefully and scrutinise all the infirmities in that evidence before deciding to act upon it. In dealing with such evidence, courts naturally begin with the enquiry as to whether the said witnesses were chance witnesses or whether they were really present on the scene of the offence. ... If the criminal court is satisfied that the witness who is related to the victim was not a chance witness, then his evidence has to be examined from the point of view of probabilities and the account given by him as to the assault has to be carefully scrutinised."

22. However, all these witnesses are close relatives and neighbors of the deceased and can be said to be related with the deceased only, but they cannot be considered as 'interested' witnesses. They can be called 'interested' witnesses only when they derives some benefit from the result of a litigation, therefore, all these witnesses are natural witnesses and are the only possible witnesses in the circumstances of a case and cannot be said to be 'interested' witnesses. They are not having enmity with the appellants, therefore, there is no possibility of false implication of the appellants. Their evidence does not suffer from any infirmity as such. Evidence of all these witnesses have been scrutinized with due care and after that we are satisfied that evidence of all these witnesses have a ring of truth and such evidence can be relied upon.

23. Learned counsel for the appellants submits that there are material

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

contradictions and omissions in the statement of prosecution witnesses, hence, their evidence cannot be relied upon, but from perusal of their evidence it appears that no material contradiction and omission has been found in the statements of all these witnesses. The contradiction and omission appears in the the statement of witnesses are trivial in nature.

24. So far as the minor omissions in the evidence is concerned, it is well established principle of law that every omission cannot take shape of a contradiction and unless and until it is pointed out that the omission or improvement goes to the root of the case, the same cannot be treated as contradiction. The Supreme Court in the case of Yogesh Singh Vs. Mahabeer Singh & Ors. reported in (2017) 11 SCC 195 has held as under:-

"29. It is well settled in law that the minor discrepancies are not to be given undue emphasis and the evidence is to be considered from the point of view of trustworthiness. The test is whether the same inspires confidence in the mind of the Court. If the evidence is incredible and cannot be accepted by the test of prudence, then it may create a dent in the prosecution version. If an omission or discrepancy goes to the root of the matter and ushers in incongruities, the defence can take advantage of such inconsistencies. It needs no special emphasis to state that every omission cannot take place of a material omission and, therefore, minor contradictions, inconsistencies or insignificant embellishments do not affect the core of the prosecution case and should not be taken to be a ground to reject the prosecution evidence.

The omission should create a serious doubt about the truthfulness or creditworthiness of a witness. It is only the serious contradictions and omissions which materially affect the case of the prosecution but not every contradiction or omission. (See Rammi Vs. State of M.P., (1999) 8 SCC 649; Leela Ram Vs. State of Haryana,

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

(1999) 9 SCC 525; Bihari Nath Goswami Vs. Shiv Kumar Singh., (2004) 9 SCC 186; Vijay Vs. State of M.P., (2010) 8 SCC 191; Sampath Kumar Vs. Inspector of Police, (2012) 4 SCC 124; Shyamal Ghosh Vs. State of W.B., (2012) 7 SCC 646 and Mritunjoy Biswas Vs. Pranab, (2013) 12 SCC 796)."

25. It is an admitted fact that marriage of the deceased was solemnized with the appellant No.1 Brijmohan four years prior to the death of the deceased, therefore, no presumption under Section 113-B of the Evidence Act can be drawn. It is also noteworthy that deceased Annapurna died an unnatural death due to the burn injuries and found inside the bedroom in the house in which she resides with her husband and in-laws. This fact is also admitted by the appellant No.1 Brijmohan in his statement under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. before the trial Court in the answer of question No.169, therefore, undoubtedly it is proved that dead body of the deceased was found in the house of the appellants, but no explanation has been offered by the appellants that how the death of the deceased occurred and how she sustained injuries inside their house.

26. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra reported in (2006) 10 SCC 681 = 2006 AIR SCW 5300 the court said that where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, silence of inmates of house about cause of death would become additional link in chain of circumstances. Case was related to dowry death and court said that in view of Section 106 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.

27. Inspector Santosh Singh Bhadoriya (PW-25) deposed that he went on the spot and prepared Inspection Panchnama (Ex.-P/15) and found

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

that domestic articles were scattered inside the room. Deceased was lying dead on bed in burnt condition and bedding was also burned. Kerosene oil was also found lying on the floor and blood stain was found on the utensils. A rope was also found tied with angle. He has arrested the accused Brijmohan through arrest memo (Ex.-P/11) and on the basis of his discovery statement (Ex.-P/12) he has recovered a hammer, electric wire, Baniyan and full pant from his possession. Blood was found on the hammer and scissor. He has also recovered a blood stained T-shirt from the possession of Brijmohan through seizure memo (Ex.-P/10).

28. Bhuramali (Ex.-P/8) also corroborated the statement of Investigating Officer Shri Santosh Singh Bhadoriya (PW-25), therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid evidence. Seized articles were sent to the FSL, Sagar and as per the FSL report human blood was found on the seized hammer, electric wire, T-shirt, Baniyan and full pant, which were seized from the possession of the appellant Brijmohan. Therefore, there is no reason to disbelieve the aforesaid evidence and the trial Court has rightly relied upon the aforesaid oral as well as documentary evidence.

29. In view of the above discussion, it is proved beyond reasonable doubt that the appellants/accuses persons prior to the incident were constantly maltreating the deceased with they were frequently threatening her for bringing cash of Rs.40,000/- and car from her parents and on account of non-fulfillment of their demand they physically and mentally harassed her and soon before the death of the deceased they have also beaten her in a brutal manner and also set ablaze her. They

Signature Not Verified Signed by: TEJPRAKASH VYAS Signing time: 9/22/2023 3:05:58 PM

have also given electric shock to her, due to which deceased Annapurna has been died.

30. Looking to the testimony of these witnesses coupled with the medical evidence and all other circumstantial evidence available on record, we are of the opinion that the trial Court did not commit any error in holding that all the appellants committed cruelty with the deceased for non-fulfillment of their demand of dowry and within seven years of marriage of the deceased, they have murdered her.

31. For the reasons stated herein above, we find no force in this appeal and the appeal being devoid of any merit substance is hereby dismissed. The conviction and jail sentence awarded by the trial Court to the appellants under Section 302, 304-B and 498-A of IPC is hereby upheld and confirmed.

32. The appellants are in jail and they shall remain in jail to undergo the remaining part of jail sentence awarded to them. Disposal of the property shall be as per the orders of the trial Court.

33. Let a copy of this judgment be sent along with the record to the concerned trial Court for information and necessary action.

Certified copy as per rules.

                                 (VIVEK RUSIA)                                      (ANIL VERMA)
                                   J U D G E                                          J U D G E
                          Tej




Signature Not Verified
Signed by: TEJPRAKASH
VYAS
Signing time: 9/22/2023
3:05:58 PM