Balvir Singh Vs. State of Uttarakhand
Criminal Appeal No. 2430 OF 2014
1. Since both the captioned appeals arise from a common judgment and order passed by the High Court dismissing two criminal appeals of two accused persons tried in one sessions case those were heard analogously and are being disposed of by this common judgment and order.
2. These appeals are at the instance of two convicts and are directed against a common judgment and order dated 24.03.2014 passed by the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in the Criminal Appeal No. 273 of 2013 and Criminal Appeal No. 274 of 2013 respectively by which the High Court dismissed both the appeals and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of conviction passed by the Additional District and Sessions Judge Kotdwar, Garhwal in the Sessions Trial No. 48 of 2008 holding Balvir Singh (husband) guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, (for short, ‘the IPC’) alongwith the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and Maheshwari Devi (mother-in-law) guilty of the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC read with Section 34 of the IPC.
CASE OF THE PROSECUTION
3. The deceased, namely, Sudha was married to Balvir Singh. The marriage of the deceased with Balvir Singh was solemnised on 12.12.1997. In the wedlock a son was born. On 02.06.2007, father of the deceased, namely, Virendra Singh (PW1) preferred an application in the court of the Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kotdwar, Garhwal under Section 156(3) Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short, ‘the CrPC’), seeking a direction to the Police to register an FIR in connection with the death of his daughter in suspicious circumstances. The Judicial Magistrate First Class, Kotdwar, Garhwal, passed the following order dated 04.06.2006:
“Order
04.06.2006
Applicant Virendra Singh had filed application under section 156(3) Cr.P.C. for passing order for registration of First Information Report against accused persons, wherein, applicant has mentioned as under that marriage of daughter of applicant Sudha had been solemnized on 12.12.1997 with Balvir Singh son of late Mahavir Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, Kumbhuchau, Halqa-Saneh, Kotdwar, Garhwal at Uttari Jhandichaur, Police Station Kotdwar and out of their wedlock, one son was born to them. After sometime from solemnization of marriage Balvir Singh and Smt. Maheshwari Devi mother of Balvir Singh connived together and started harassing my daughter in different ways and started raising demand of Rs. One lakh cash in dowry. Applicant’s daughter informed applicant about the same through letters. Balvir Singh has been working in a Private Nursing Home in Delhi and he is very well acquainted with medicines. According to the Applicant, Balvir Singh before committing murder of his daughter managed to arrange fake prescription slips which he has kept with him. Despite reluctance of his daughter, on 09.05.07 Balvir left his son at Kotdwar and forcibly took my daughter Sudha who was in healthy condition to Mangolpuri, Delhi. Before leaving, Applicant’s daughter expressed her wish to her uncle over telephone about her reluctance for going to Delhi. On 13.05.07 at about 1.30 o’clock in the night Applicant’s younger brother Harender Singh received information from Delhi over phone that his daughter Sudha has all of a sudden left for her heavenly abode in Mangolpuri. Balvir Singh did not give this information to any of the other family member rather some neighbour gave this information to the younger brother of Harender Singh; Shivcharan, who resides in Delhi. Shivcharan visited Mangolpuri in the night itself, where he came to know that she was in good health on that night and Balvir Singh after the death of the deceased, took her dead body to his home at Ratanpur, Kotdwar by private ambulance without giving information to anyone. When the applicant came to know about this fact, he informed the police of Police Station Kotdwar. There were reddish injury marks apparent on the throat of the applicant’s daughter, due to which the Police initiated inquest proceedings and arranged postmortem of the dead body.
On calling for the report from Police Station on the application filed by applicant, Police Station has submitted that no First Information Report is lying registered at Police Station on the basis of facts mentioned in the application moved by applicant under section 156(3) Cr.P.C Applicant has filed photocopies of letters written by his daughter and photocopies of applications lodged by him with Inspector Incharge of Police Station Kotdwar and Deputy District Magistrate, Kotdwar in court in support of his application filed under section 156(3) Cr.P.C.
On the basis of documents filed by applicant in support of his application, prima facie offence seems to be made out. Therefore, in such circumstances, registration of First Information Report seems to be essential. Therefore, S.H.O., Police Station Kotdwar is ordered that hiving registered First Information Report in the light of application filed by applicant under section 156(3) Cr.P.C and to conduct investigation.
Sd/-
Judicial Magistrate”
4. Pursuant to the aforesaid order passed by the learned Judicial Magistrate, the First Information Report came to be registered at the Kotdwar Police Station on 09.06.2007 for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC and Sections 3 and 4 respectively of the Dowry Prohibition Act, 1961 (for short, ‘the Act 1961’). The First Information Report reads thus:
“Sir, Applicant Virendra Singh, son of late Mohan Singh, resident of Village Mawasa, Patti –Ajmer Pall, Tehsil Kotdwar Garhwal respectfully submits as under:-
1. That the marriage of my daughter Sudha had been solemnized on 12.12.1997 with Balvir Singh, son of late Mahavir Singh, resident of village Ratanpur, Kumbhuchaur, Halqa-Saneh, Kotdwar, Garhwal, from the house of my younger brother located at Uttari Jhandichaur, Police Station Kotdwar and out of the wedlock, one son was born to them.
2. That sometime after marriage, Balvir Singh and Smt. Maheshwari Devi who is the mother of Balvir Singh, in connivance with him, started harassing my daughter in different ways and raising demand of Rupees One lakh cash in dowry. Smt. Maheshwari Devi has been getting pension and also owns landed property. Balvir Singh is a greedy person and under the greed of pension of his mother, he has been harassing my daughter and subjecting her to beatings, not providing food to her, and that the women of the village somehow provided her food by hiding themselves from these people. My daughter wrote letters to us complaining about this fact. When Balvir Singh and his mother came to know about these letters, then they pressurized my daughter for asking back the said letters and we accordingly returned those letters, but letter dated 20.05.04 which has been lodged by us at Police Station, remained with us. In this letter also my daughter has put her grievances and harassment that she faced.
3. That on getting knowledge of this incident me, my few relatives, Panch, and Pradhan Ratanpur visited and tried to convince Balvir Singh and his mother not to indulge in such acts so that in future my daughter may stay there properly and I did not lodge any report. However, Maheshwari Devi and Balvir Singh kept on hatching conspiracy for eliminating my daughter Sudha. Once they had made my daughter consumed poison also but my daughter had not told this fact to anyone.
4. That Balvir Singh has been working in a Private Nursing Home in Delhi and he is very well acquainted with medicines. Before committing murder of my daughter, he managed to arrange fake and forged prescription slips, which has been shown to police also, and investigation about these slips & medicines is required. Despite reluctance of my daughter on 09.05.07 Balvir left his son at Kotdwar in healthy condition and took my daughter Sudha at Mangolpuri, Delhi forcibly. Before leaving, my daughter expressed her unwillingness to go to Delhi, to my younger brother Harender over telephone.
5. That on 13.05.07 at about 1.30 o’clock in the night my younger brother Harender Singh received information from Delhi over phone that my daughter Sudha has left for her heavenly abode all of a sudden in Mangolpuri. Balvir Singh did not give this information to any of our family member rather some neighbour gave this information to the younger brother of Harender Singh; Shivcharan, who resides in Delhi. Shivcharan visited Mangolpuri in the night, where he came to know that my daughter was in good health on that night and Balvir Singh after the death of my daughter, took her dead body to his home at Ratanpur, Kotdwar by private ambulance without giving information to anyone. When we came to know about this fact, then we informed the police of Police Station Kotdwar but we could not provide all details at that time. As reddish injury marks were apparent on the neck of my daughter, Police initiated inquest proceedings and arranged postmortem of her dead body. Sir, I have reason to believe that the said Maheshwari Devi and her son Balvir Singh have killed my daughter having hatched a conspiracy and have also induced her little child also in their favour.
6. That her mother-in law and her husband Balvir Singh caused inhuman harassment to my daughter which amounts to a heinous crime. Photocopies of her letters are being annexed herewith. I had lodged report at Police Station and Deputy District Magistrate also that she has been killed, but no first information report has not been registered till now. Therefore, it is prayed to please order police of Police Station Kotdwar to register First Information Report and get the offenders punished for the offence committed by them.
Dated : 02.06.07. Applicant - Sd/- Virendra Singh son of late Mohan Singh, resident of Village Mawasa, Patti –Ajmer Palla, Tehsil –Kotdwar, District –Pouri Garhwal.
Note: I, HC 14 Kabool Singh Prajapati do hereby certify that copy of formal report has been recorded word to word which is clearly legible.
Sd/-
HC 14 Kabool Singh
Police Station Kotdwar
Dated : 09.06.07”
5. Upon registration of the FIR, the investigation was carried out. The dead body of the deceased on being brought from Delhi to Kotdwar, was sent for post mortem. The inquest panchnama was drawn in presence of the independent panch witnesses. The statements of various witnesses were recorded by the investigating officer under Section 161 of the CrPC. The viscera collected during the course of the post mortem was sent to the forensic science laboratory. Both the appellants herein were arrested and remanded to judicial custody.
6. Upon conclusion of the investigation, chargesheet was filed for the offences enumerated above. To the charge framed by the trial court vide order dated 21.02.2009, the appellants pleaded not guilty and claimed to be tried
7. The prosecution led the following oral evidence:
a. PW1 Virendra Singh (Father of the deceased)
b. PW2 Dr. Indra Singh Samant, Govt. Hospital (the Doctor who performed the post mortem)
c. PW3 Harender Singh (Uncle of the deceased)
d. PW4 Balbir Singh (Another uncle of the deceased)
e. PW5 M.M.S. Bisht (Senior Sub Inspector)
f. PW6 Baldev Singh (Panch witness to the inquest proceedings)
h. PW7 Kabool Singh (Head Constable)
8. Prosecution also led documentary evidence as under:
a. Post mortem report Exh.Ka-4
b. Inquest report Exh. Ka-5
c. Two letters written by the deceased to her father i.e., PW1 Exh.Ka-1 and Ka-2.
9. The appellants herein examined Shivam Rawat the son of the deceased as a defence witness (DW-1). The appellants also examined one Anoop Singh cousin brother of the deceased as a defence witness (DW-2).
10. Upon conclusion of the oral evidence, the further statement of both the appellants was recorded by the trial court. Two specific questions were put by the trial court to the convict Balvir Singh and the reply to the two questions were as under:
“Question No. 14:- Do you have anything else to say? Answer:- I am innocent. Complainant has lodged a false case.
Question No. 15 :- Poison has been found in the examination of viscera of the deceased. What do you have to say in this regard? Answer:- I do not have knowledge as to how the poison has been found, but the deceased was a heart patient and used to consume medicines.”
11. The mother-in-law of the deceased stated in her further statement recorded under Section 313 CrPC that she was innocent and had been falsely implicated.
12. The trial court upon appreciation of the oral as well as documentary evidence on the record held the husband guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the IPC and also for causing harassment punishable under Section 498A of the IPC. The trial court sentenced the husband to undergo rigorous imprisonment with fine of Rs. 10,000/- The mother-in-law, namely, Maheshwari Devi came to be acquitted by the trial court of the offence of murder, however, she stood convicted by the trial court for the offence punishable under Section 498A of the IPC and was sentenced to undergo 2½ years of imprisonment.
13. The trial court while holding the appellants guilty of the offence enumerated above, recorded the following findings:
“21. Deceased died of poison. Although prosecution could not bring clear evidence that victim was administered poison by accused, but regarding harassment PW-1 and PW-2 have produced evidence. This is established by Exhibit A1 and Exhibit A2 too. Moreover, after her death poison was found in viscera report. However, nothing has been said by the defence about how it entered the body of the deceased. Accused statement was registered under section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code and he was clearly asked that poison was found in deceased's visceral examination report, what you have to say about it? Regarding this accused Balvir Singh said that "I do not have knowledge how it was found, but deceased was heart patient and was on medication". Regarding this, defence examined DW-1 who is deceased's son and who said in his examination-in-chief that "my mother was undergoing treatment at Delhi, where she died". He further said "my grandmother and father love me a lot and treated my mother nicely". He is a child witness. This witness told that the death of the deceased took place during treatment but, nothing is said about where she was undergoing treatment, or how she died. Defence argued that deceased was a heart patient and because of which death occurred but this argument is negated by viscera report. DW-2 produced by defence said in his examination-inchief that "accused was getting the deceased continuously treated at Delhi. Deceased Sudha was distressed because of her illness. Accused use to take care of Sudha. Balvir Singh and his mother did not harass her, and that she may have done something to herself because of her illness". This witness produced by defence has based his evidence on new facts. During cross-examination, examination of prosecution witness by defence, no question regarding such matter was asked as to whether the deceased was distressed either before her illness or because of her illness. DW-1 who is deceased's son and on whom defence stressed upon, has not stated anything regarding the deceased being distressed due to her illness. DW-1 has only stated that death occurred during treatment, while DW-2 has based his evidence on new facts which are not concurring with the facts of defence because they have said that treatment was given at Escorts Hospital. Regarding this defence has questioned PW-1 that in year 2006 accused paid a bill of rupees 3,82,500/-at Escorts Hospital which was refuted by him. Regarding this defence has produced documents. I have examined those documents. Although defence have not proved those documents but in file page number 48A/2 a document of rupees 3,82,500/-is present which was given by Dr. Nitish Chandra, but said document is not a bill of payment instead it is an estimate required for complete checkup and operation, because in the document it is written that –‘Advance payment may please be made at the time of admission by case/demand draft in favour of Escorts Heart Institute and Research Centre Ltd. Payable at New Delhi’. By looking at the document it is clear that accused and others did not pay any money. Apart from this there is no document in the file for payment of rupees 3,82,500/-. regarding this there is no statement from defence.
22. Apart from this prosecution witness PW-4's crossexamination was conducted. In his cross-examination by defence the witness has said "it is true that in the inquest report deceased's husband stated that my wife after delivery of son, used to remain ill. Often, she had episodes of unconsciousness. On the night of 13 May 2007 at 10:00 pm, she had an attack and did not regain consciousness. I took her to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital, where she was declared dead by the Doctor". This witness gave statement in his cross-examination that deceased died at Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital regarding which no document was filed. Although this witness in his cross-examination also admitted that he was told this by Balvir Singh. This witness is supporting defence, but this witness statement is contrary to the oral and documentary evidence in the file. If the accused admitted deceased to Sanjay Gandhi Memorial Hospital after she had an attack on 13.5.2007, then there are no documents regarding this in the file and the defence has not given any statement as to this.
23. Defence has argued that deceased Sudha died on 13.5.2007. On 13.5.2007 her last rites were performed and complainant got the case registered under· section 156(3) on 2.6.2007. Application was filed very late and this delay has not been. explained. I am not in agreement with this argument of defence. Victim died on 13.5.2007 and it is said that on 13.5.2007 her last rites were performed, but on receiving the news of death prosecution witness immediately put forward his doubt. In inquest report it is clearly written that deceased Sudha's death is suspicious, and postmortem should be done. In above said inquest report PW-1 is one of the witnesses, he is deceased's father too. and was examined as PW1. During evidence witness has said that "Balvir lives in Mangolpuri at Delhi. Shivcharan was informed by neighbours that Sudha had died and they brought the dead body to Ratanpur. Next day I came to Kotdwar. I gave this information to Police station. Then Police and I came to Ratanpur. There police prepared inquest report. In inquest report I too was made a witness". As soon as witness received this information he raised a suspicion on the incident. Police station was informed. This witness further said "I wrote a letter to Police station to investigate into her death. In this regard I made a written complaint to S.D.M., Kotdwar". This witness further said "then, with my lawyer's help I filed a petition under section156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code on which court ordered to register a case". This witness on receiving information about incident immediately raised suspicion and asked for a postmortem to be carried out. On 14.5.2007 an application was written to Police station to investigate into the death of the Deceased. Police made inquest report and conducted postmortem. In this situation, defence cannot take benefit of the fact that complaint was registered under section 156(3) of Criminal Procedure Code, because this witness had informed Police station and S.D.M. Because of this information given by him to police, police came to spot and made inquest report.
24. In viscera report FSL has detected poison, in such situation the burden was on accused to prove whether deceased herself consumed poison and whether the deceased was under mental stress due to which she might have consumed poison, but defence did not make any statement of such kind during the whole trial. In the end DW-2 has presented this evidence that deceased was distressed because of her illness, but during the whole trial defence argued that deceased was a heart patient and was on treatment for it. Defence has argued that deceased was on medication and that because of chemical reaction medicine can naturally convert into poison, but no evidence was produced by defence regarding this, and no medical opinion was taken that deceased was taking medicine of such nature which due to chemical reaction could convert into poison in the body. As this was brought up by defence, in such situation burden was on them to prove it, but no statement was made about it. According to Indian Evidence Act section 114(g) - that evidence which could be and is not produced would, if produced, be unfavourable to the person who withholds it.
25. In the presenting case this is argued by defence that because of chemical reaction medicine can turn into poison in deceased's body, therefore the burden of proof was on defence, but regarding this no evidence was produced by defence. In such situation under section 114(g) it is important to presume that if any evidence was produced by accused then it would have been against him, because of which no evidence was produced by defence. But deceased’s death took place at Delhi. Accused Balvir Singh brought dead body from Delhi to Kotdwar. PW-1 in his examination-in-chief has said that "it is true that my daughter was living with accused at Delhi". On the basis of statement given by PW-1, deceased’s death took place at Delhi, where she was living with accused Balvir Singh. On the basis of viscera report deceased died of poison. At the time of death only accused Balvir Singh was present. Accused Maheshwari Devi was not in Delhi. Since, deceased died at Delhi, in such situation charge under, section 302 of Indian Penal Code is not found against Maheshwari Devi.
26. As far as the question of dowry is concerned, PW-1 and PW-2 have adduced evidence in this matter against accused Balvir Singh and Shrimati Maheshwari Devi that they are demanding dowry. This fact is also proved by document letters exhibit A-1 and exhibit A-2 present in the file. Charge under section 498A of Indian Penal Code against accused Balvir Singh and Shrimati Maheshwari Devi is proved beyond doubt.
27. After above arguments I have reached the conclusion that prosecution has proved that accused Balvir Singh and Maheshwari Devi mistreated and harassed deceased for dowry and demanded rupees 1 lakh from deceased. Therefore accused Balvir Singh and Maheshwari Devi are fit to be convicted under section 498A/34 Indian Penal Code. Because in this incident deceased has died and it has come up in the evidence that deceased was living with accused Balvir Singh in Delhi, therefore charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code against accused is proved and he is fit to be convicted for the said charge. As prosecution could not prove that accused Shrimati Maheshwari Devi was at Delhi with Balvir Singh during the time of deceased's death and no role of Maheshawari Devi is proved in deceased's death, therefore no charge under section 302 of Indian Penal Code is proved against Shrimati Maheshwari Devi and therefore, she is fit to be discharged of the above said charge.”
14. The appellants feeling dissatisfied with the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court went in appeal before the High Court. The High Court dismissed both the appeals and thereby affirmed the judgment and order of the conviction passed by the trial court. The High Court while affirming the judgment and order of conviction passed by the trial court held as under:
“3. In the chargesheet it was clearly held out that the death, in the instant case, was by poisoning. No sooner, the death was reported, PW1, looking at the dead body, insisted for an inquest and the same was done. In course of inquest, he expressed doubt as to the cause of death and demanded post-mortem. Accordingly, post-mortem was done. The doctor, who conducted post-mortem, could not determine the reason for the death. He, accordingly, preserved a part of the heart and the viscera of the deceased for the purpose of analysis. Viscera was sent for analysis and Forensic Science Laboratory, Agra, to whom the same was sent, reported that the same contained poison known as "Aluminium Phosphide". All these facts were in the chargesheet. The death, according to the chargesheet, had taken place at Delhi, when A1 alone was present with the victim. It is A1, who caused the dead body of the victim to be brought to Ratanpuri, Kotdwara. It was not the contention of A1 that the victim, at any point of time, had any suicidal tendency or that he suspects that the victim committed suicide. It was the contention of A1, as is evident from the trend of crossexamination of the prosecution witnesses, and, in particular, suggestions given to the prosecution witnesses that the victim was suffering from heart disease, for that, matter required frequent treatment and administration of medicine. It was suggested that such medicine, so administered, turned into the aforementioned poison. That being an assertion on behalf of A1, it was he, who was required to establish the same by tendering adequate evidence, which he miserably failed. A dead person, whose cause of death was by poisoning, was, accordingly, found on the lap of A1. A1 had special knowledge pertaining thereto. He failed to disclose· anything in relation thereto. The Court below, in the circumstances, has taken adverse inference against A 1 under Section 114(g) of the Evidence Act. We think that the Court below was entitled to take such inference in the backdrop of the case as depicted above.
4. We, accordingly, find no reason for interference. The Appeal is dismissed. The judgment of the Court below is affirmed. The Application (CRMA No. 1744 of 2013) filed for examining applicant as witness for the defence is not pressed. The same is dismissed. A1 is in Jail. He will serve out the sentence as awarded by the Court below. A2 is on bail. Her bail bond is cancelled. She is directed to surrender forthwith to serve out the sentence awarded against her.”
15. In such circumstances referred to above, the appeals are here before this Court with the captioned two appeals
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE APPELLANTS
16. Ms. Manisha Bhandari, the learned counsel appearing for the appellant vehemently submitted that the trial court as well as the High Court committed a serious error in holding the appellants guilty of the offence as enumerated above. It was argued that the case is one of “No Evidence” so far as the charge of murder is concerned. According to the learned counsel, the husband was working in Delhi past sometime before the date of incident whereas the deceased along with her son was staying at their native home town in the State of Uttarakhand. It was also sought to be argued that the deceased was not keeping well as she was suffering from a heart ailment. It was pointed out from the post mortem report as well as from the oral evidence of the doctor that the deceased had an enlarged heart and the ailment relating to heart could be the cause of sudden death. The learned counsel in the alternative put forward the theory of suicide. This theory of suicide was put forward by the defence on the basis of the fact that poison was detected in the viscera, in the form of “aluminium phosphide”. An attempt was made to argue that the deceased might have consumed poison and committed suicide as she was tired of her ailment.
17. It was also argued that the evidence of the two defence witnesses would suggest that there was no harassment of any nature to the deceased either by the husband nor by the mother-in-law. It was also argued that no sooner the deceased passed away than the husband immediately informed the family members of the deceased about her sudden death. It is the husband who carried the dead body from Delhi to his village at Uttarakhand.
18. It was argued that the entire case hinges on circumstantial evidence. It is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty.
19. The learned counsel submitted that the facts which, the prosecution has so established should be consistent only 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. The circumstances are not of a conclusive nature and tendency. The circumstances do not exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved.
20. In the last, the learned counsel submitted that this Court may set aside the conviction for the offence of murder and substitute the same with the offence of abetting the commission of suicide punishable under Section 306 of the IPC. It was pointed out that the convict-husband is undergoing sentence past more than 9 years.
21. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prayed that there being merit in both her appeals, those may be allowed.
SUBMISSIONS ON BEHALF OF THE STATE
22. Mr. Jatinder Kumar Bhatia, the learned counsel appearing for the State vehemently submitted that no error not to speak of any error of law could be said to have been committed by the High Court as well as by the trial court in holding the appellants guilty of the respective offences.
23. It was sought to be vehemently argued that the deceased along with her son was residing at their village whereas the husband was doing some job in Delhi. The husband on the pretext of medical treatment of the deceased brought her from the village to Delhi and within three days of their arrival in Delhi, the incident occurred. It was argued that if the case put forward by the husband is to be accepted then it is to be believed that while something went wrong with the deceased, the husband was very much present because according to the husband he had immediately taken the deceased to the Sanjay Gandhi Hospital. On being declared dead at the hospital, he thereafter brought the dead body to the village.
24. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel appearing for the State submitted that in view of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 (for short, ‘the Evidence Act’ or ‘the Act 1872’), it is for the convicthusband to explain as to what had actually transpired. It is the convict-husband who could be said to be in special knowledge of things that might have transpired at the relevant point of time.
25. It was argued that the presence of poison in the viscera would indicate that the same had been administered to the deceased in some manner and no one except the husband could have administered the poison. It was also argued that there was a strong motive for the husband to commit the crime. The husband has also been held guilty of causing lot of harassment to his wife and the same is evident from the two letters written by the deceased to her father and are exhibited in the evidence.
26. The learned counsel laid much stress on the fact that both the appellants have maintained complete silence especially of the facts which could be said to be within their personal knowledge. The failure to explain, the circumstances in which the death occurred is sufficient to hold the convict-husband guilty of the offence.
27. In such circumstances referred to above, the learned counsel prayed that there being no merit in the appeals those may be dismissed.
