Can the court hold the husband guilty of the murder of his wife if he fails to explain how she received the injury in his statement U/S 313 of CRPC?

  It is evident from the record and even not disputed by the

accused that incident took place in his house. Even though the

accused has attempted to show that he was not present at the time of the incident, it is found to be after thought and false story. The prosecution has established from the testimony of PW-1 Navnath and PW-2 Shivaji that the accused and deceased Kalpana/wife were alone present in the house when the incident took place. Both of them have stated that soon after the incident of setting Kalpana on fire, accused ran away from his house. That piece of evidence is found trustworthy and reliable. It is not the case of defence that Kalpana had committed suicide by setting herself ablaze after pouring kerosene on her person.

We have no manner of doubt that accused and his wife late Kalpana were alone in their house when the incident took place. The prosecution has travelled the journey successfully in establishing that it is none else, but accused had set his wife/Kalpana ablaze after pouring kerosene from a can on her person after picking up quarrel and thereafter ran away from the house. Kalpana raised hue and cry for help and in response, her brother PW-1 Navnath rushed there as well as PW-2 Shivaji and they extinguished the fire and brought her to the Ghati Hospital for treatment. Admittedly, Kalpana died due to 100% burn injuries and incident took place in her house. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which says that, “when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him”. {Para 38}

39. In case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra), it is held by the

Hon’ble Supreme Court that, “where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes placed in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime”. In this case, the accused has not offered any kind of explanation, even while his examination under Section 313 (1)(b)of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Certainly, it must be treated as an important incriminating circumstance against him in view of absence of any explanation as contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence Act in view of citation in case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan (supra).

IN THE HIGH COURT OF JUDICATURE AT BOMBAY

BENCH AT AURANGABAD

CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 295 OF 2014

Sanjay Maruti Doule Vs  The State of Maharashtra

CORAM : V. K. JADHAV AND

SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, JJ.

Pronounced on : 08.09.2021

JUDGMENT (PER SHRIKANT D. KULKARNI, J.) :-

Read full Judgment here: Click here

Print Page