Introduction 

• This is a landmark judgment relating to Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and its applicability when the offence is committed in the privacy of the house.  
• This judgment was delivered by a bench consisting of Justice GP Mathur and Justice RV Raveendran. 

Facts  

• Revata was married to Trimukh Maroti Kirkan around 1989-1990 (about 7 years before the incident in 1996). 
• Trimukh and his parents (Maroti and Nilawati) allegedly harassed Revata for a dowry of Rs. 25,000 to purchase a tempo. They would beat her and deny her food. 
• During Panchami festival in 1996, Revata stayed at her parents' home for 15 days and disclosed the harassment. Her father then took her back and requested the in-laws to stop ill-treating her. 
• On November 4, 1996, Revata's family was informed that she had died due to a snake bite. 
• Initial police investigation registered it as an accidental death case. 
• Post-mortem examination revealed: 
  • Death was due to asphyxia from neck compression. 
  • Multiple injuries on face, neck, and shoulders. 
  • No evidence of snake bite or poison in the body. 
• Key evidence includes: 
  • Testimony of parents about dowry demands. 
  • Witness statements about harassment. 
  • Recovery of items (ladies chappal, broken bangles, sickle) from the crime scene. 
  • Body was found in sitting position with cloth tied around mouth. 
• The lower Courts gave the following verdict: 
  • Initially, Trimukh was acquitted of murder but convicted under Section 498-A IPC 
  • On appeal, High Court convicted him under Section 302 IPC with life imprisonment 
  • His parents were acquitted of Section 498-A charges on appeal. 

Issues Involved

• Whether the accused persons should be held liable on the basis of the circumstances in the trail? 

Observation  

• The Court laid down the circumstances that were established in this case: 
  • The marriage between the deceased (Revata) and the appellant (Trimukh) had taken place 5-6 years back. 
  • The appellant used to ply tempo. 
  • There was a demand of Rs. 25,000 by the appellant and the deceased was ill-treated and was occasionally not given food.  
  • After the death of Revata the appellant and his parents informed some persons in the village as also the family members of the deceased that she had died on account of snake bite. 
  • The post-mortem examination revealed that Revata had died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of snake bite. 
  • Certain recoveries like chappal of the deceased, broken pieces of bangles were made at the pointing out of the appellant. A shoe was also recovered at his pointing out. 
• Since, there were no eyewitness in the present the Court relied only on circumstantial evidence. In such cases the Court must see that the chain of circumstances must be so complete that there is no hypothesis other than the guilt of the accused. 
• If the offence takes place inside the privacy of the house in such a way that the assailants had all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence it would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused. 
• Here it is important to understand that Section 106 of IEA provides that when a fact is specially within the knowledge of a person the burden of proving the fact is on him. 
• Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution. However. However, the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence.  
• Thus, in such cases the burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. 
• The Court further observed that in view of Section 106 of IEA there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed.  
• The inmates of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation. 
• Further, the Court observed that when the case rests on circumstantial evidences the principle to be kept in mind is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the accused offers no explanation or false explanation it acts as an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.  
• The Court in this case held that the circumstances observed in the present case unerringly point to the guilt of the accused. 
• The Court hence held that the High Court was correct in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.
  

Conclusion 

• In this case the Court laid down an important principle that when an offence is committed in the privacy of the house in such a manner that the assailants have the opportunity to orchestrate the offence the burden of proof would be of a lighter character. 
• Further, non-explanation by the accused of any incriminating circumstance appearing against him will act as an additional link in the chain of circumstances.