Absence Of Proof Of Motive Does Not Break Link In 'Chain Of Circumstances' Connecting Accused With Crime: P&H HC Upholds Conviction In Dowry Death Case

The observation was made while hearing an appeal filed by the husband, who was convicted for murder of his wife in connection with demand for dowry.

The complainant's daughter was married to the Appellant however, shortly after marriage, it is alleged that the Appellant started demanding dowry. He used to pressurize the deceased to bring more dowry otherwise he would kill her, the complainant alleged.

It was further averred that one day, the complainant received a call from the Appellant where he informed that her daughter Preeti died and her dead body was lying in Government Hospital. On this information, the complainant along with her husband reached the government hospital, they saw the dead body of the deceased lying with injury marks all over her body. When they enquired, they came to know that the Appellant/accused murdered their daughter after giving beatings and poison to her in greed of dowry.

On this, an FIR was lodged against the accused under Section 302 and 498-A IPC. After the investigation, the chargesheet was submitted and the Appellant-accused was convicted by Additional Sessions Judge and awarded to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs. 25,000/-.

Hence, this instant appeal was filed by the accused/appellant.

The counsel for the Appellant submitted that the case of the prosecution was merely based upon the circumstantial evidence, there was no eye witness and there were material contradictions and discrepancies in the testimony of prosecution witnesses. The counsel further stated that the trial Court failed to establish the motive behind the murder by the appellant and submitted that an offence under Section 498-A or 302 IPC is not made out.

On the contrary, the counsel for the Respondent-State submitted that there is cogent evidence on record to show that the appellant was involved in the commission of the offence.

Findings

In view of the factual matrix of the instant case and circumstances that occurred, the bench negated the argument of the appellant. It noted that from the merely because there is no eye witness in the present case, is not enough to come to the conclusion that the appellant is not guilty of the offence. It was of the view that the prosecution case stood established beyond reasonable doubt through the witness testimonies.

"It is well proved that the appellant/accused under the greed of dowry mentally and physically harassed the deceased and ultimately murdered her by giving poison which fact is corroborated by the medical evidence. The appellant has totally failed to falsify the depositions of PW4 and PW-8...The prosecution has led cogent evidence to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt. In fact, the complete chain of link evidence stands established from the testimonies of various witnesses produced by the prosecution."

The Court further expressed that even though there is no eye-witness, the fact remains that murder has taken place in the house of the Appellant.

"The question then is who is the author of the murder? The contention of learned counsel for the appellant that the appellant had no motive and the evidence led before the trial court is not sufficient to establish motive. As noticed above, it is well established that there was motive of demand of dowry behind the murder of the deceased at the hands of the appellant. Even for the sake of arguments, it is assumed that there is no motive made out, but the fact remains that the case is based on circumstantial evidence (which per court stood established)."

The Court added that circumstantial evidence is in no way inferior to direct evidence and circumstantial evidence can be the sole basis of conviction.

With respect to the presumption under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him, the Court said,

"It was the bounden duty of the appellant/accused to explain how the death of his wife Preeti occurred, as she was residing with him in her matrimonial home...No reasonable explanation has been given by the appellant/accused that under which circumstances, his wife Preeti had consumed poison or why he should not be responsible for her murder in peculiar facts of the case."

Hence the court held that there is no illegality in the judgment of conviction and order of sentence passed by the Trial Court and dismissed the appeal.

Case Title: Vineet vs State Of Haryana

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (PH) 35

Click Here To Read/Download Order