{"file_name": "2024_10_1757_1768_EN.pdf", "text": "[2024] 10 S.C.R. 1757 : 2024 INSC 809\n\nUma & Anr. \nv. \nThe State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police\n\n(Criminal Appeal No. 757 of 2015)\n\n22 October 2024\n\n[Bela M. Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma,* JJ]\n\nIssue for Consideration\n\nWhether the High Court was able to demonstrate perversity and \nnon-appreciation of the materials on record by the Trial Court while \nreversing its finding of acquittal.\n\nHeadnotes†\n\nPenal Code, 1860, s.120B, 302, 201; Tamil Nadu Prohibition of \nHarassment of Women Act, 1998, s.4A – Appellants acquitted \nby Trial Court – High Court in impugned judgment reversed \nthe finding of acquittal and convicted the Appellants – Held, \nHigh Court has demonstrated perversity and non-appreciation \nof the materials on record by Trial Court – Appeals dismissed:\n\nHeld:  The  Trial  Court  acquitted  the Appellants  as  it  concluded \nthat the prosecution had not proven the case beyond reasonable \ndoubt; in the absence of ocular evidence, the Trial Court did not \nconsider it appropriate to award due to the medical evidence; and \nheld the motive to be highly artificial and unbelievable – Findings \nreversed by the High Court after thorough re-appreciation of the \nevidence on record – Post mortem report supported the case of \nhomicide on account of clear motive and presence of Appellants \nat  the  time  the  incident  occurred  –  Appellate  Court  must  not \nordinarily  reverse  the  finding  of  acquittal,  unless  perversity  and \nnon-appreciation  of  the  materials  on  record  is  demonstrated  – \nProsecution  has  proved  its  case  beyond  reasonable  doubt  and \nestablished chain of circumstances – Conclusion of guilt can be \ndrawn. [Para 28]\n\nCircumstantial Evidence – Five golden principles – Panchsheel \nof proof – Prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable \ndoubt:\n\n* Author\n\n\f1758 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nHeld: That the prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable \ndoubt, established the complete chain of circumstances including \nthe – (i) motive (ii) presence of the Appellants at the time of incident \n(iii)  false  explanation  in  the  statement  under  Section  313  of  the \nCrPC (iv) the conduct of the Appellants before and after the incident \n&  most  pertinently  (v)  the  medical  evidence  which  in  all  human \nprobability only correspond to the guilt of the Appellants. [Para 21]\n\nCircumstantial  Evidence  –  When  offence  is  committed  in \nthe privacy of a house, where accused is said to have been \npresent  –  Two  important  consequences  play  out  –  Section \n106 of Indian Evidence Act – Appellants have not discharged \ntheir burden:\n\nHeld: Two important consequences that play out when an offence \nis said to have taken place in the privacy of a house, where the \naccused  is  said  to  have  been  present  –  Firstly,  the  standard  of \nproof  expected  to  prove  such  a  case  based  on  circumstantial \nevidence  is  lesser  than  other  cases  of  circumstantial  evidence, \nand secondly, the accused would be under a duty to explain as to \nthe circumstances that led to the death of the deceased – limited \nshifting of the onus of proof – If accused remains quiet or offers a \nfalse explanation, then such a response would become an additional \nlink in the chain of circumstances – Appellants have not discharged \ntheir burden that the injuries sustained by the deceased were not \nhomicidal and not inflicted by them. [Para 24]\n\nReliance on medical evidence:\n\nObservation of the Trial Court that in absence of a direct occurrence \nwitness, motive to commit the crime and the evidence being purely \ncircumstantial  in  nature,  the  medical  evidence  becomes  of  less \nconsequences – Not a fairly plausible view. [Para 27]\n\nCase Law Cited\n\nSharad  Birdhichand  Sarda  v.  State  of  Maharashtra  [1985]  1 \nSCR  88  :  (1984)  4  SCC  116;  Trimukh  Maroti  Kirkan  v.  State  of \nMaharashtra  [2006]  Supp.  7  SCR  156  :  (2006)  10  SCC  681  – \nrelied on.\n\nList of Acts\n\nCode of Criminal Procedure, 1973; Penal Code, 1860; Evidence \nAct, 1872.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1759\n\nList of Keywords\n\nReversal of Judgment of Acquittal; Circumstantial Evidence.\n\nCase Arising From\n\nCRIMINAL  APPELLATE  JURISDICTION:  Criminal  Appeal  No.   \n757 of 2015\n\nFrom the Judgment and Order dated 04.03.2015 of the High Court \nof Judicature at Madras at Madurai in CRLA No. 161 of 2011\n\nWith\n\nCriminal Appeal No. 67 of 2016\n\nAppearances for Parties\n\nKathirvelu, Sr. Adv., T. R. B. Sivakumar, Beno Bencigar, Vairawan \nA.S, Jeyamohan, Sudhakaran, Alagiri Karunanidhi, Rohan Singh,  \nP. Soma Sundaram, Advs. for the Appellants.\n\nN.R. Elango, Sr. Adv., Sabarish Subramanian, C. Kranthi Kumar, \nVishnu Unnikrishnan, Naman Dwivedi, Sarathraj B, Danish Saifi,  \nP. V. Yogeswaran, Advs. for the Respondent.\n\nJudgment / Order of the Supreme Court\n\nJudgment\n\nSatish Chandra Sharma, J. \n\nIntroduction\n\n1.  These appeal(s) assail the correctness of the Final Judgment/Order \ndated 04.03.2015 passed by the Hon’ble High Court of Madras at \nMadurai  (the  “High  Court”)  in  Criminal Appeal  (MD)  No.  161  of \n2011 titled State Vs Uma & Ors. whereby the judgement of acquittal \ndated  19.10.2010  passed  by  the Additional  Sessions  Judge,  Fast \nTrack Court No.1, Thoothukudi (the “Trial Court”) in Sessions Case \nNo.300  of  2009,  has  been  reversed  and  consequently, Appellant \nNo.1/Accused No.1 has been convicted and sentenced to undergo \nimprisonment for life under Section 120B and 302 of the IPC together \nwith  a  fine  of  Rs.10,000/-  (Indian  Rupees  Ten  Thousand);  and \nAppellant  No.2/Accused  No.3  has  been  convicted  and  sentenced \nto undergo imprisonment for life under Section 120B read with 302 \n\nUma & Anr. v.  The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police\f1760 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nof the IPC together with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Indian Rupees Ten \nThousand). Pertinently, Ravi i.e., Accused No.2 was convicted and \nsentenced to undergo imprisonment for life under Section 120B and \n302 of the IPC together with a fine of Rs.10,000/- (Indian Rupees \nTen Thousand) (the “Impugned Order”). Ravi i.e., Accused No.2 \nhas  assailed  the  correctness  of  the  Impugned  Order  before  this \nHon’ble  Court  by  way  of  a  separate  criminal  appeal  i.e.,  Criminal \nAppeal  No.  67  of  2016. As  the  appeal(s)  arise  out  of  a  common \njudgement, they have been heard together; are being disposed of \nby this Judgement.\n\nCase of the Prosecution\n\n2. \n\nIt is the case of the prosecution that on 23.08.2008, Ms. Rajalakshmi \n(the “Deceased”) was murdered by her husband, Mr. Ravi (Accused \nNo.2)  and  her  aunt  &  uncle  i.e.  Ms.  Uma  (Accused  No.1)  and  Mr. \nBalasubramanian (Accused No.3). \n\n3.  The factual matrix reveals that the marriage between the deceased \nRajalaksmi  and  the Accused  No.2  had  been  solemnized  at Arthi \nThirumana Mandapam, Vilathikulam on 10.02.2008. At the time of \nmarriage, 50 sovereign of gold jewels; and vessels and other items \nworth Rs.50,000/- (Indian Rupees Fifty Thousand) were given to the \nHusband and his family. As revealed by P.W.-1, Mr. Chandrakasan \n(PW-1),  the  adoptive  father  of  the  deceased  in  his  examination, \none  week  after  the  marriage,  the  Deceased  had  informed  him, \nthat Accused  No.2  continuously  harasses  her  &  treated  her  like  a \nservant. It was further stated that Accused No.2 used to consume \nalcohol,  play  cards,  and  also  had  an  illegal  illicit  relationship  with \nhis  aunt,  i.e., Accused  No.1.  P.W.-1  in  the  Complaint  (Exhibit  P-1) \nand his examination as P.W.-1, stated that on one occasion Accused \nNos. 1 and 2 along with Deceased came to his house, and Accused \nNos.  1  and  2  slept  together  in  a  single  bedsheet  in  the  hall  while \nthe Deceased slept in the bedroom. It later came to his knowledge \nthrough  the  Deceased  that  this  was  not  an  usual  practice  at  the \nAppellants’ home. \n\n4.  On  23.08.2008,  one Arunachalam  had  informed  P.W.-1  that  the \nDeceased  has  consumed  paint  and  had  been  taken  to  the  local \nhospital. It was upon receiving the said information, P.W.-1 and his \nwife (P.W.-2) had come down to Government Hospital, Kovilpatti and \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1761\n\nfound the dead body of the deceased in the mortuary. Subsequent \nthereto,  P.W.-1  gave  a  written  Complaint  to  the  Sub  Inspector  of \nPolice (P.W.-15) exhibited as Exhibit P-1, which was registered as \nCrime No. 183 of 2008 under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal \nProcedure, 1973. It is highlighted that none of the accused persons \ni.e., the Appellants, informed the P.W. 1 or the family of the deceased \nof her death. \n\n5.  The contents of the Complaint, reveal glaring details of the disturbing \ncircumstances  &  troubles  that  the  Deceased  was  being  subjected \nto,  by  the  Appellants  at  the  time  of  her  marriage  and  the  said \ndetails,  have  been  substantiated  &  corroborated  by  P.W.-1  in  his  \ncross-examination. The wife of P.W.-1 i.e., Ms. Sooriya Kalavathi has \nalso adduced identical circumstances in her evidence, which affirm \nthe allegations of the de-facto complainant. Notwithstanding thereto, \nsuch evidence needs to be tested on the anvil of consistency with \nthe circumstances.\n\n6.  Since  the  Deceased  had  passed  away  within  a  period  of  6  (six) \nmonths from the date of her marriage, the Investigating Officer (the \n“IO”) (P.W.-20) had also made arrangements to conduct enquiry by \nRevenue  Divisional  Officer  (P.W.-l7). Although  the  Inquest  Report \nmarked as Exhibit P.14, stated that the death had not occurred due \nto demand of dowry, it is the case of the Prosecution, that Accused \nNo.1 and Accused No.2 strangulated the neck of the Deceased with \na saree. It is further alleged that Accused No.3 poured kerosene into \nthe  mouth  of  the  Deceased.  It  is  the  case  of  the  prosecution  that \nwith the intention to camouflage the incident, the accused persons \ni.e.,  the Appellants  poured  paint  and  kerosene  into  the  mouth  of \nRajalakshmi to make the death appear like suicide.\n\n7.  The said assertion of the prosecution is substantiated with medical \nevidence  which  reveal  ante-mortem  injuries  sustained  by  the \ndeceased.  The  Postmortem  Report  i.e.,  Exhibit  P-3  prepared  by \nDr. Venkatesh, P.W.-10 reveals that 3 external injuries over the left \nupper arm, left shoulder, right shoulder and neck & the hyoid bone \nwas found to be broken. The relevant extract of Postmortem Report \nis reproduced as under:\n\n\"1.  Multiple contusions over left arm upper 1/3rd and left \nshoulder (anterior aspect) each of size 2 x 2 cms (3 Nos)\n\nUma & Anr. v.  The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police\f1762 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\n2.  Multiple contusions right shoulder (anterior aspect)\n\n3.  Contusion in front of neck 6 x 2 cm extending from \nright sternocleidomastoid to left sternocleidomastoid.”\n\n8.  P.W.-10, Dr. Venkatesh, in his examination-in-chief further makes it \nclear that the fracture on the hyoid bone was found broken before \nthe  demise  of  the  Deceased.  He  disclosed  that  the  death  of  the \nDeceased  occurred  from  suffocation  in  breathing.  There  was  no \nchance of consuming liquid for a person whose hyoid/Navaldi bone \nhad been fractured and the person could have died due to pressure \non  the  neck  &  problem  in  breathing.  The  relevant  extract  of  his \nexamination-in-chief is reproduced as under: \n\n“I started the Postmortem at 4.15 p.m. Rigor Mortis present \nin hands and legs. The dead body was kept lying on its \nback. There are external injuries.\n\nIt  was  broken  on  the  inner  side.  Food  pipe  was  found \ncallus.  At  5.15  p.m.,  the  Postmortem  was  completed. \nInternal organs of the dead body were sent to Chemical \nanalysis. Navaldi bone was sent to the professor. In the \nNavaldi bone investigation, it was found broken before the \ndeath. Based on the report, Chemical Analysis Department, \nthere is no poison found on the internal ~ organs, I have \nstated the said information in  the  Postmortem Report. I \nopined the aforesaid person would have died due to the \npressure given to aforesaid person on his neck and I issued \nthe Postmortem Report Ex.P.3. Visera Report is Ex.P.4.”\n\n…….\n\nThe wounds 1 and 2 noted in the Post Mortem Report would \nhave caused due to the pressure made on his neck. Blood \nclots in the neck and the congestion in the food pipe due \nto pressing of the neck. The fracture of Navaldi bone found \non the internal side is caused due to the pressure made \non the neck. There is no chance of liquid consumption to \na person whose Navaldi bone was fractured. There is no \nchance for demise of a person whose Navaldi bone was \nfractured. Breathing problem may be caused and then the \ndeath may occur.”\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1763\n\n9.  P.W.-11, Muppidathi, Scientific Assistant, who prepared the Viscera \nReport, also deposed on 18.09.2008 that there was no poison found \nin the internal organs of the deceased and it was her ultimate opinion \nthat the Deceased appeared to have died of compression over neck. \nThe Postmortem Report prepared by Dr. Venkatesh, Assistant Doctor \n(P.W.-10)  as  well  as  Exhibit  P-4  (Visera  Report)  prepared  by  the \nMuppidathi, Scientific Assistant, clearly establish that the Deceased \nhad sustained external as well as internal ante-mortem injuries, which \ncould not have been a natural consequence of consuming paint, as \nalleged by the Appellants. \n\n10.  A  cumulative  reading  of  the  medical  record  along  with  deposition \nof P.W.-1 to P.W.-4 create a chain of circumstances, that establish \nthat the death of the deceased is homicidal. It has been submitted \nby the Prosecution that the injuries sustained by the Deceased are \nante-mortem in nature, and in view of the fact that the Deceased and \nthe Appellants were related and more importantly, resided together \nat the time of occurrence it was incumbent upon the Appellants to \nprove as to how the death of the Deceased occurred in view of the \nburden contemplated under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act \n1872  (the  “Evidence  Act”).  In  this  context,  it  is  the  Prosecution’ \ncase that the Appellants have not only failed to offer any alternative \nexplanation so as to the cause of death of the Deceased, but also \nfailed to dent to Prosecutions’ version vis-à-vis their sole presence \nat the scene of the alleged offence, thereby being unable to negate \nthe contention that no one else could have inflicted the said injuries \non the body of the Deceased. \n\n11. \n\nIt  is  the  case  of  the  Prosecution  that  the Appellants  had  a  clear \nmotive to eliminate the Deceased i.e., the illicit/incestuous relationship \nbetween Accused  no.  1,  Ms.  Uma  and Accused  No.2,  Mr.  Ravi, \nwhich  has  subsequently  become  a  stumbling  block  between  the \nDeceased  i.e.,  Rajalakshmi  and  the  aforenoted Appellants.  This \nnaturally, swelled the common intention of the accused persons to \nmurder  the  Deceased.  This  factum  coupled  with  the  narrative  of \nP.W.-1 and P.W.-2 read together with the medical evidence as well \nas the deposition of the doctors substantiates the culpability of the \naccused persons to murder the Deceased. It is urged that the case of \nthe Prosecution does not rest on circumstantial evidence alone and \ncorresponds to circumstances so complete, that they point towards \nthe guilt of the Accused Persons/Appellants.\n\nUma & Anr. v.  The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police\f1764 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nFindings of the Trial Court and the Appellate/High Court \n\n12.  The  Trial  Court  has  concluded  that  the  case  of  the  Prosecution \nis  not  proved  beyond  reasonable  doubt  and  hence,  the Appellant \nare  entitled  to  an  acquittal.  It  was  observed  despite  the  medical \nevidence  on  record,  Courts  can  prefer  to  accept  the  eyewitness \ntestimony(ies)  in  preference  to  the  opinion  of  a  medical  expert.  In \nthe  absence  of  any  direct  ocular  evidence,  the Trial  Court  did  not \nconsider it appropriate to award due to the medical evidence. The \nTrial  Court,  came  to  the  conclusion  that  the  motive  alluded  to  the \nAppellants i.e., of being embroiled in an illegal/illicit relationship was \nheld to be highly artificial and unbelievable. In these circumstances \ntogether, the Trial Court held that the Appellants were not guilty of \nthe offences under sections 120B, 302, 201 IPC and Section 4A of \nthe Tamil Nadu Prohibition of Harassment of Women Act.\n\n13.  Aggrieved by the aforesaid decision of the Trial Court, an appeal came \nto be preferred before the High Court. The High Court has reversed \nthe findings of the Trial Court; and convicted the Appellant(s) for inter \nalia the murder of the Deceased i.e, Rajalakshmi. In its considered \nopinion, the High Court after a thorough re-appreciation of the entire \nevidence on record, held that the Postmortem Report supported the \ncase of the Prosecution that the death of Rajalakshmi was homicidal \non account of the clear motive ascribed to the Appellants, and the \npresence of the Appellants at the time of occurrences of incident. The \naforenoted conclusion was substantiated on the basis of evidence \nof P.W-1 to P.W.-4. \n\nSubmissions of the Parties\n\n14. \n\nIt is the case of the Appellant that it is settled law that a judgment \nby  the  Trial  Court  could  have  only  been  reversed  by  the  High \nCourt  if  the  view  taken  was  not  a  plausible  view  on  the  evidence \non  record  or  there  is  an  error  apparent/perversity. The  High  Court \nin  the  present  case  has  not  given  any  reason  why  the  view  taken \nby the Trial Court was not a sustainable or plausible view as it not \ncommented  on  any  findings  of  the  Trial  Court  nor  has  marshaled \nall evidence before itself before coming to the conclusion of guilt of \nthe Appellants. It was submitted that, in cases where another view \nis possible, the more liberal outlook ought to be preferred and must \nnot ordinarily be displaced.\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1765\n\n15. \n\nIt  was  further  stressed  that  the  case  of  the  Prosecution  is  entirely \nbased on a presumption, insofar as there was no material to establish \nthe alleged story of P.W.-1; and there is no evidence on record to \nestablish  the  motive  of  the Appellants  to  murder  the  Deceased.  It \nwas  contended  that  there  was  nothing  on  record  to  establish  that \nthe Appellants were residing together and were present at the time \nof occurrence of the said incident.\n\n16.  The Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant(s) submitted \nthat  that  the  presence  of  the  tin  of  paint  is  demonstrable  from  the \nObservation Mahazar (Ex P.8), however there is also nothing to show \nthat the Appellants had inflicted the injuries on the Deceased. In this \nrespect, it is also stated the observation made by the Hon’ble High \nCourt vis-à-vis the shift of burden of proof under Section 106 CrPC \nto prove a certain fact, strictly within the knowledge of the Appellants \nis wholly erroneous. \n\n17. \n\nIt is further submitted that the entire case of the Prosecution rests \nupon a confession of the Appellant No.1, however the same is struck \nby Section 27 of the Evidence Act and hence cannot be admissible \nin  the  court  of  law  in  order  to  bring  home  the  guilt  of  the  present \nAppellants. \n\n18.  Per contra, the Ld. Counsel appearing on behalf of the Respondent \nState defended the Impugned Order, it was submitted that that the \nTrial Court did not appreciate the evidence in a proper manner; and \nconsequently,  this  glaring  error  led  to  the  acquittal  of  the  accused \npersons  i.e.,  the  Appellants.  It  was  further  submitted  that  the \ntestimonies  of  P.W.-3  and  P.W.-4  were  incorrectly  rejected  by  the \nTrial Court as purely circumstantial, whereas the entire set of facts \nread together with the medical evidence, strictly point towards the \nguilt  of  the Appellants.  It  was  further  submitted  that  once  a  grave \nerror is found in the decision of the Trial Court, the High Court was \nfully  empowered  to  re-appreciate  the  entire  evidence  and  reach  a \ndifferent conclusion.\n\nAnalysis & Conclusions\n\n19.  The  case  of  the  Prosecution  rests  on  circumstantial  evidence,  the \ntestimonies  of  P.W.-1  to  P.W.-4  read  with  the  reports  of  medical \nexamination (Exhibit P.3), Postmortem Report (Exhibit P.4.) and the \n\nUma & Anr. v.  The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police\f1766 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nevidence of the doctors. Admittedly there are no direct eyewitness \nto  the  said  incident.  In  such  cases,  an  inference  of  guilt  must  be \nsought to be drawn from a cogently and firmly established chain of \ncircumstances. \n\n20.  This Court in its decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State \nof  Maharashtra  (1984)  4  SCC  116,  has  laid  down  following  five \ngolden  principles,  which  constitutes  the  panchsheel  of  proof,  for \na  case  based  on  circumstantial  evidence:  insofar  as  the  facts \nso  established  should  be  consistent  only  with  the  hypothesis  of \nthe  guilt  of  the  accused,  and  the  circumstances  should  be  of  a \nconclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible \nhypothesis except the one to be proved; there must be a chain of \nevidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for \nthe conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and \nmust  show  that  in  all  human  probability  the  act  must  have  been \ndone by the accused.\n\n21.  The  prosecution  has  proved  its  case  beyond  reasonable  doubt, \nestablished  the  complete  chain  of  circumstances  including  the;  \n(i)  motive  (ii)  presence  of  the Appellants  at  the  time  of  incident  \n(iii) false explanation in the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC \n(iv) the conduct of the Appellants before and after the incident & most \npertinently (v) the medical evidence; which in all human probability \nonly correspond to the guilt of the Appellants. \n\n22.  At  the  outset,  the  medical  evidence  in  the  present  case,  clearly \nshows that the Deceased i.e., Rajalakshmi had sustained multiple  \nante-mortem injuries, including external injuries over the left upper \narm, left shoulder, right shoulder and neck. Pertinently, the Deceased’s \nhyoid bone was also found to be broken. P.W.-10. in his deposition \ndiscloses that the death of the Deceased occurred from suffocation \nin breathing & there was no chance of consuming liquid for a person \nwhose hyoid/Navaldi bone had been fractured. It was deposed that \nDeceased could have died due to pressure on the neck & problem \nin breathing. P.W.-11 also noted that no poison found in the internal \norgans  of  the  Deceased  and  it  was  her  ultimate  opinion  that  the \ndeceased  appeared  to  have  died  of  compression  over  neck.  The \nmedical record clearly establishes that the Deceased had died due to \nexternal injuries, which could not have been a natural consequence \nof consuming paint, as alleged by the Appellants. \n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f[2024] 10 S.C.R.  \n\n1767\n\n23.  The presence of the Appellants at the time and place of incident is \ndemonstrable  from  their  conduct  before  and  after  the  incident.  In \ntheir defence under section 313 CrPC, the Appellants have stated \nthat all 3 of them had went to Keela Earal to attend a function in the \nTractor Company. They returned home only at 6 P.M. and found the \ndeceased in an unconscious stage and they took her to the hospital. \nAdmittedly,  the  Appellants  had  taken  the  deceased  to  the  local \nhospital, however, none of the Appellants have been able to establish \nan alibi at the time of the incident. The silence of the Appellants in \ninforming  P.W.-1  or  the  family  of  the  deceased  of  her  death,  also \nspeaks  volume  of  their  conduct.  Undisputedly,  the Appellants  and \nthe Deceased resided together since the marriage of the Deceased \nto Accused  No.2,  which  substantiates  their  presence  at  the  time \nof  occurrence  of  the  incident;  and  consequently  the  invocation  of \nSection 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be faulted.\n\n24. \n\nIn  the  case  of  Trimukh  Maroti  Kirkan  v.  State  of  Maharashtra \n[2006] Supp. (7) S.C.R. 156, this Court has pointed out that there \nare  two  important  consequences  that  play  out  when  an  offence \nis  said  to  have  taken  place  in  the  privacy  of  a  house,  where  the \naccused is said to have been present. Firstly, the standard of proof \nexpected to prove such a case based on circumstantial evidence is \nlesser  than  other  cases  of  circumstantial  evidence.  Secondly,  the \nappellant would be under a duty to explain as to the circumstances \nthat led to the death of the deceased. In that sense, there is a limited \nshifting  of  the  onus  of  proof.  If  he  remains  quiet  or  offers  a  false \nexplanation,  then  such  a  response  would  become  an  additional \nlink  in  the  chain  of  circumstances.  In  terms  of  Section  106  of  the \nEvidence Act, the Appellants have not discharged their burden that \nthe injuries sustained by the deceased were not homicidal and not \ninflicted by them. \n\n25.  There  is  also  enough  evidence  adduced  by  the  Prosecution  to \nhold  that  the  Appellants  had  the  clear  motive  to  eliminate  the \nDeceased.  An  illicit/incestuous  relationship  between  Accused \nNo.-1 i.e., Ms. Uma and Accused No.-2 i.e., Mr. Ravi had become \nknown  to  the  Deceased  Rajalakshmi  &  her  family,  and  she  had \nbecome  a  stumbling  block  in  the  relationship,  which  swelled  the \ncommon intention of the Appellants to murder her. The factum that \nthe Deceased has passed away within six months of her marriage \nalso becomes a relevant consideration to attribute culpable intent \n\nUma & Anr. v.  The State Rep. by the Deputy Superintendent of Police\f1768 \n\n[2024] 10 S.C.R.\n\nof  the Appellants. Although,  the  motive  of  Mr.  Balasubramanian \nremains  unclear,  his  aid  &  assistance  in  the  commission  of  the \ncrime cannot be ruled out.\n\n26.  We are hence of the opinion that the Prosecution has been able to \nprove  its  case  beyond  reasonable  doubt  that  the Accused  Nos.  1 \nand 2, with the aid & support of the Accused No.3 have murdered \nthe deceased Rajalakshmi and strangulated her to death. \n\n27.  The collusion & motive of the accused person certainly synthesizes \nwith  the  medical  evidence  on  record,  false  explanation  by  the \nAppellants  and  the  entire  chain  of  circumstances,  not  leaving  any \nlink missing for the Appellants to escape from the clutches of justice. \nIn  our  considered  opinion,  the  observation  of  the  Trial  Court  that \nin  absence  of  a  direct  occurrence  witness,  motive  to  commit  the \ncrime  and  the  evidence  being  purely  circumstantial  in  nature,  the \nmedical evidence becomes of less consequences, thus cannot be \na  fairly  plausible  view.  The  Trial  Court  has  simply  discarded  the \nconsistent  testimonies  of  prosecution  witnesses  P.W.-1  &  P.W.-2 \nas being simply based on presumption; whereas the High Court in \nappeal has extensively dealt with each charge framed against the \nAppellants, the grounds on which the acquittal had been based and \nhas dispelled those grounds with reasons. \n\n28.  Although, this Court is conscious of the fact that an Appellate Court \nmust  not  ordinarily  reverse  the  finding  of  acquittal,  the  High  Court \nhas been able to demonstrate perversity and non-appreciation of the \nmaterials on record. On a fresh appreciation of evidence, we also \nfind  ourselves  unable  to  agree  with  the  findings  of  the  Trial  Court \nand are of the considered view that the circumstances in this case \nare conclusive and a conclusion of guilt can be drawn. \n\n29.  For the reasons mentioned hereinabove, the Appeals stand dismissed. \n\nInterim applications, if any, shall also stand disposed of.\n\nResult of the case: Appeals dismissed.\n\n†Headnotes prepared by:  Prastut Mahesh Dalvi, Hony. Associate Editor \n\n(Verified by: Shibani Ghosh, Adv.)\n\nDigital Supreme Court Reports\f"}