Woman Died Within 4 Walls Of In-Laws' Home And Was Cremated Hurriedly: Rajasthan HC Overturns 22-Yr-Old Acquittal In Dowry Death Case

" This Court also observes that in the instant case, the crime in question took place within the four-walls of the victim's matrimonial house and therefore, in such a circumstance the burden is upon the in-laws who were present in the house to explain the facts and the circumstances under which the incident in question has taken place, by virtue of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act.This Court observes that in the present case the accused respondents upon the death of the victim, performed her cremation in a hurried manner without informing her family members or police and thereby also preventing the post-mortem of her dead body being conducted which speaks volume of their conduct and manifests intention on their part to concoct the story and to destruct the evidence to shield themselves " The court said that the duo failed to discharge their obligation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act which lays down that when any fact was especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact was upon him. Overturning a 22-year old acquittal in a dowry death case, the Jodhpur bench of the Rajasthan High Court cancelled the bail bonds of the accused father-in-law and the mother-in-law, noting that they failed to explain the circumstances leading to the woman's death since the alleged crime took place within the four walls of their home. It referred to the Supreme Court case of State of Rajasthan v Jaggu Ram and Birendra Sao, Shankar Sao, Shila Devi v State of Bihar in which it was observed that since the cremation took place in the wee hours without informing the parents of the victim or the police, it clearly established that it was done to conceal the real cause of death and thus, it was considered a fit case of Section 106 of the Act. “This Court therefore, in light of the factual matrix and the precedent law cited above observes that in the present case the prosecution has discharged its initial burden and have thereby made out the case in its favour by proving the essential ingredients of the offence in question and at the same time, the accused-respondents have failed to discharge the onus put upon them by virtue of Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, thereby tilting the case towards their conviction.” Opining that the order of the trial court suffered from illegality, perversity and errors of laws, the acquittal order was set aside, and the accused were sentenced to imprisonment, cancelling their bail bonds.