LexP. MANI versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A P. MANI f ' v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU FEBRUARY 24, 2006 B [S.B. SINHA AND P.P. NAOLEKAR, JJ.] ... Evidence Act, 1872: ,_ c Section 106-Applicability of-Burden of proof-Deceased-Wife closed herself in a room and put fire on herse/f--Husband.and other witnesses broke open the door-Doused the fire by pouring water--Conviction of husband- Courts below were of the opinion that it was for the husband to offer some explanation terms a/Section 106-Justification o/-Held, not justified-Section 106 cannot be said to have any application as the occurrence took place D inside a room and husband and other witnesses broke open the door after seeing the smoke coming out from the room-Penal Code, 1860-Section 302. !-- Section 32-Dying declaration, if found to be reliable would be sufficient ' for conviction-On facts, evidence suggesting that dying declaration not revealing entire truth-Accused entitled to ben1~fit of doubt--Conviction set E aside-Penal Code, 1860-Section 302. Section 1l3A-Presumption under--Husband charged under Section 302 /PC. hence presumption in terms of Section l /3A is not available. Criminal Law: F Commission of offence-Burden of proof-Held: ls on prosecution to y-- • prove involvement of accused beyond all reasonable doubt-Evidence-Burden ofprooj G On the fateful day, some children were watching T.V. in the house of appellant-accused. They came out of the house stating that deceased, wife of appellant had asked them to go out of the house and bolted the door from inside. Upon hearing the same, PW-1, PW-2 and appellant f broke open the door and found deceased in flames. The fire was doused and she was taken to hospital by the appellant and the witnesses. A dying H 486 ..... P. MANI v. STATE OF TAMIL NADU 487 declaration was record by Magistrate in the presence of doctor. Head A constable also recorded the statement of the deceased on the basis of which FIR was lodged. A case under Section 307 IPC was registered against appellant. After 5 days deceased died in hospital. Appellant was arrested in connection with the case 12 days after the death of deceased. Sections judge convicted the accused under Section 302 IPC by B relying upon the dying declaration. High Court upheld the conviction holding that dying declaration made by the deceased is reliable and also taking into consideration the circumstances that appellant had absconded from the place of occurrence after the incident; that the appellant had failed to offer explanation in terms of Section 106 of Evidence Act as the C incident took place inside a room and appellant was present therein and also, in view of the fact that Appellant did not suffer any burn injury. Aggrieved appellant filed present appeal. Allowing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1. In a criminal case, it is for the prosecution to prove the D involvement of an accused beyond all reasonable doubt. It was not a case where both, husband and wife, were last seen together inside a room. The incident might have taken place in a room but prosecution itself has brought out evidences to the effect that the children who had been witnessing television were asked to go out by the deceased and then she E bolted the room from inside. As they saw smoke coming out from the room, they rushed towards the same and broke open the door. Section 106 of the Evidence Act thus cannot be said to have any application whatsoever. [491-G-H; 492-A) 2. Investigating officer did not place any material to show that the p Appellant had been absconding during the said period. He did not say that he made any attempt to arrest the Appellant. He also failed and/or neglected to made any statement or bring on record any material to show as to what attempts had been made by him to arrest the appellant. (492-B-D) 3. Absence of injury on the person of accused had been found by the High Court to be one of the grounds for believing the prosecution case. All the prosecution witnesses categorically stated that the fire was doused by pouring water. In that situation, no wonder, the Appellant did not suffer G any burn injury. It is not the case of the prosecution that any other person H 488 St:PRFME COURT REPORTS [2006] 2 S.C.R. A had suffered any burn injury in the process of putting out the fire. The f incident admittedly took place inside a small room. It had two doors. The prosecution witnesses knocked both the doors. Their call to the deceased to open
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.