TRIMUKH MAROTI KIRKAN versus STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation: [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 156 · Decided: 11-10-2006 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.P. MATHUR · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
TRIMUKH MAROTI KIRKAN 
v. 
STATE OF MAHARASHTRA 
OCTOBER 11, 2006 
B 
[G.P.MATHUR AND R.V. RA VEENDRAN. JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: 
Sections 302, 498-A rlw. Section 34-Dowry death-Crime committed 
C in secrecy inside the house-Burden of proof-Held, Initial burden is on the 
prosecution-On facts, deceased was often beaten up by her husband on 
account of non-fi1lfillment of monetary demand by her father-Injuries found 
on her dead body and her bangles were missing-Accused did not offer any 
explanation regarding such injuries-Recovery of broken bangles based on 
D disclosure statement by accused-As there was no eye witness of the occurrence, 
case of prosecution rested on circumstantial evidence-Circumstances 
unerringly point to the guilt of the accused-Accused rightly convicted u!s. 
302-Evidence Act, 1872-Section 106. 
Prosecution's case was that deceased was married to appellant nearly 
E 7 years before the incident which took place in village Kikki. The deceased 
was being ill treated by her husband and his parents. She was often beaten 
up and not provided food. At the time of Panchami, when she had stayed 
at parental house, she disclosed that on account of non-fulfilment of 
demand of Rs.25,000 by her father, appellant and her in laws harassed 
her. After Panchami, deceased's father took her to her matrimonial house 
F and requested appellant and his parents not to ill treat her and told them 
that he was not in a position to fulfil their demand due to his weak financial 
condition. 
On the fateful day, he received information from a person of village 
G Kikki that his daughter had died due to snake bite. On reaching there, 
they saw the body of deceased placed in sitting posture with her back 
resting on the wall and a strip of cloth tied to her mouth. Her bangles 
were missing. Post mortem conducted on the body of deceased disclosed 
that she had died due to asphyxia as a result of compression of neck. The 
chemical examination did not reveal any poison. Father of deceased lodged 
H 
156 
TRIMUKH MAROTI KHlKAN v. ST A TE OF MAHARASHTRA 
J 5 7 
FIR under s.302 IPC. Appellant was arrested and while in custody, he A 
made disclosure statement on the basis of which some recoveries were 
made. Sessions Judge framed charge u/:;s.498-A IPC against parents and 
also under s.302 IPC against appellant. 
Sessions Judge convicted them under s.498A r/w s.34 IPC. Appellant 
was however acquitted under s.302 IPC. Both State and appellant filed B 
appeals. High Court set aside the conviction of parents. However, appellant 
was convicted under s.302 IPC. Hence the present appeal. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. The demand for dowry or money from the parents of the C 
bride has shown a phenomenal increase in last few years. Cases are 
frequently coming before the Courts, where the husband or in-laws have 
• gone to the extent of killing the bride if the demand is not met. These 
crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and 
it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish D 
the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, 
is insisted upon by the Courts. No member of the family, even if he is a 
witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family 
member. The parents or other family members of the bride being away ' 
from the scene of commission of crime are not in a position to give direct 
evidence which may inculpate the real accused except regarding the E 
demand of money or dowry and harassment caused to the bride. But, it 
does not mean that a crime committed in secrecy or inside the house should 
go unpunished. A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to 
see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a 
guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. [166-D-G, H; 167-A] 
2. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence 
of such character which is almost impossible to be led or at any rate 
extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such 
evidence which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the case. (167-B] 
State of Punjab v. Kamai! Singh, [2003] 11 SCC 271, referred to. 
Stirlandv. Director of Public Prosecution, (1944) AC 315, referred to. 
F 
G 
3. Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a H 
158 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2006] SUPP. 7 S.C.R. 
A house, the 

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.