Allahabad High Court Upholds Man's Conviction For Strangling Minor Daughter, Says Charges Proven Despite Mother Turning Hostile

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Rajeev Singh noted that despite the mother of the victim turning hostile during the trial, the chain of circumstantial evidence, including accused-father's failure to explain the death under Section 106 Indian Evidence Act, pointed conclusively towards his guilt.

The court thus dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the appellant (Raju Batham) observing that the facts established were consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and incompatible with the innocence of the accused.

Case in brief

The FIR was lodged on a written complaint by the victim's mother who alleged that her daughter was in touch with a local youth and on July 7, 2015, she was pressing for going with Mahesh and living with him.

She further alleged that between 1:00 AM to 2:00 AM, her husband (appellant-Raju Batham) killed her daughter by gagging her neck with a cloth string due to this obstinacy and she (complainant) witness the act and when she intervened, the appellant fled the spot.

She further claimed that thereafter, she took the victim to the district hospital, where the doctor declared her dead.

However, testifying as PW-1, she later retracted her allegations and claimed that she did not know how her daughter died and also denied lodging the F.I.R. or signing the complaint. She was, therefore, declared hostile. The couple's son and daughter-in-law also turned hostile.

Furthermore, in his Section 313 statement, the accused-appellant denied the incident and stated that witnesses have given their evidence under the seduction. He also showed his ignorance for the incident but admitted that on the date of incident he was sleeping at home, but claimed that he does not know as to how her daughter had died.

However, on the basis of evidence and material on record, the trial court passed the impugned judgment and order of conviction and sentenced him to Life Imprisonment. Hence, he filed this appeal.

Arguments

Advocate Anurag Singh Chauhan, appearing for the appellant, argued that the prosecution witnesses had turned hostile, despite this, the trial court had convicted the appellant by completely ignoring the irregularities committed by the prosecution and the major contradiction in the evidence of the witnesses.

He also submitted that the appellant could not have been convicted taking aid of Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

The AGA, on the other hand, argued that the appellant-accused had to explain as to how his daughter had died under Section 106, which he has failed to do, therefore, the impugned judgment and order has rightly been passed in accordance with law.

High Court's order

The High Court scrutinized the evidence and noted that the prosecution had PW-3, the scribe who wrote the complaint upon the complainant-mother's dictation. He testified that he read the content over to her, after which she signed it.

The Court found that the signature on the complaint matched the wife's signature on the court's evidence sheet, which proved the authenticity of the initial accusation.

Regarding the application of Section 106 Evidence Act, which provides that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact is upon them, the Court observed that the death occurred inside the house where the appellant was present and thus, the burden was on him to prove as to how his daughter had died, which he had failed to do.

The Court found it implausible that the father was sleeping while his daughter was being strangled to death in the same house, especially given the medical evidence of Asphyxia due to ante-mortem strangulation and a ligature mark on the neck.

The HC further noted that the Doctor who conducted the post-mortem, testified that the death was possible between 1:00 AM and 2:00 AM on the intervening night and this corroborated the prosecution's timeline. The doctor also ruled out that it was a case of suicide.

Furthermore, the recovery of the weapon of offense, the cloth string (nada) was made on the pointing out of the appellant from a heap of garbage, a fact which is admissible under Section 27 Indian Evidence Act.

Against this backdrop, the division bench said that all the relevant facts showing killing of the daughter of the appellant by him were proved.

The High Court concluded that the chain of circumstances was complete and thus, the appeal by the accused was liable to be dismissed. With this, the appeal was dismissed and the appellant's conviction for daughter's murder was upheld.