TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR.versusSTATE OF MAHARASHTRA

                   [2012] 7 S.C.R. 1083


      TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR.                       A
                             v.
               STATE OF MAHARASHTRA
            (Criminal Appeal No. 507 of 2008)

                  SEPTEMBER 14, 2012.
                                                                B
      [P. SATHASIVAM AND RANJAN GOGOi, JJ.)

    PENAL CODE, 1860:

     ss. 302134, 304-8134 and 498-A/34 - Murder of a married    c
woman in matrimonial home, for dowry - Circumstantial
evidence - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment
awarded by trial court to all the three accused, namely, the
husband of deceased and his parents, affirmed by High Court
- SLP of husb5md already dismissed - Appeal by his parents      0
- Held: Medical evidence supported prosecution case - 1//-
treatment meted out to deceased by all the three accused
established - Recoveries proved - The circumstances
constitute a chain even stronger than an eye-witness account
and, therefore, conviction of appellants is fully justified -   E
Evidence Act, 1872 - ss. 106 and 114.

     The appellants-couple and their son (A-3) were
prosecuted for ill-treating their daughter-in-law, the wife
of A-3, for not fulfilling their demand of dowry, and for
committing her murder by drowning her into a well after         F
tying her hands and feet. The trial court convicted all the
three accused u/ss 302/34, 304-8134 and 498-A/34 and
sentenced each of them to imprisonment for life. The
High Court upheld the judgment. The SLP filed by A-3
was dismissed.                                                  G

    Dismissing the appeal, the Court

    HELD: 1.1 It is not in dispute that the conviction of
                            1083                                H
    1084   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.

A the appellants (A-1 and A-2) is based on circumstantial
  evidence. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda's case*, this
  Court after referring to various earlier decisions,
  formulated the conditions to be fulfilled before a case
  against an accused can be said to be fully established
B based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 4-5) (1090-D-E]
        *Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra,
    1985 (1) SCR 88 = (1984) 4 sec 116 - relied on
          1.2 In the instant case, the first circumstance relied
c   upon by the prosecution is that all the three accused ill-
    treated the deceased. A perusal of the evidence of PW-1
    (father of the deceased) shows that his daughter was
    treated well only for a period of 5 months from the date
    of her marriage and thereafter, all of the accused started
    ill-treating her by way of beating and by not providing
0
    sufficient food. He also stated that A-3, who at the relevant
    time was employed as a driver, on the instigation of A-1
    and A-2, was demanding Rs.50,000/- for purchase of a
    jeep. PW-2, who acted as the mediator in the marriage of
    the deceased with A3, lodged the complaint (Exh. 26) and
E   explained about the ill-treatment meted out to the
    deceased at her matrimonial home. It was he who
    intimated the police that the dead body of the deceased
    was seen floating in the well. He stated that all the 3
    accused were living together and his house was at a
F   distance of 2 kms. away from their house. He also stated
    that all the accused used to demand Rs.50,000/- from the ·
    deceased and they also used to beat and abuse her.
    From the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, it is clearly established
    that all the 3 accused ill-treated the deceased. (Para 9-11)
G   (1092-D-E, H; 1093-A-B, C-E]
      1.3 The second circumstance heavily relied on by the
  prosecution is the distance between the house of the
  accused and the well wherein the body of the deceased
H was found to be floating. It was PW-2, who first noticed
  the dead body of the deceased in the well and filed a
   TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v.             1085
           STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

complaint to the police. He stated that A-3 along with        A
another came to his house and reported about missing
of the deceased and enquired about her. Thereafter, PW-
2, along with others, started searching her for the whole
night. He also stated that when he attempted to go near
the well, the accused prevented him from doing so. It was     B
only on the next day, when PW-2 carried out further
search for the deceased, that he came to know from his
nephew that the body of the deceased was found lying
in the well and after seeing the dead body he filed a
complaint to the police. The assertion of PW-2 that he was    c
prevented from going to the side of the well by the
accused fully establishes another circumstance which
shows that all the accused were responsible for the death
of the deceased. Further, without the support and
assistance of A-1 and A-2, it would not be possible for A3
                                                              0
alone to carry the deceased to the well which is at a
distance of 400 ft. from their house. [Para 12] [1093-F-H;
1094-A-C]
     1.4 Another important circumstance relied on and
proved by the prosecution is that the legs and hands of       E
the deceased were tied at the time of throwing her into
the well. PW-1 stated that when the dead body of the
deceased was removed from the well, he noticed that the
hands and legs of the deceased were tied by means of
the border of a saree. He proved article Nos. 5, 6 and 7      F
as the pieces of the border of the saree with which the
hands and legs of the deceased were tied. This fact was
also strengthened by the evidence of PW-2 and
supported by PW-6, the doctor who conducted the post
mortem (Ext. 35) on the dead body. PW-6 further opined        G
that the tying of the hands and legs was not possible by
the victim herself. She also opined that the death was due
to drowning. From the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6, it is
clear that the legs and hands of the deceased were tied
by the use of the border of a saree. It has also come in
evidence that it would not be possible for A-3 alone to tie   H
    1086   SUPREME COURT REPORTS               [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A both the legs and hands without the assistance of A1 and
  A2 who were present in the house. (Para 13-14] (1094-C-
  E, G-H; 1095-A-C]

         1.5 Another circumstance relied on and proved by the
    prosecution is the recovery of the border of the saree
8
    which is an important piece of evidence and the same
    was established by PW-7, the panch witness for the
    memorandum. He stated that he was called at the Police
    Station for the recording of panchnama. PW-7 also
    proved Ext. 40 as the panchnama recorded for the said
C   purpose which bears his signature. He further deposed
    about the handing over of the border of the saree by A-2
    to the Police. The Police recorded the panchnama of the
    seizure of the border of the saree and PW-7 also admitted
    his signature therein. In addition to the evidence of PW-
D   7, another resident of the locality was examined as PW-
    5, who deposed that the dead body was taken out from
    the well in his presence and he noticed that the hands
    and legs of the deceased were tied by means of a red
    colour border of a saree. The police drew inquest in his
E   presence. He also signed the memorandum which is Exh.
    29. From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 (the Doctor,
    who conducted the post mortem) PWs 5 and 7 (the panch
    witnesses) and in the light of the principles regarding
    s.27 of the Evidence Act, it has been established that the
F   material object, namely, the border of the saree used for
    tying legs and hands of the deceased was correctly
    identified and marked and the same has been rightly
    relied on by the prosecution and accepted by the courts
    below. The evidence of both PWs 5 and 7 fully supports
G   the contents of memorandum which are Ext. Nos. 29 and
    40 respectively. [Para 15-17] (1095-D-E, F-H; 1096-A, 1097-
    C-D]

        Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan, (2004) 10 SCC 657
H   = 2004 (2) SCR 123 - referred to.
  TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v.                1087
          STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

     1.6 The evidence led by the prosecution also shows         A
that at the relevant point of time, the deceased was living
with all the 3 accused. Thus, the appellants, their son-A3
and the deceased were the only occupants of the house
and it was, therefore, incumbent on the appellants to have
tendered some explanation in order to avoid any                 B
suspicion as to their guilt. [Para 18] [1097-E-F]

     1.7 All these factors are undoubtedly circumstances
which constitute a chain even stronger than an eye-
witness account and, therefore, this Court is of the
opinion that the conviction of the appellants is fully          C
justified. [Para 18] [1097-F]

     2.1 It is settled law that presumption of fact is a rule
in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be
inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring        D
the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the
court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a
logical conclusion as the most probable position. This
position is strengthened in view of s. 114 of the Evidence
Act, 1872. It empowers the court to presume the existence       E
of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that
process, the court shall have regard to the common
course of natural events, human conduct etc in addition
to the facts of the case.[Para 19] [1097-G-H; 1098-A-B]

     2.2 In these circumstances, the principles embodied        F
in s.106 of the Evidence Act can also be utilized. It is
made clear that this Section is not intended to relieve the
prosecution of its burden to prove the guilt of the
accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply to
cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving            G
facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn
regarding the existence of certain other facts, unless the
accused by virtue of his special knowledge regarding
such facts, failed to offer any explanation which might
drive the court to draw a different inference. [Para 19]        H
    1088   SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   [1098-B-D]

        State 9f West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammed Omar, (2000)
    8 SCC 382 = 2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 712 - relied on.

        3. In the instant case, this Court does not find any
B serious flaw in the investigation which can affect the
  case. On the other hand, the prosecution has established
  all the circumstances by placing acceptable evidence. On
  the facts and in the circumstances of the case, the
  conclusion arrived at by the trial court and the High Court
C is affirmed. [Para 20-21] [1099-A-C]

                          Case Law Reference:

        1985 (1) SCR 88            relied on            para 5

D       2004 (2) SCR 123           referred to          Para 17
        2000 (2) Suppl. SCR 712 relied on               Para 19
        CRIMINAL AP PELLATE JURISDICTION : Criminal Appeal
    No. 507 of 2008.
E       From the Judgment & Order dated 09.04.2007 of the
    Court of Judicature of Bombay, Bench at Aurangabad in Crl.
    Appeal No. 238 of 2005.
        Harinder Mohan Singh, Shabana for the Appellants.

F       Shankar Chillarge, Asha Gopalan Nair for the Respondent.

        The Judgment of the Court was delivered by
       P. SATHASIVAM, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred
  against the final judgment and order dated 09.04.2007 passed
G by the High Court of Judicature at Bombay, Bench at
  Aurangabad, in Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2005 whereby the
  Division Bench of the High Court dismissed the appeal filed
  by the appellants herein.

H       2. Brief facts:
  TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v.                   1089
  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     (a) The present appeal pertains to the death of one            A
Ashabai, resident of Chanda Taluk, Karjat District,
Ahmednagar. She was married to one Nitin Tulshiram
Suryawanshi-Accused No. 3 herein (special leave petition with
respect to this accused has already been dismissed on
02.11.2007). Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi (A-1) and                 B
Sindhubai Suryawanshi (A-2) are the parents of A-3. At the
relevant time, A-3 was working as a driver.

     (b) Sampat Madhavrao Suryawanshi (PW-2) is the relative
of Kisan Bhanudas Sule (PW-1 )-the father of the deceased and       C
was the mediator of the said marriage. On 28.02.2003, the
dead body of Ashabai was found to be floating in the well of
one Sarjerao Suryawanshi with both the legs and hands tied
by means of the border of a Saree. PW-2 lodged a complaint
against the appellants herein with regard to the above incident
with the Karjat P.S., Ahmednagar, alleging the ill-treatment        D
meted out to the deceased in order to fulfill the demand of Rs.
50,000/- for the purchase of a Jeep.

    (c) On 28.02.2003, on the basis of the said complaint,
Accidental Death No. 3 of 2003 and, after investigation, Crime      E
No. 24 of 2003 was registered at the said police station.

     (d) After filing of the charge sheet, the case was committed
to the Court of Sessions and numbered as Sessions Case No.
102 of 2004. On 03.08.2004, the 5th Ad hoc Additional
                                                                    F
Sessions Judge, Ahmednagar, framed charges against the
appellants under Sections 302, 498-A read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short 'the IPC'). Again, on
28.09.2004, an additional charge of Section 304-B read with
Section 34 of the IPC was also framed against the appellants.
                                                                    G
     (e) By order dated 10.01.2005, the 5th Adhoc Additional
Sessions Judge, convicted all the accused persons and
sentenced them to undergo rigorous imprisonment under
various heads mentioned above including life sentence and all
the sentences were to run concurrently.                             H
    1090    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A       (f) Being aggrieved, the appellants preferred an appeal
  being Criminal Appeal No. 238 of 2005 before the High Court
  of Bombay. By impugned order dated 09.04.2007, the Division
  Bench of the High Court while confirming the order of conviction
  and sentence passed by the Sessions Court, dismissed the
B appeal filed by the appellants herein.

        (g) Aggrieved by the decision of the High Court, the
    appellants herein have filed this appeal by way of special leave
    before this Court.

C       3. Heard Mr. Harinder Mohan Singh, learned amicus
    curiae for the appellants-accused and Mr. Shankar Chillarge,
    learned counsel on behalf of the Respondent-State.

        4. It is not in dispute that the conviction of the appellants
0 A-1 and A-2 is based on circumstantial evidence, hence, we
    have to see how far the prosecution has established the chain
    and able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt.

        Circumstantial Evidence:

E       5. In Sharad Birdhichand Sarda vs. State of Maharashtra,
    (1984) 4 sec 116, this Court after referring to various earlier
    decisions, formulated the following conditions to be fulfilled
    before a case against an accused can be said to be fully
    established based on circumstantial evidence:-
F
        (1) the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is
        to be drawn should be fully established.

         It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the
         circumstances concerned "must or should" and not "may
G        be" established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal
         distinction between "may be proved" and "must be or
         should be proved" as was held by this Court in Shivaji
         Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra where the
         observations were made: [SCC para 19, p. 807: SCC
H        (Cri) p. 1047]
  TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v.                     1091
  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

           Certainly, jt is a primary principle that the accused      A
     must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can
     convict and the mental distance between 'may be' and
     'mustbe' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure
     conclusions."
                                                                      B
     (2) the facts so established should be consistent only with
     the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say,
     they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis
     except that the accused is guilty,

     (3) the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and       C
     tendency,

     (4) they should exclude every possible hypothesis except
     the one to be proved, and

     (5) there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not         D
     to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion
     consistent with the innocence of the accused and must
     show that in all human probability the act must have been
     done by the accused.
                                                                      E
     154. These five golden principles, if we may say so,
     constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on
     circumstantial evidence."

     6. Keeping these principles in mind, let us analyze the
                                                                      F
circumstances relied on by the prosecution.

       7. As mentioned earlier, the case of the prosecution is that
A3-husband of the deceased and A-1 and A-2 - parents of A3
killed the deceased by throwing her into the well by tying her
hands and legs with the border of a Saree because of the non-         G
fulfillment of the demand of Rs.50,000/- made by the accused
persons for the purchase of a Jeep as A3 was a driver. The
father of the deceased was examined as PW-1. PW-2 acted
as a mediator in the settlement of marriage of the deceased
                                                                      H
    1092    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A with A3. The doctor. who performed the post mortem on the
  deceased, was examined as PW-6.

        8. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution are:-

        i) all the accused ill-treated the deceased;
B
        ii) the well in which the body of the deceased was
    recovered is situated at a distance of 400 ft. from the house;

      iii) legs and hands of the deceased were tied using a
C border of a saree; and

         iv) recovery of the said border of the saree.

           9. Kisan Bhanudas Sule (PW-1) - the father of the
    deceased, in his evidence, has stated that the deceased-
D   Ashabai was his only daughter and she was married to A3. A-
    1 and A-2 are parents of A3. According to him, after marriage,
    Ashabai went to reside with the accused and she was treated
    decently for a period of 5 months but, thereafter, they started
    ill-treating her by beating and by not providing sufficient food.
E   He also stated that A-3, on the instigation of A-1 and A-2, was
    demanding Rs.50,000/- for the· purchase of a jeep. According
    to him, at the relevant time, A3 was employed as a driver and
    Ashabai had disclosed the demand as well as the ill-treatment
    to PW-1 whenever he had gone to her house to meet her. When
F   PW-1 brought her daughter to his home on the occasion of
    Sakrant, she informed him that she would not go back to her
    matrimonial home as her husband had threatened her not to
    come back without Rs. 50,000/-. A perusa.1 of the evidence of
    PW-1 shows that her daughter Ashabai was treated well only
    for a period of 5 months from the date of her marriage and after
G   the said period, all of them started ill-treating her by way of
    beating and by not providing sufficient food. In his Chief-
    examination, he has implicated all the three accused by stating
    that "they started ill-treatment. ....... "

H        10. PW-2, who acted as the mediator in the marriage of
  TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v.                    1093
  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA~ [P. SATHASIVAM, J.)

the deceased with A3, lodged a complaint (Exh. 26) and               A
explained about the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased at
her matrimonial home. It was he who intimated the police tl"'at
the dead body of the deceased-Ashabai was seen floating in
a well belonging to one Sarjerao Suryawanshi. On the basis of
the said information, on 28.02.2003 at 4.15 p.m., Accidental         B
Death No. 3 of 2003 was registered. After investigation and
on the basis of the Post Mortem Report (Exh. 35), Police
Inspector Shinde (PW-8) attached to Karjat P.S. registered a
case being Crime No. 24 of 2003 under Sections 302 and 498-
A read with Section 34 of IPC. PW-2 has also stated that all         c
the 3 accused were living together and his house is at a
distance of 2 kms. away from the house of the accused and
he asserted that he was the mediator for the performance of
marriage between the deceased and A3. He also deposed that
the deceased was treated well for 4-5 months after the               0
marriage and, thereafter, all the accused started ill-treating heL
He also stated that all the accused used to demand Rs.50,000/
- from her and they also used to beat and abuse her.

      11. From the evidence of PWs 1 and 2, the first
circumstance that all the 3 accused ill-treated the deceased is      E
clearly established and rightly relied on and accepted by the
trial Court and the High Court.

      12. The second circumstance heavily relied on by the
prosecution is the distance between the house of the accused         F
and the well wherein the body of the deceased was found to
be floating. It was PW-2, who first noticed the dead body of the
deceased in the well and filed a complaint to the police. PW-2
has stated that A-3 and one Prahlad came to his house and
reported about missing of Ashabai (the deceased) and
                                                                     F
enquired whether she had come to his house. Thereafter, PW-
2, along with others, started searching her for the whole night
in order to verify her whereabouts. He also stated that when he
attempted to go near the well, the accused prevented him from
going to the well belonging to one Sarjerao Suryawanshi. It          H
    1094    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                 [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A further shows that only on the next day, when PW-2 carried out
  further search for Ashabai, he came to know from his nephew
  that the body of Ashabai was found lying in the well and after
  seeing the dead body, he filed a complaint to the police. The
  assertion of PW-2 that he was prevented from going to the side
B of the well by the accused fully establish another circumstance
  which shows that all the accused were responsible for the death
  of the deceased. Further, without the support and assistance
  of A-1 and A-2, it would not be possible to carry the deceased
  by A3 alone to the well which is at a distance of 400 ft.
c      13. Another important circumstance relied on and proved
  by the prosecution is that the legs and hands of the deceased
  were tied at the time of throwing her into the well. PW-1, in his
  evidence has stated that, after coming to know of her absence
  in the matrimonial home, based on the complaint of PW-2, the
D dead body of the deceased was removed from the well by
  means of a wooden cot. He further noticed that the hands and
  legs of Ashabai were tied by means of the border of a saree.
  PW-1 further proved Article Nos. 5, 6 and 7 as the pieces of
  the border of the saree with which the hands and legs of the
E deceased-Ashabai were tied. This fact was also strengthened
  by the evidence of PW-2. After getting information from his
  nephew that body of Ashabai was found lying in the well of
  Sarjerao, PW-2, after verification, made a complaint to the
  police and, because of the same, police came to the spot and
F carried on further formalities. He further deposed that "her
  hands and legs were tightly tied. The hands and legs were tied
  by means of the border of a saree ..... " He also affirmed that
  after seeing the body of Ashabai with her legs and hands tied,
  he went to Karjat P.S. and filed a complaint therein.
G
         14. In addition to the evidence of PWs 1 and 2 about tying
    of the legs and hands of the deceased by use of the border of
    a Saree, Dr. Rajashri Pagaria (PW-6), who conducted the Post      f-
    Mortem (Exh. 35) on the dead body of the deceased found that
    the lower extremities and ankle joints were tied by means of a
H
  TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v.                  1095
  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

piece of saree and the upper extremities were found to be          A
tightened by means of a cloth at the wrist joint. She further
opined that the tying of the hands and legs was not possible
by the victim herself. She explained that external injuries were
post mortem and aquatic injuries. Her stomach was found to
be containing about 200 ml. of water. \he large intestine          B
contained fecal matter. She also opined that the death was due
to drowning. From the evidence of PWs 1, 2 and 6, it is clear
that the legs and hands of the deceased were tied by the use
of the border of a saree. It has also come in evidence that it
would not be possible for A-3 alone to tie both the legs and       c
hands without the assistance of A 1 and A2 who were present
in the house. It has been further noticed that except the three
accused and the deceased, none were residing in their house.

      15. Another circumstance relied on and proved by the
prosecution is the recovery of the border of the saree which is    D
an important piece of evidence and the same was established
by Amrut Akhade (PW-7) - panch witness for the memorandum.
PW-7, in his evidence, stated that on 05.03.2003, he was
called at P.S. Karjat for the recording of panchnama. He further
deposed that all the accused were present there and A-2 gave       E
a statement before him that all the accused tied the legs and
hands of the deceased and threw her into the well. After taking
down the statement, the police obtained thumb impression of
A-2 and signature of PW-7. According to him, she also
disclosed that she would give out the clothes by means of which    F
her hands and legs were tied. PW-7 also proved Exh. 40 as
the panchnama recorded for the said purpose which bears his
signature. Another pancha to the said panchnama was
Hanumant Shelke and the same was also read over to him. He
further deposed that he along with police and another Pancha       G
went to the basti of Sindubai (A-2) in a police jeep. Sindubhai
(A-2) asked the police to stop the jeep and then she handed
over the border of the saree which was kept in a chapper (top
portion). The Police recorded the panchnama of the seizure of
                                                                   H
    1096    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                  [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A   the border of the saree and PW-7 also admitted his signature
    therein.

        16. In addition to the evidence of PW-7, one Dada S.
  Suryawanshi, resident of Rehkuri, Tai. Karjat, Dist.
B Ahmednagar, was examined as PW-5. In his evidence, he
  deposed that the dead body was taken out from the well in his
  presence with the help of a wooden cot. He further noticed that
  hands and legs of the deceased were tied by means of a red
  colour border of a saree. The police drew inquest in his
  presence. He also signed the memorandum which is Exh. 29.
C He den.ied the suggestion that Sampat and other persons got
  into the well, tied the hands and legs of the deceased and then
  the dead body was taken out.

       17. This Court, in Anter Singh vs. State of Rajasthan,
D (2004) 10 SCC 657, held that even if panch witness turned
  hostile, the evidence of the person who effected the recovery
  would not stand vitiated. After considering the scope and ambit
  of Section 27 of the Evidence Act, 1872 this Court enumerated
  the following principles to be adhered to.
E
        "16. The various requirements of the section can be
        summed up as follows: ..

        (1) The fact of which evidence is sought to be given must
        be relevant to the issue. It must be borne in mind that the
F       provision has nothing to do with the question of relevancy.
        The relevancy of the fact discovered must be established
        according to the prescriptions relating to relevancy of other
        evidence connecting it with the crime in order to make the
        fact discovered admissible.
G
        (2) The fact must have been discovered.

        (3) The discovery must have been in consequence of
        some information received from the accused and not by
        the accused's own act.
H
  TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v. 1097
  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]
    (4) The person giving the information must be accused of           A
    any offence.

     (5) He must be in the custody of a police officer.

     (6) The discovery of a fact in consequence of information
     received from an accused in custody must be deposed to."          B

     (7) Thereupon only that portion of the information which
     relates distinctly or strictly to the fact discovered can be
     proved. The rest is inadmissible."
                                                                       c
From the evidence of PW-1, PW-2, PW-6 - the Doctor, who
conducted the post mortem, PWs-5 and 7 - the panch witnesses
and in the light of the principles enumerated above, we are
satisfied that the material object, namely, the border of the
saree used for tying legs and hands of the deceased was
                                                                       0
correctly identified and marked and the same has been rightly
relied on by the prosecution and accepted by the courts below.
The evidence of both PWs 5 and 7 fully support the contents
of memorandum which is Exh. Nos. 29 and 40 respectively.

     18. The evidence led in by the prosecution also shows that        E
at the relevant point of time, the deceased was living with all
the 3 accused. In other words, the appellants, their son-A3 and
the deceased were the only occupants of the house and it was,
therefore, incumbent on the appellants to have tendered some
explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to their guilt. All     F
the factors referred above are undoubtedly circumstances
which constitute a chain even stronger than the account of a
eye-witness and, therefore, we are of the opinion that conviction
of the appellants is fully justified.

     19. It is settled law that presumption of fact is a rule in law   G
of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from
certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a
fact from other set of proved facts, the Court exercises a
process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the
most probable position. The above position is strengthened in          H
    1098    SUPREME COURT REPORTS                   [2012] 7 S.C.R.


A view of Section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872. It empowers
  the Court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks
  likely to have happened. In that process, the Courts shall have
  regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct
  eto in addition to the facts of the case. In these circumstances,
B the principles embodied in Section 106 of the Evidence Act
  can also be utilized. We make it clear that this Section is not
  intended to relieve the prosecution of its burden to prove the
  guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, but it would apply
  to cases where the prosecution has succeeded in proving facts
c from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the
  existence of certain other facts, unless the accused by virtue
  of his special knowledge regarding such facts, failed to offer
   any explanation which might drive the Court to draw a different
  inference. It is useful to quote the following observation in State
D of West Bengal vs. Mir Mohammed Omar, (2000) 8 SCC 382:

         "38. Vivian Bose, J., had observed that Section 106 of the
         Evidence Act is designed to meet certain exceptional
         cases in which it would be impossible for the prosecution
         to establish certain facts which are particularly within the
E        knowledge of the accused. In Shambhu Nath Mehra v.
         State of Ajmer the learned Judge has stated the legal
         principle thus:

         "This lays down the general rule that in a criminal case the
F        burden of proof is on the prosecution and Section 106 is
         certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty. On the
         contrary, it is designed to meet certain exceptional cases
         in which it would be impossible, or at any rate
         disproportionately difficult for the prosecution to establish
         facts which are 'especially' within the knowledge of the
G
         accused and which he could prove without difficulty or
         inconvenience.

         The word 'especially' $tresses that. It means facts that are
         pre-eminently or exceptionally within his knowledge."
H
  TULSHIRAM SAHADU SURYAWANSHI & ANR. v.                     1099
  STATE OF MAHARASHTRA [P. SATHASIVAM, J.]

     20. In the light of the above principles, in the present case,   A
we have not come across any serious flaw in the investigation
which had affected the case. On the other hand, we are
satisfied that the prosecution has established all the
circumstances by placing acceptable evidence. We are also
satisfied that the chain is complete and without the involvement      B
and assistance of A-1 and A-2, A3 alone could not have tied
the hands and legs of the deceased with the border of the saree
and threw her into the well which is at a distance of 400 ft. from
their house.

     21. In the light of the above discussion, we fully agree with    C
the conclusion arrived at by the trial Court and the High Court,
consequently, the appeal fails and the same is dismissed.

R.P.                                         Appeal dismissed.