Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 and 498A – Concurrent conviction – Death of the wife of the appellant-convict, occurred in her matrimonial home – Plea of the appellant-convict that her death was suicidal and not homicidal:
Held: Trial Court and High Court concurrently weighed the circumstances and gave sturdy reasons to conclude that death of the deceased was homicidal in nature and not suicidal – Even after seeing his wife hanged using her dupatta, the appellant did not care to cut the noose then and there and he chose to do so, only after witness(es) were brought to the scene of occurrence – Had it been a bona fide, genuine attempt on his part to save her life, he would have cut the noose of the ligature then and there itself upon seeing her hanged, before going to inform the witness(es) that she had hanged herself – Further, the appellant took up the plea of alibi on the ground that he was in a nearby garden to the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time – DW-1 deposed that the appellant was with him during that period in the nearby garden however, there is no evidence establishing that DW-1 was there in the garden during the said period – Strict proof is required to establish the plea of alibi – It can be applied only if the ‘elsewhere place’ is far away from the place of occurrence so that it was extremely improbable or impossible for the person concerned to reach the place of occurrence and to participate in the crime on the relevant date and time of occurrence – Plea of alibi was rightly rejected by the Courts below – Furthermore, non-rupture of hyoid bone of the deceased would not and should not be taken as the sole reason to upturn the concurrent finding that it is a case of strangulation – Therefore, plea of appellant that the death of victim was not homicidal is rejected. [Paras 7, 9, 10, 11, 17]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Whether the appellant who was bound to offer his version as to how the occurrence had taken place in the circumstances obtained in this case, had discharged his onus by virtue of s.106:
Held: s.106 is an exception to the general rule laid down in s.101, that the burden of proving a fact rest on the party who substantially asserts the affirmative of the issues and that this Section is not intended to relieve any person of that duty or burden – If some occurrence happened inside a residence where the accused is supposed to be, he is bound to offer his version as to how the occurrence had taken place – The prosecution succeeded in establishing, rather it is an attempt and undisputed fact that the deceased and the appellant-convict were residing in the place of occurrence, which is the house of the accused – On the death of the wife, the appellant alone could offer an explanation, though this Section could not be used so as to shift the onus of proving the offence from the prosecution to the accused – In the absence of explanation when other circumstances fasten the culpability on the appellant’s failure to offer satisfactory explanation as to the occurrence, the only possible inference could be that the accused had participated in the crime. [Paras 18, 19]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan 2007 INSC 323 : [2007] 4 SCR 248 : (2007) 10 SCC 445 2007 INSC 3 : [2007] 1 SCR 13 : (2007) 10 SCC 433. Text from the Indian Supreme Court Judgments open data set (Dattam Labs), CC BY 4.0.
This page is for informational and research purposes only and does not constitute legal advice. Consult a qualified advocate for advice specific to your situation.