Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Murder – Conviction based on extra judicial confession – A dead body was found in a jute bag in the field of informant – Body was decomposed and was identified on the basis of clothes as the face was disfigured – Deceased was mother of accused-AS – Accused-SK was wife and accused-JS was son of accused-AS – Accused-DS was servant in their house – Prosecution case was that deceased had inherited 5 bigha of land of her deceased son – Accused were not happy with this inheritance – Out of this land, deceased had sold 1 bigha and given the remaining 4 bighas on lease to accused-AS @ Rs.4000 per bigha – However accused-AS was not paying the lease amount to her – Panchayats were also convened over this dispute – PW16 was witness of extra-judicial confession – Trial court acquitted accused-AS but convicted the other three accused on the basis of evidence of PW-16 and investigating officer – High Court upheld conviction – On appeal, held: Appellants were not found in the village soon after the occurrence as deposed by PW-13, the sonin-law of the deceased and the investigating officer – They also did not attend the cremation or the prayer ceremony which was held after one week – The conduct of the accused of not being available in the village was a strong circumstance – As per postmortem report, the Dupatta around the neck of the deceased had two turns which is unusual for a woman, more so, for a woman of the age of deceased – The argument that no ligature mark was found on the deceased is of no relevance as the body was infected with maggots and the ligature mark on the soft tissue would not have survived – Furthermore, the bottle of acid was recovered on the basis of disclosure made by accused-SK – The photographs of body showed disfigurement of face which was caused by pouring of acid with intention to avoid identification – AccusedDS was convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession made before PW-16 that he had given a chair blow on the flank of the deceased – The postmortem report showed fracture of Hyoid bone, an irregular wound over the left breast and fracture of ribs – Further, accused-DS had also disclosed that he had kept concealed a folding iron chair in house of accused-AS, the said chair was recovered – Prosecution proved the chain of circumstances to hold the appellants guilty of the offences charged.
Dismissing the appeals, the Court
HELD: 1. The deceased inherited share of land of her son who had passed away in 2003. Out of the 5 Bighas of land so inherited, she sold 1 Bigha for Rs.1,02,000/- whereas she leased the remaining 4 Bighas to her other son, ‘AS’ (accused). The lease money was not being paid to her and this fact was stated by Sarpanch (PW-11) and also by PW-13, the son-in-law of the deceased. The lease money was the only source of survival of the old woman who was living in a separate room and not with her son, ‘AS’. Sarpanch (PW-11) also deposed that only a sum of Rs.1,000/- was paid with a promise to pay another sum of Rs.1,000/- later. [Para 20] [752-H; 753-A-B]
2. The appellants were not found in the village soon after the occurrence as deposed by PW-13, the son-in-law of the deceased and investigating officer (PW-15). They also did not attend the cremation or the prayer ceremony which was held after one week. The conduct of the appellants of not being available in the village is a strong circumstance of their conduct post death. [Para 22] [753-C-D]
3. The postmortem report indicated fracture of Hyoid bone. As per postmortem report, the Dupatta around the neck of the deceased had two turns which is unusual for a woman, more so, for a woman of the age of deceased. The argument that no ligature mark was found on the deceased is of no relevance as the body had been infected with maggots. Therefore, the ligature mark on the soft tissue would not have survived. Furthermore, the bottle of acid was recovered on the basis of disclosure made by accused ‘SK’. The photographs that were taken showed disfigurement of the face of the deceased. Such disfigurement was caused by pouring of acid with intention to avoid identification of the dead body. Although the witness (PW-14) of last seen could not identify the appellants, but the fact remains that he identified that a jute bag was thrown by a man and a woman who came on a TVS Motorcycle. Therefore, even though the witness could not identify the appellants in court as the persons who had thrown the jute bag, the fact that the jute bag was thrown by a man and a woman on a TVS motorcycle is relevant in chain of events in support of the prosecution case. [Paras 23-25] [753-D-H]
4. ‘DS’ (accused) who was servant in the house of ‘AS’ was convicted on the basis of extra-judicial confession made before PW-16. In the extra-judicial confession, he had deposed that he gave a Kursi (Chair) blow on the flank of the deceased. The postmortem report showed fracture of Hyoid bone, an irregular wound over the left breast and fracture of the 6th and 7 th rib. Therefore, the extra-judicial confession made by ‘DS’ was also supported by medical evidence. Further, ‘DS’ had also disclosed that he had kept concealed a folding iron chair in house of ‘AS’, the said chair was recovered. The prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances to hold the appellants guilty of the offences charged. [Para 26] [754-B-C]
Ajay Singh v. State of Maharashtra (2007) 12 SCC
341 : [2007] 7 SCR 983 ; S. Arul Raja v. State of Tamil Nadu (2010) 8 SCC 233 : [2010] 9 SCR 356 ; Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88 ; Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan 2019 SCC OnLine 39 ; Ram Lal v. State of Himachal Pradesh 2018 SCC OnLine SC 1730 referred to.
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. 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.