Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 – Death caused by strangulation – In matrimonial house of the deceased – Chargesheet against the husband (appellantaccused) and father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased – Trial Court relying on evidence of PW-1 and medical evidence convicted all the accused u/s. 302 – During appeal to High Court prosecution against father-in-law of the deceased abated due to his death – High Court acquitted the mother-in-law while convicting the appellant-accused – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Evidence of PW-1 was consistent and cogent – In view of the facts that family members were present in the house, some time before the incident and there was no possibility of outsider coming and strangulating the deceased, it was for the accused to explain how the deceased could have received the injuries – There was no explanation given by the accused – Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the impugned judgment – Conviction of appellant-accused upheld – However, State is directed to consider the release of the accused on completion of 14 years of actual sentence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 It is no doubt true that a large number of witnesses turned hostile and the Trial Court was also not happy with the manner, the prosecution conducted this case. But that is not an unusual event in the long drawn out trials and in the absence of any witness protection regime of substance, one has to examine whatever is the evidence which is capable of being considered, and then come to a finding whether it would suffice to convict the accused. [Para 20][420-D-E]
1.2 The rationale adopted for coming to the conclusion behind the reason for the real brother of the deceased turning hostile while step brother stood his ground is also obvious and correctly appreciated, i.e., to preserve the close family ties which continued to exist by marriage in the instant case, in view of the siblings of the deceased and appellant herein being married. In the Indian context, there exists a continued relationship between two families wherein the daughter-in-law comes from another house. [Para 21][420-E-G]
1.3 The case of the prosecution rests only on the testimony of PW-1 and the medical evidence. The statement of PW-1 was consistent and cogent except to the extent that in the earlier statement he had not mentioned the factum of the death being attributed to snakebite. However, that itself would not nullify the remaining part of his testimony. In fact, the said witness did not back out from the statement, but could not state the reason why the police did not record it in the FIR though it was mentioned. [Para 22][420-G-H; 421-A]
Yanob Sheikh Alias Gagu v. State of West Bengal (2013)
6 SCC 428 : [2012] 13 SCR 1150 ; Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2014) 3 SCC 401 : [2013] 12 SCR 1 – referred to.
1.4 The doctor opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to strangulation. Thereafter, he has stated that nature may be homicidal. This was so stated because asphyxia being the cause of death, the doctor himself could not have conclusively said whether it was homicidal or suicidal. It was also voluntarily opined, that there had to be a minimum of five minutes of forceful pulling to cause the death. [Para 23][421-A-C]
1.5 The death was caused and the body was found in the precincts of the house of the appellant, where there were only family members staying. The High Court also found that the location of the house and the surrounding buildings was such that there was no possibility of somebody from outside coming and strangulating the deceased and that too without any commotion being caused or any valuable/jewellery missing. [Para 24][421-B-D]
1.6 In the present case, the Court is confronted with a situation where the appellant, as a husband, is alleged to have caused the death of his wife by strangulation. The fact that the family members were in the home some time before the incident is also quite obvious. No explanation has been given as to how the wife could have received the injuries. This is a strong circumstance indicating that he is responsible for commission of the crime. The appellant was under an obligation to give a plausible explanation regarding the cause of the death in the statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C. and mere denial could not be the answer in such a situation. [Para 25][421-D-F]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
10 SCC 681 : [2006] 7 Supp. SCR 156 - relied on.
Amarsingh Munnasingh Suryawanshi v. State of
Maharashtra (2007) 15 SCC 455 : [2007] 11 SCR 1 ; Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar & Anr. (2007) 10 SCC 433 : [2007] 1 SCR 13 – referred to.
2. However, the respondent-State is directed to examine whether the appellant has completed 14 years of actual sentence or not and if it is so, his case should be examined within a maximum period of two months for release in accordance with norms. If not, the exercise be undertaken within the same time on completion of 14 years of actual sentence. [Para 27][421-F-H]
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.