Penal Code, 1860: s. 302 – Homicidal death within the confines of house – Prosecution case was that appellant husband strangulated his wife to death – Trial court held that the victimdeceased was strangulated to death while High Court opined that she was hanged to death – Both the courts unanimously held that deceased did not commit suicide but it was a homicidal death – Conviction under s.302 – Appeal against conviction – Held: There was evidence as to strained relations between appellant and his wife (deceased) – Prosecution sufficiently established that there was cow dung on the hands of the deceased indicating that she was engaged in household chores when the assault was made – Injuries on the person of the deceased as also in the post mortem report, were clearly indicative of a struggle or resistance put up by deceased in the last hour – The fact that the neck of deceased was not found stretched and elongated, considering that the body was still fresh, ruled out any possibility of suicide by her – The view of trial court that the deceased was strangulated to death acceptable as it was not possible for appellant to hang the deceased alone – The body was also found lying on the ground – The conduct of the appellant in not conveying to the family members of the deceased about her death and his absence whole night from the house and failure in offering explanation with regard to circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural death inside the house would lead to conclusion of his being the assailant of the deceased – Conviction upheld.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 The deceased lived alone with the appellant and their minor child. The evidence of the relatives of the deceased, PW 2, PW 4 and her parents PWs.6 and 8 revealed that all was not well between the appellant and the deceased. Because of the strained relations between them, the deceased had stayed at her parents’ home for nearly 10 months prior to the occurrence and had returned barely a month before the fateful day after her father-in-law had come to take her back. There was no reason to disbelieve this part of evidence of PWs. 6 and 8. [Para 5][331-H; 332-A-B]
1.2 The prosecution sufficiently established that there was cow dung on the hands of the deceased indicating that she was engaged in house hold chores when the assault was made. The injuries on the person of the deceased, as noticed in the inquest report as also in the post mortem report, were clearly indicative of a struggle or resistance put up by the deceased in the last hour. The fact that the neck of the deceased was not found stretched and elongated, considering that the body was still fresh, ruled out any possibility of suicide by the deceased. The tongue was not protruding. Scratches and abrasions would not be present in case of a suicide. There was no fracture or dislocation of the bones in the neck area. The saliva was not running down the face or chest of the deceased but had flowed out at the left of the mouth. [Paras 6, 8][332-D; 333-C-E]
Shambu Nath Mehra v. The State of Ajmer 1956 SCR 199; Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (1974) 4 SCC 193 : [1974] 3 SCR 74; Jose v. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors. (2016) 10 SCC 519 : [2016] 8 SCR
115 – held inapplicable.
2. The High Court opined that the deceased had been hanged to death. Suicide was ruled out as the wooden log in the room used for storing grains from which a piece of a rope was found hanging was 11 ft. 2 inches in height from the floor. The deceased was of 5’4" and assuming that she would stretch out another one foot six inches it would still leave gap of 4 feet between her and the log, therefore suicide was an impossibility. There was no reason to differ with the reasoning. The conclusion of the High Court also did not help the appellant in the defence of a suicide. The views taken by the Trial Court and the High Court nonetheless both pointed towards a homicidal death clearly. The view of the Sessions Court that the deceased was strangulated to death is accepted as it was not possible for the appellant to hang the deceased alone. The body has also been found lying on the ground. [Para 9][333-F-G]
3. The prosecution was able to successfully establish a case for a homicidal death inside the house where the deceased resided with the appellant alone. The conduct of the appellant in this background, now becomes important. If the deceased had committed suicide, it is strange that the appellant laid her body on the floor after bringing her down but did not bother to inform anyone living near him much less the parents of the deceased. There was no evidence that the information was conveyed to the family members of the deceased by the appellant or at the behest of the appellant. The appellant was also not found to be at home when her family members came the next morning. The appellant offered no defence whatsoever with regard to his absence the whole night and on the contrary PW 3 attempted to build up a case of alibi on behalf of the appellant, when he himself had taken no such defence under Section 313, Cr.P.C. The occurrence had taken place in the rural environment in the middle of the month of October when it gets dark early. Normally, in a rural environment people return home after dusk and life begins early with dawn. It is strange that the appellant did not return home the whole night and was taken into custody on 21.10.1994. In the circumstances, the onus clearly shifted on the appellant to explain the circumstances and the manner in which the deceased met a homicidal death in the matrimonial home as it was a fact specifically and exclusive to his knowledge. It is not the case of the appellant that there had been an intruder in the house at night. Once the prosecution established a prima facie case, the appellant was obliged to furnish some explanation under Section 313, Cr.P.C. with regard to the circumstances under which the deceased met an unnatural death inside the house. His failure to offer any explanation whatsoever therefore leaves no doubt for the conclusion of his being the assailant of the deceased. [Paras 10, 11, 12, 15][333-H; 334-A-E; 337-D-E]
Hanumant and Ors. v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091; Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and Ors. v. State of Maharashtra (2012)
10 SCC 373 : [2012] 7 SCR 1083; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra 2006 (10) SCC 681 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR156 – relied on.
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.