Md. Anowar Hussain vs State of Assam

Court

Supreme Court of India

Date

13 October 2022

Case No.

Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2019

Result

Dismissed

Bench

Dinesh Maheshwari, Aniruddha Bose

Citation

[2022] 18 S.C.R. 721 : 2022 INSC 1079

Headnote

Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Circumstantial Evidence – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Appellant was held guilty of the offence u/s.302 for murder of his wife and was awarded the punishment of imprisonment for life – On appeal, held: Victim was none other than the wife of the appellant and was living with him – Thus, the basic fact as to when did he part with the company of his wife was within the knowledge of the appellant alone however, he explained nothing in that regard – When the appellant’s wife was found killed with the dead body carrying several injuries and the cause of death having been asphyxia due to throttling, the appellant was required to explain such injuries, which the deceased sustained while living with him in the same dwelling house – Again, there was no explanation from him – If his wife, who was residing with him, had been so ill as to be taken to hospital, the facts in that regard were also especially within the knowledge of the appellant and he was required to explain the nature of ailment as also the mode and manner by which she was admitted to the hospital – But, there was no explanation on these aspects from the appellant – Further, if his wife had died and still he had gone to some other place, the reason for doing so was also especially within the knowledge of the appellant alone – The reason as assigned by him (about his own illness) is found to be far away from truth – Prosecution has discharged its primary burden of bringing home cogent circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the appellant – All the facts and factors, which ought to be in the knowledge of the appellant, are either not clarified or the explanation given by the appellant turns out to be false – Hence, such omission coupled with falsehood indeed provide additional links in the chain of circumstances – The falsehood cooked up by the witnesses (regarding illness and hospitalisation of the victim) and readily accepted by the appellant coupled with the undischarged burden of s.106 of the Evidence Act provide such strong links in this matter that the chain of circumstances is complete, leading to the conclusion on the guilt of the appellant beyond any doubt – Concurrent findings do not call for interference in this case – Constitution of India – Article 136.

Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)

The Judgment of the Court was delivered by DINESH MAHESHWARI, J. Table of Contents* Preliminary and brief outline ................................................ 2 Relevant factual and background aspects ........................... 6 Prosecution Evidence ............................................................. 8 Stand of the appellant .......................................................... 14 Trial Court found the appellant guilty and awarded life imprisonment .................................................................. 15 High Court dismissed the appeal filed by the appell

View Subscription Plans →