Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Matricide-killing of one’s own mother – Prosecution case that Police received an unknown call informing that there was a doubtful death – Police reached the spot – Last rites of the dead body was hurriedly carried out – The body was inspected and it was found that there was strangulation mark on the neck and injury on the backside of skull with blood oozing – Body was removed from the pyre and inquest was carried out – Chargesheet was filed against two persons: appellant and one B – Trial Court convicted both the accused – However, the High Court acquitted B and conviction of appellant was maintained – Correctness: Held: The evidence of PW-8-Deputy Superintendent of Police reveals that she received a call from an unknown person, however, no efforts were made to track down the said person to elicit more details – No leads from the crowd, who gathered there, were picked out and nobody was examined in Court – There is no evidence to show that the present appellant was present at the site of the first attempted cremation, or any of the relatives of the deceased – The doctor-PW-6 opined that the cause of death was asphyxia by strangulation – There was no ligature mark from the back side of the neck – During cross-examination, the doctor clearly deposed that the absence of ligature mark on the back side of neck is possible in case of hanging – He further deposed that in case of strangulation; the ligature mark should be present all around the neck – He further deposed that that the imprint injury of the nylon rope is possible in case of hanging as there were weight and force of body – A document also reveals that deceased was treated for relapsed schizophrenia – Based on the deposition of Dr. PW-6 examined by the prosecution, a serious doubt arises as to whether at all the deceased died a homicidal death – There is no definite medical opinion and in view of the considerable ambiguity in the evidence of PW-6, death by suicide, cannot be said to be completely ruled out – Besides that, on same evidence, the High Court has acquitted B – Also, there is nothing on record to show that appellant resided with deceased – PW-9-Investigating Officer stated that appellant was residing in the house of M on rental basis – Further, the evidence of PW-2 is also contradictory to the evidence of PW-9 insofar as the travel to the place of recovery is concerned – All this present a very unsatisfactory state of affairs – As far as angle of property is concerned, it has come on record that the appellant has his father as well as two sisters who are alive – It is not as if that the property would, on the death of the deceased, immediately devolve on the appellant in the event of the alleged murder by him going undetected – The courts below have fallen into a serious error in convicting the appellant on the basis of the evidence on record – For the reasons stated above, appellant is acquitted of all charges framed against him. [Paras 28, 29, 31-34, 38, 40, 49, 53, 56, 57]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Ankit Gyan. 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.