Evidence – Circumstantial evidence – Burden of proof – Prosecution case that brother of the deceased lodged FIR that his sister was murdered by her husband-appellant in connivance with his second wife, and that his other sisterneighbour of the appellant, had seen the appellant committing the murder of the deceased by strangulating her with a rope and had threatened her not to disclose anything – Appellant also brought the dead body from his village to the native place of the brother of the deceased – Courts below convicted the appellant for murder of his first wife by strangulation – Correctness:
Held: Complainant, his sister, and cousin of the deceased declared hostile witnesses and prosecution left with the formal witnesses, doctor who conducted the post mortem and Inspector who carried out the investigation – Discarding the evidence of the witnesses who turned hostile, the evidence of the doctor and the Inspector do not conclusively establish the cause of the death – Circumstances do not conclusively establish the guilt of the appellant rather gives sufficient room to form a different opinion – On the basis of the circumstantial evidence, the innocence of the appellant cannot be completely ruled out – Courts below completely lost sight of the statement of the appellant recorded u/s.313 CrPC – Appellant in his statement categorically stated that the deceased had died a natural death as she was suffering from chronic tuberculosis – It was for the prosecution to have sought re-examination of the doctor conducting the post-mortem, however the prosecution completely failed to produce evidence to prove his guilt of the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence – Evidence on record gives ample leverage for two conflicting opinions, and in such circumstances, the benefit of doubt to be given in favour of the appellant – Impugned judgment set aside – Appellant in jail for over ten years, as such directed to be released – Penal Code, 1860 – Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 – s.313. [Paras 17, 19, 24-27]
As published in the Supreme Court Reports, Supreme Court of India. Headnotes prepared by: Nidhi Jain. 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.