Penal Code, 1860: s.302 – Conviction based on circumstantial evidence – Prosecution case was that the appellant was addicted to liquor and used to abuse and beat his wife forcing her to get money from her mother – On the fateful night, the appellant and his wife went to sleep in their house – Next day morning, when the brother of the appellant went to call the appellant for going to field for harvesting crop, appellant informed him that his wife committed suicide by hanging – Trial court convicted appellant under s.302 and sentenced him to imprisonment for life – High Court upheld the said order – On appeal, held: The medical expert who conducted the autopsy admitted that the rope, which was found on the spot, could have been used for suicidal hanging of the deceased – He further stated that in case of homicidal strangulation, the bodily resistance would be reflected – Admittedly, there were no marks on the body to suggest violence or struggle – In any case, the medical expert himself did not rule out the possibility of suicidal death – In the light of this evidence, trial court as well as High Court erred in holding that the prosecution proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal – The motive relied on by prosecution was ill-treatment by the appellant meted out to the deceased for not arranging money from her mother – PW-3, mother of the deceased stated that appellant and deceased had been to her house and stayed for four days few days prior to the incident – This showed that the relations between the deceased and appellant were cordial – Thus, it was not safe to rely on the uncorroborated evidence of such a witness – Also, prosecution sought to rely on the evidence of PW-1 – However, his evidence was full of improvements and omissions – Even trial court and High Court disbelieved his evidence – Thus, prosecution utterly failed to prove motive beyond doubt – As such, an important link to complete the chain of circumstances was totally absent – Prosecution failed to prove a single incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt – Conviction and sentence passed by trial court as affirmed by High Court is set aside and appellant is acquitted of all the charges.
Evidence Act, 1872: s.106 – Burden to prove – s.106 does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased – s.106 does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt – It is only when the prosecution has led evidence which, if believed, will sustain a conviction, or which makes out a prima facie case, that the question arises of considering facts of which the burden of proof would lie upon the accused – In the instant case, the prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal.
Criminal law: Motive – Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances.
Criminal law: False explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance, when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused – However, it cannot be used as a link to complete the chain.
Criminal law: Two views – If two views are possible, the benefit shall always go to the accused.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. In the instant case, PW-6 examined as a medical expert, conducted the autopsy along with his senior medical officer. In the advance death certificate issued on 24th March 2003, under his signature, the probable cause of death was ‘asphyxia due to strangulation’. However, in the Post-Mortem Report which was signed by PW-6 as well as his Senior Medical Officer on 19th June 2003, the cause of death was ‘cardio respiratory arrest due to asphyxia due to hanging’. PW-6 admitted, that in both the cases of suicidal or homicidal hanging, the ligature marks around the neck shall go upwards ears. He further admitted that after consulting his senior medical officer and going through the books, he concluded that it was a case of hanging. He further admitted, that rope, which was found on the spot, can be used for suicidal hanging. He further admitted, that in case of homicidal strangulation, the bodily resistance would be reflected. Admittedly, there are no marks on the body which would suggest violence or struggle. In any case, the medical expert himself has not ruled out the possibility of suicidal death. On the contrary, the Post-Mortem Report shows, that the cause of death was ‘asphyxia due to hanging’. In the light of this evidence, the trial court as well as the High Court erred in holding, that the prosecution proved that the death of the deceased was homicidal. [Paras 13, 15, 17, 18][625-A-C, E-F; 626-C-D]
Eswarappa alias Doopada Eswarappa v. State of
Karnataka (2019) 16 SCC 269 – relied on.
Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology 23rd Edn. p.572 – referred to.
2. It is well-settled that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not directly operate against either a husband or wife staying under the same roof and being the last person seen with the deceased. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of discharging its primary burden of proving the prosecution case beyond reasonable doubt. In the present case, the prosecution has even failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt, that the death was homicidal. [Paras 22, 23][628-A-C, C-D]
Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu and Another (2009)
14 SCC 415 : [2009] 9 SCR 725; Gargi v. State of Haryana (2019) 9 SCC 738; Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156; Ponnusamy v. State of Tamil Nadu (2008) 5 SCC 587; [2008] 6 SCR 303 – relied on
3. Another circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was, that the appellant failed to give any explanation in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. By now it is well-settled principle of law, that false explanation or non-explanation can only be used as an additional circumstance, when the prosecution has proved the chain of circumstances leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused. However, it cannot be used as a link to complete the chain. [Para 24][628-D-E]
4. Though in a case of direct evidence, motive would not be relevant, in a case of circumstantial evidence, motive plays an important link to complete the chain of circumstances. The motive relied on by the prosecution is the ill-treatment by the appellant meted out to the deceased for not arranging the money from her mother. PW-3, mother of the deceased has stated, that the accused and deceased had been to her house and stayed for four days few days prior to the incident. This would show, that the relations between the deceased and accused were cordial. The prosecution has utterly failed to prove motive beyond doubt. As such, an important link to complete the chain of circumstances is totally absent in the present case. [Paras 26, 27, 30][628-H; 629-A-C; 630-F]
Anwar Ali and Another v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC 166 – relied on.
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC
254:[2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 501 – held inapplicable.
5. It is more than settled principle of law that if two views are possible, the benefit shall always go to the accused. In the present case, let alone establishing chain of events which are so interwoven to each other leading to no other conclusion than the guilt of the accused, the prosecution has failed even to prove a single incriminating circumstance beyond reasonable doubt. The conviction and sentence passed by the trial court as affirmed by the High Court is set aside. The appellant is acquitted of all the charges. [Paras 32, 34][631-A, G-H; 632-A]
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2019) 19 SCC 447 – relied on.
G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka (2010) 8 SCC 593: [2010] 10 SCR 377; Babu v. State of Kerala (2010)
9 SCC 189:[ 2010] 9 SCR 1039 – referred to.
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.