Penal Code, 1860 – ss.302, 201 r/w.34 – Case based on circumstantial evidence – Deceased was residing with PW1 (son), PW2 (daughter) and accused-respondent (brother-in-law) – On the fateful night, PW1 heard the cries of deceased on being beaten by respondent who then took her towards the house of another accused – Later, dead body of deceased was found hanging from a tree – Trial court convicted the respondent – Appeal by accused allowed by High Court on the ground that PW-1 had made improvements in his deposition and hence, was not a reliable witness – Held: Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence – In the present case, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved by cogent and reliable evidence cumulatively forming a complete chain pointing out that the murder was committed by the respondent and none-else – Further, evidence of PW-1 was cogent, natural and consistent with the prosecution case – High Court entertained fanciful doubts and rejected the credible evidence of PW-1 on ground of alleged improvements – Reasonings of the High Court for acquitting the respondent are unsustainable – Conviction of respondent by trial court is affirmed.
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge – Deceased was living with her 2 children and accused-respondent (brother-in-law) – On the fateful day, the respondent had beaten the deceased before taking her towards the house of another accused – Later, dead body of deceased was found hanging from a tree – Held: In view of s.106, burden was cast upon the respondent, being the inmate of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the deceased died – No reasonable explanation was forthcoming from him as to why he had neither lodged the complaint nor informed the police about the missing of deceased – Accused not throwing light on the fact which was within his knowledge, his failure to offer any explanation is a strong militating circumstance against him.
Criminal law – Last seen theory – Deceased was last seen alive in the company of accused – Accused did not satisfactorily explain the missing of deceased – Held: This is a strong militating circumstance against the accused – Deceased who was residing in the same house with the accused and was last seen alive with the accused, it was for him to explain how the deceased died.
Allowing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1.1 Prosecution case is based on circumstantial evidence. It is well settled that in a case based on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn must be cogently and firmly established and that those circumstances must be conclusive in nature unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused. Moreover all the circumstances taken cumulatively should form a complete chain and there should be no gap left in the chain of evidence. Further the proved circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence. [Para 9][107-D-E]
1.2 The deceased was living with her brother-in-law/accused along with her children. If the deceased was so missing, the natural conduct of the accused was to inform the police and also PW-3 (deceased’s brother). But that was not done. In view of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 burden is cast upon the accused, being the inmate of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the deceased died. The respondent-accused being inmate of the house cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation. This is a strong militating circumstance against the respondent indicating that he might be responsible for the commission of the offence. [Para 12]108-G-H]
2. The motive attributed to the accused is that he had frequently quarrelled with the deceased and also assaulted her. Evidence of PW-15 as to the motive attributed to the accused was not properly appreciated by the High Court. [Para 13][109A, D]
3. PW-1 is the son of the deceased residing with her and the accused in the same house, and a natural witness to speak about the occurrence. Evidence of PW-1 was cogent and natural and is consistent with the prosecution case. The High Court was not right in doubting the evidence of PW-1 on the ground of alleged improvements made and rejecting his evidence on the premise that there were certain improvements. [Para 15][110D-E]
4. The deceased who was residing in the same house with the accused and was last seen alive with the accused, it is for him to explain how the deceased died. The accused has no reasonable explanation as to how the body of the deceased was found hanging from the tree. It is for the accused to explain as to what happened to the deceased. [Para 16][110-F]
State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram (2006) 12 SCC 254 : [2006] 8 Suppl. SCR 501 – relied on.
5. In the present case, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are proved by cogent and reliable evidence. The circumstances cumulatively taken form a complete chain pointing out that the murder was committed by the accused and noneelse. [Para 18][111-D]
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
10 SCC 681: [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156; Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 731 : [2001] 4 Suppl. SCR 619; State of Maharashtra v. Suresh (2000) 1 SCC
471 : [1999] 5 Suppl. SCR 215; State of Tamil Nadu v. Rajendran (1999) 8 SCC 679 : [1999] 3 Suppl. SCR 89 – 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.