Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 201 – Reversal of acquittal by High Court – Propriety:
Held : When attention of the appellant was drawn to the incriminating circumstances that inculpated him in the crime, he failed to offer appropriate explanation or gave a false answer – The same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing a chain of circumstances – Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show, like in the present case, that shortly before the commission of the crime they were seen together or the offence took place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not dispute his presence at home at the relevant time and does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime – If an offence takes place inside four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon by the Courts – On facts, appellant guilty – Reversal of his acquittal by High Court, upheld. [Paras 24, 25 and 29]
Circumstantial evidence – Incriminating circumstance put to accused and the accused offering no explanation or offering a false explanation – Additional link in chain of circumstances: Held : In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye witness is available, principle followed is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. [Para 23] Evidence – Duty on the prosecution to lead evidence – Nature of: Held : The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led – The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. [Para 29]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106:
Held : The prosecution cannot take recourse of s.106 of the Act, 1872 without laying any foundational facts. [Para 17]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC
382 : [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 712; Dharm Das Wadhwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 241 : [1974] 3 SCR 607; Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 : [1973] 1 SCR 428; Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 73; State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 : [1992] 2 SCR 815 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
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.