This appeal challenged the conviction for murder of the appellant's wife. The High Court upheld the conviction, relying on circumstantial evidence and the husband's failure to explain the injuries sustained by his wife inside their dwelling under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Appeal dismissed; judgment of conviction and sentence affirmed.
This page shows the compact analysis of this judgement. The full analysis — procedural history, issue-by-issue holdings with ratio and obiter, advocates, and paragraph-level evidence for every claim — is being added to the record in batches and will appear here when this judgement has been through it.
NAFR
HIGH COURT OF CHHATTISGARH, BILASPUR
CRA No. 453 of 2015
---- Appellant
In Jail
Versus
---- Respondent
For Appellant : Shri CJK Rao, Advocate. For Respondent/State : Shri Adil Minhaj, P.L.
Hon'ble Shri Justice Pritinker Diwaker Hon'ble Shri Justice Gautam Chourdiya
Judgment on Board by Pritinker Diwaker, J
14/08/2018:
This appeal has been filed against the judgment of conviction and order of sentence dated 30.1.2015 passed by the V Additional Sessions Judge, Ambikapur, Distt. Surguja in Sessions Trial No. 47/2014 convicting the accused/appellant under Section 302 IPC and sentencing him to undergo imprisonment for life with fine of Rs.1000/-, plus default stipulation.
intimation Ex.P/1 was lodged on 9.2.2014 by PW-1 Sukhram Dhobi, father of the appellant. Soon thereafter FIR (Ex.P/9) was registered against the appellant on the same day under Section 302 of IPC. Inquest over the dead body was conducted on 9.2.2014 vide Ex.P/6. The dead body was sent for postmortem which was conducted on the same day by PW-5 Dr. RS Singh vide Ex.P/16 who noticed multiple contusions over forehead, chick, chin, forearm, left leg and left thigh, fracture of proximal phalanx of right ring finger and intra-cranial hemorrhage at right frontal lobe anterio-lateral side. In his opinion, the cause of death was coma due to intra-cranial hemorrhage of head injury and the death was homicidal in nature. On the memorandum of the appellant (Ex.P/10) recorded on 9.2.2014, one club and T-shirt of the appellant were seized vide Ex.P/11 & P/12. However, as per FSL report no blood was found on these articles. While framing charge, the trial Judge framed charge under Section 302 of IPC against the appellant.
(i) that there is no eyewitness account to the incident and conviction of the appellant is based on circumstantial evidence but none of the circumstances from which inference of guilt of the appellant could be drawn has been proved beyond reasonable doubt and therefore, there can be no inference that it was the appellant who committed murder of the deceased.
(ii) that from the possession of the appellant, though one club is said to have been seized, however, as per FSL report no blood was found on it and as such, this circumstance has also not been proved by the prosecution against the appellant as required under the law.
mother/deceased is lying dead in her room. PW-2 Raghunath Majhi and PW-4 Budhan Manjhi, witnesses to memorandum and seizure, have not supported the prosecution case and have been declared hostile. However, they have admitted their signature on the documents. PW-3 Karam Sai, witness to inquest Ex.P/6, has turned hostile.
deceased lying on the cot. PW-11 Manorath Yadav and PW-12 Ramsevak, police personnel, assisted in the investigation. PW-13 Kuldeep Kujur, Scientific Officer in Regional FSL, Ambikapur, has proved FSL report (Ex.P/27), according to which no blood was found on the articles seized and sent for examination.
“ 14. If an offence takes place inside the privacy 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 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, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does
not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. (See Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1944 AC 315) – quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh (2003) 11 SCC 271). 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 held. 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. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads:
“(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.”
reported in (2014) 12 SCC 211 it has been held by the Apex Court as
under:
“17. In a specific instance in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681) this Court held that when the wife is injured in the dwelling home where the husband ordinarily resides, and the husband offers no explanation for the injuries to his wife, then the circumstances would indicate that the husband is responsible for the injuries. It was said: (SCC p. 694, para 22)
“22 Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused 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.”
to explain the grounds for the unnatural death of his wife.
“22... It bears repetition that the appellant and the deceased family members were the only occupants of the room and it was therefore incumbent on the appellant to have tendered some explanation in order to avoid any suspicion as to his guilt.”
“35. During arguments we put a question to the learned Sernioir Counsel for the respondents based on hypothetical illustration. If a boy is kidnapped from the lawful custody of his guardian in the sight of his people and the kidnappers disappered with the prey, what would be the normal inference if a mangled dead body of the boy is recovered within a couple of hours from elsewhere. The query was made whether upon proof of the above facts an inference could be drawn that the kidnappers would have killed the boy. The learned Senior Counsel finally conceded that in such a case the inference is reasonably certain that the boy was killed by the kidnappers unless they explain otherwise.”
accused and deceased, no other person was present at the relevant time. In the cases like the present one, the assailant has all the opportunity to plan and commit the crime at the time and in the circumstances of his choice and it is 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. Furthermore, no explanation has come forth from the accused/appellant in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as to how the death of his wife occurred though being the sole inmate of the house in question it was his bounden duty to explain the things by leading cogent and pin-pointed evidence in his defence. Postmortem report of the deceased also supports the prosecution case according to which there were number of injuries on the person of the deceased and her death was homicidal in nature.
Sd/ Sd/ (Pritinker Diwaker) (Gautam Chourdiya) Judge Judge
Khan
3 issues framed by the court
Whether there is any infirmity in the conviction and sentence of the appellant for murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence and lack of explanation in statement u/s 313 CrPC.
Whether the failure of the appellant to offer a cogent explanation for the injuries to his wife in their dwelling house shifts the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
Whether the trial Court was justified in holding the appellant guilty based on the house murder theory.
Colour shows how this judgement treated each authority
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of MaharashtraExplained¶30
(2006) 10 SCC 681 · Who else cites this
Stirland v. Director of Public ProsecutionsReferred¶31
(1944 AC 315)
State of Punjab v. Karnail SinghReferred¶31
(2003) 11 SCC 271 · Who else cites this
State of Rajsthan v. Thakur SinghExplained¶35
(2014) 12 SCC 211 · Who else cites this
Ganeshlal v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶39
(1992) 3 SCC 106 · Who else cites this
Dnyaneshwar v. State of MaharashtraRelied on¶41
(2007) 10 SCC 445 · Who else cites this
Jagdish v. State of MPRelied on¶43
(2009) 9 SCC 495 · Who else cites this
Gian Chand v. State of HaryanaRelied on¶45
(2013) 14 SCC 420 · Who else cites this
3 provisions across 3 enactments
Charan Sai Dhobi
State Of Chhattisgarh
Pritinker Diwaker
Gautam Chourdiya
As recorded by the court registry
Judgements on the same questions, provisions and authorities, from every court
