1. Murder of spouse — Conviction under Section 302/34 IPC — Appeal against conviction and sentence. (Para 1 )
Back
Next 
1996 Supreme(SC) 177
1996(1) Supreme 766
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.S. Anand and S.B. Majmudar, JJ.
Harbans Lal -Appellant
versus
State of Punjab -Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 38 of 1983
Decided on 23-1-1996
IMPORTANT POINT
High Court upheld the conviction and sentence of appellant on the circumstance that deceased was found dead in her own house where she was residing with the appellant with whom she had strained relations and two persons witnessed the occurrence whose evidence is critical. This is not supportable in law.
Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Section 302-Murder-Appellant convicted for murdering his wife by burning with kerosene due to strained relations-Incident witnessed by PW11 and his grandson PW12-They saw by peeping through window but raised no alarm-Strangers-Their presence found doubtful-Can they be relied as credit worthy witness ? (No)-Inference of murder by body being found in house of appellant-Not proper when appellant said under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that he was sleeping in shop due to strained relations-Defence witnesses and Court witness not noticed by High Court-Whether conviction and sentence can be upheld ? (No) (Paras 6 to 8)-Acquittal restored.
Act Referred
Legal Category Hierarchy
Table of Contents
2. Challenge to conviction based on unreliable witness testimony and the failure of the lower court to consider defense evidence. (Para 2 , 6 , 7 )
3. Eye-witness testimony was unnatural and unreliable; recovery of the body from the residence creates suspicion but does not constitute proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 6 )
4. Suspicion cannot take the place of proof; conviction cannot be sustained based on circumstantial evidence that is not conclusive of guilt. (Para 6 )
5. Appeal allowed — Conviction and sentence set aside — Bail bonds discharged. (Para 8 )
6. When is the testimony of eye-witnesses considered unreliable in criminal trials?
Testimony is unreliable when witness conduct is unnatural, such as observing a gruesome crime without raising an alarm or reporting it promptly, and when their presence at the scene is doubtful. (Para 6 )
7. Does the recovery of a deceased person's body from the accused's residence suffice for conviction?
No, the recovery of a body from the accused's house creates suspicion but is not conclusive proof of guilt and cannot replace legal proof beyond reasonable doubt. (Para 6 )
8. What is the legal impact of a court failing to consider defense evidence?
Failure to notice, consider, or discuss material defense evidence is highly improper and can result in a miscarriage of justice, prejudicing the accused. (Para 7 )
9. How should the benefit of doubt be applied when multiple accused are tried for the same offense?
The court must apply a consistent yardstick; if the benefit of doubt is given to some accused based on their statements regarding residence, the same should be applied to others in similar circumstances. (Para 6 )
ORDER
The appellant along with his two sons Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram were sent up for trial in connection with the murder of Punni Devi - wife of the appellant and mother of Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram on the night intervening 16/17 October, 1981. The trial court convicted all the three accused for offences under Section 302/34 IPC vide its judgment dated 15.6.1982 and sentenced them to undergo life imprisonment. On appeal, the High Court gave benefit of doubt to Pawan Kumar and Dial Ram and acquitted them. The conviction and sentence of the appellant was, however, maintained.
2. By special leave, the appellant has called in question his conviction and sentence.
3. We have heard learned counsel for the parties and examined the record.
4. That Punni Devi died as a result of burn injuries on the night intervening October 16/17, 1981, in the house of her husband Harbans Lal appellant, is not in dispute. The question, however, is whether the prosecution has been able to establish that the appellant committed the crime.
5. The prosecution examined PW-11, Kartar Singh and PW-12 Karnail Singh - grandson of PW-11, as the two witnesses of the occurrence. The High Court while considering the submissions relating to the evidence of Kartar Singh PW-11 found that the criticism of his evidence was not without force but went on to say that even if the evidence of that witness was ignored , the fact remains that the deceased was found dead in her own house where she was residing with the appellant and that it was not a case of suicide and therefore the appellant must have burnt her to death. Thus, the High Court appears to have relied upon that circumstance to uphold the conviction and sentence of the appellant.
6. With a view to satisfy our judicial conscious, we have perused the evidence of PW-11 Kartar Singh and PW-12 Karnail Singh but their evidence does not inspire confidence. PW-11 Kartar Singh deposed that on the night in question, while passing through the house of Harbans Lal he peeped through a window of the house and saw that the appellant had kept his foot on the neck of Punni Devi deceased while Pawan Kumar had caught hold of her arms and Dial Ram of her legs. Why PW11 had to peep through the window is not explained by him, particularly when it is not his case that the deceased was shouting or raising an alarm? Karnail Singh PW-12 deposed that after PW11 had peeped through the window, he did likewise and noticed that Pawan Kumar was sprinkling kerosene oil on the body of Punni Devi while Harbans Lal had put his foot on her abdomen, and he (i.e. Harbans Lal) set her on fire with a match stick. Thus, these two witnesses deposed about two stages of the occurrence they had seen through the window. Their evidence appears to be rather artificial. These two witnesses appear to us to be got up witnesses. They saw a gruesome murder being committed with their own eyes and yet for reasons best known to them, they did not raise any alarm but went their way and did not disclose about the occurrence to anyone, not only that evening but even till the third day after the occurrence. Their conduct was thus, most unnatural. This creates a serious doubt about their credit worthiness. From the evidence of DW-4 and DW-5 it transpires that PW11 did not even have a ration card in that ward and even his name was not entered on the voters list of that area. His presence in the area is therefore, doubtful. The evidence of both these witnesses, PW-11 and PW-12, has not impressed us. The High Court also does not appear to have found them reliable witnesses. Their conduct belies the possibility of their presence and various infirmities in their evidence, renders it unsafe to rely upon their testimony. The only other piece of evidence relied upon by the prosecution is the recovery of the dead body with extensive burns from the house of the appellant. That circumstance, however, is not sufficient to hold the appellant guilty. It is not conclusive in nature and is no
