Important Point
The trial Court having held that the deceased was murdered and no outsider could commit it exonerated the appellant-husband on reasons which are queer and inexplicable.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860-Section 302 - Murder-Death of wife on 4th floor’s bed room of house-Only husband and his relatives present-No outsider-Medical evidence showing death homicidal-Appellant at the floor below the bed room-He alone had gone to top floor and gave false version that she was lying unconscious-False statement of deceased’s ailments-Trial Court acquitting appellant but High Court convicting u/s 302-Whether High Court is correct? (Yes).
       Held : In our considered view, irrespective of the opinion of the doctor, the nature of the injuries found on the person of the deceased by itself establishes that the deceased could not have committed suicide and that she was killed. If from the ligature mark found on her neck we were to infer that she committed suicide - as contended by the defence - we would have to necessarily assume that she hanged herself but, admittedly, her body, when first seen, was found lying on the cot. To put it differently, the very fact that the body with ligature mark around the neck was found on the cot - and not hanging - completely demolishes the theory of suicide and proves that she was murdered. As regards the possibility of murder by some intruder, the most eloquent circumstances against its acceptance is that there was no sign of scuffle or mark of sexual assault on the deceased and no proof of theft of any article from the room or any attempt in so doing. This apart, both the Courts found that the evidence adduced in proof of the topography of the residential premises, excluded the possibility of any outsider entering the top floor of the house. (Para 8)
       Coming now to the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution to bring home the charge levelled against the appellant (stated earlier) we notice that they stand proved by unrebutted evidence and his admissions. Since the High Court has dealt with this aspect of the matter at length we need not restate them. Suffice it to say, that considered in the context of the fact that no outsider could have committed the murder, the only conclusion that can be drawn from the proved circumstances of the case is that after strangulating his wife to death - which according to the doctor could be caused within 2/3 minutes - the appellant came out with a false version that she was lying unconscious. The false explanations offered by the appellant regarding alleged ailments of the deceased lend further assurance to our above conclusions. It passes our comprehension how the trial Court, after having held that the deceased was murdered and no outsider could commit the murder exonerated the appellant inspite of tell-tale circumstances unerringly pointing to his guilt. Indeed the reasons given by the trial Court for acquitting the appellant-quoted earlier-are, to say the least, queer and inexplicable. For the foregoing discussion we find no merit in this appeal. It is accordingly dismissed. (Paras 9 & 10)

Judgment

M.K. Mukherjee, J.-This appeal under Section 379 of the Code of Criminal Procedure is directed against the judgment dated February 7, 1995 rendered by the Gujarat High Court in Criminal Appeal No. 511 of 1995 whereby it reversed the acquittal of the appellant of the charge under Section 302 IPC recorded in his favour by the Additional City Sessions Judge, Ahmedabad and convicted and sentenced him thereunder. Facts relevant for the purpose of disposal of this appeal are as under:

2. The appellant along with his wife Vasumati (the deceased), his parents, two brothers and a sister used to reside in a four storied house at Maniasa-in-Khadki in the city of Ahmedabad. In the top floor of the house there is only room, which was used by the appellant and his wife as their bed room. On January 4, 1984, the appellant took his evening meal along with the other members of the family and then started gossiping. Vasumati, however was not there at that time. Sometime later the appellant went to his bed room and coming back told them that she was lying unconscious. He called Dr. Suresh Pratap Rai Sah (P.W. 1), their family physician, who examined Vasumati and advised her removal to hospital. The appellant then took her to V.S. Hospital in an ambulance van, but she was declared dead. Information about the death was sent to the local police station and Police Inspector Desai (P.W. 14) took up investigation. On completion of investigation he submitted charge-sheet against the appellant and the five members of his family (since acquitted), alleging that in furtherance of their common intention they committed the murder of Vasumati by strangulation. The accused persons pleaded not guilty of the charge and their defence, as it appears from the trend of the cross examination and the suggestions put to different prosecution witnesses, was that either she committed suicide or some outsider killed her.

3. In the absence of any eye witness, the prosecution rested its case upon circumstantial evidence. To prove that all the members of the family were responsible for the murder, the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances:

(i) Vasumati met with a homicidal death by strangulation;

(ii) there was no scope for any outsider to go to the top floor of the house to commit the murder;

(iii) there was no marks of physical violence on the person of the deceased which were likely in case of any encounter with an intruder or of any sexual assault, and

(iv) there was no evidence of theft or attempt to commit theft of any of the properties inside the room;

and to pinpoint the guilt of the appellant on the following additional circumstances:

(i) the appellant and the deceased were the only persons occupying the top floor room and using it as their bed room;

(ii) the appellant alone had gone to the top floor room where the deceased was at the material time and coming down a little later gave out a false version that she was lying unconscious;

(iii) the doctor opined that hardly 2-3 minutes were required for causing death by strangulation;

(iv) there were marks of injuries on the person of the deceased; and

(v) the appellant’s version that the deceased was suffering from vertigo and vomiting since two days before her death, and that for that ailment she did not take her meals on that fateful night, was false as semi-digested food was found in her stomach.

4. The trial Court first discussed at length the evidence of the doctor who opined that the death was homicidal and accepting the same held that the defence story that the deceased committed suicide was wholly untenable. It then took up for consideration the question whether any outsider could have committed the murder and considering the evidence furnished by the prosecution regarding the topography of the house and the other related circumstances (s

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

1998 Supreme(SC) 836

Important PointThe trial Court having held that the deceased was murdered and no outsider could commit it exonerated the appellant-husband on reasons which are queer and inexplicable.

Important Point
The trial Court having held that the deceased was murdered and no outsider could commit it exonerated the appellant-husband on reasons which are queer and inexplicable.