1992 Supreme(SC) 319

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.
Mulakh Raj, etc., Appellants
Versus
Satish Kumar and others, Respondents
Criminal Appeals Nos. 22 to 25 of 1983, D/-10-4-1992.

Headnote:(i) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Appeal against acquittal for the offence under - Prosecution for murder of his wife - Circumstantial evidence - Failure to prove motive Post-mortem report stating that the deceased died due to asphyxia, due to strangulation which was ante-mortem - Burn injuries were 9S per cent of the entire body except on the feet and were post-mortem - Medical evidence rules out the theory of alternatives or suicide It conclusively establishes that the death was due to asphyxia and a deliberate attempt was made to destroy the evidence by burning the dead body - The unnatural conduct of the husband, immediately after the occurrence completes the chain of circumstantial evidence leading to only one conclusion that her husband has committed the offence - Conviction u/s 302 of the Code is sustainable.

       Held: The occurrence took place in the broad day time in their bed room. The deceased at that time was having three months old child. What had happened to the child at the time when the ghastly occurrence had taken place is anybodys guess. Normally three month child would be in the lap of the mother unless somebody takes into his/her laps for play. It is not the case. It would be probable that after the murder, the child must have been taken out and the dead body was burnt after pouring kerosene and lighting fire. Therefore, the one who committed the offence must have removed the child later from the room. Admittedly the day of occurrence is a Sunday and that too in the afternoon. Therefore, the shops must have been closed. D.W. 2, Post Office Superintendent, examined by the defence, categorically admitted that the handwriting of all the telegrams was of the same person. Satish Kumar admitted that he issued two telegrams including the one to P.W. 15 and the two were issued by his father. Therefore, four telegrams were issued by the 1st respondent alone. When the wife was practically charred to death an innocent and compassionate husband would be in a state of shock and would not move from the bed-side of the deceased wife and others would attend to inform the relations. It is also his case that he phoned to the police station and informed of the occurrence. Evidence is other way about An attempt was made to have the matter compromised, but failed. Thereafter they were found to be absconding. The evidence of D. W.4 (maternal uncle) that the 1st respondent was in the shop thus gets falsified and his is a purgered evidence. This false plea is a relevant circumstance which militates against his innocence. The death took place on the bed room of the spouse and the attempt to destroy the evidence of murder by burning the dead body; the unnatural conduct of Satish Kumar, immediately after the occurrence; the false pleas of suicide and absence from house are telling material relevant circumstances which would complete the chain of circumstantial evidence leading to only one conclusion that Satish Kumar alone committed the ghastly offence of murder of his wife, Shashi Bala. (para 10)

       (ii) Circumstantial Evidence – Murder case-Conviction can be recorded on the basis of when? - Failure to prove motive is not fatal when;

       Held: It is trite to reiterate that in a case founded on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must prove all the circumstances connecting unbroken chain of links leading to only one inference that the accused committed the crime. If any other reasonable hypothesis of the innocence of the accused can be inferred from the proved circumstances, the accused would be entitled to the benefit. What is required is not the quantitative but qualitative, reliable and probable circumstances to complete the chain connecting the accused with the crime. If the conduct of the accused in relation to the crime comes into question the previous and subsequent conduct are also relevant facts. Therefore, the absence of ordinary course of conduct of the accused and human probabilities of the case also would be relevant. The court must weigh the evidence of the cumulative effect of the circumstances and if it reaches the conclusion that the accused committed the crime, the charge must be held proved and the conviction and sentence would follow. (para 4)

       Further held: Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case. (para 10)

       (iii) Medical Jurisprudence – Distinction between suffocation and strangulation - Distinction between post-mortem and ante mortem burns. (Paras 6 & 7)