IMPORTANT POINT
Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860—Section 302—Appellant convicted by Courts below for murder of his wife—Deceased was married a year before incident—Deceased became pregnant, came to her parents house on a festival and complained about ill-treatment meted out to her by accused—Accused started visiting house of deceased’s parents PWs 1 and 7 and insisted for deceased to come back to his village—On the night of incident accused came to house of PWs 1 and 7, picked up a quarrel with deceased, her mother and other relatives—Accused stayed in the house —Accused and deceased slept inside the room and PWs 1 and 7 slept outside the hall—At about 3 a.m. they heard cries coming from room and when they went inside they saw deceased lying on ground with bleeding injuries on head and accused ran away—Though mother of deceased during trial resiled but trial Court found residual evidence was sufficient to hold accused guilty—High Court upheld conviction—Appeal—Conviction based on circumstantial evidence could be sustained and upheld and all circumstances were duly proved and formed a complete chain to point to guilt of accused—Only circumstance highlighted by Courts below was that there was unnatural death—Section 498-A IPC had been found inapplicable—Conviction was liable to be set aside.
       Held : It has been consistently laid down by this Court that where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, the inference of guilt can be justified only when all the incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with the innocence of the accused or the guilt of any other person.(Para 10)
       In the instant case, the only circumstance which was highlighted by the trial Court and the High Court was that there was unnatural death and additionally the so called dying declaration purported to have been recorded by the then Tehsildar (PW-16). The mere fact that the deceased had died an unnatural death cannot by itself be a circumstance against the accused particularly when Section 498-A has been held to be inapplicable. Additionally, the conclusion that there was dying declaration is also not factually correct. The trial Court itself has referred to the evidence of PW-16 who categorically stated that though he was requested to record the dying declaration the same could not be recorded as the doctor was of the opinion that the deceased was not in a fit condition to give her statement. Thereafter, no statement was recorded. In fact he was called to attend the inquest. (Para 19)
       Above being the position the conviction as recorded by the trial Court and upheld by the High Court is indefensible and is set aside. (Para 20)

JUDGMENT

Dr. Arijit Pasayat, J.—Leave granted.

2. Challenge in this appeal is to the judgment rendered by a Division Bench of the Karnataka High Court dismissing the appeal filed by the appellant. The appellant was found guilty of offence punishable under Sections 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (in short the ‘IPC’) by the trial court and was sentenced to undergo R.I. for two years and life respectively. Fine was also imposed with default stipulation.

3. The High Court set aside the conviction for the offence punishable under Section 498-A IPC but maintained the conviction under Section 302 IPC and consequently the sentence.

4. The background facts as projected by the prosecution are as follows:

Sumithra (hereinafter referred to as the ‘deceased’), as the daughter of Siddamma (PW-1) and sister of Hosakerappa (PW-6) as well as grand daughter of Hanumawwa (PW-7). She was married to the accused about one year back to the date of incident. After the marriage, Sumithra went to the house of her husband to lead a happy family life. Though initially they led a happy married life, bickerings started between the accused and his wife as he started abusing and ill-treating her on the pretext that she does not know how to do the house-hold work. However, this was only a pretext to extract additional dowry from the parents of the deceased. As per the customs during Gowri Festival, the deceased was brought to her parental place to celebrate the festival and at that time, the deceased who was pregnant had complained about the ill-treatment meted out to her by her husband. As such, the parents, grand-mother and other relatives asked the deceased to stay back in their house. The accused started visiting the house of PWs 1 and 7 and was insisting upon the deceased to come back to his village. On such a visit viz., on 9.3.2001, the accused again came to the house and picked up a quarrel with the deceased and her mother and other relatives and insisted that she should be sent on that day itself. The relatives informed him that as Sumithra was pregnant, after performing certain ceremonies including ‘Srimantha’, she would be sent back later. The accused stayed in the house of the in-laws that night. On the next day i.e. on 10.3.2001, after taking the night meals, the accused and the deceased slept inside the room whereas, the mother, brother and other relatives slept outside the hall. In the night around 3.00 a.m., they heard cries coming from the room and when they went inside, they saw the accused running away and Sumithra lying unconscious on the ground with bleeding injuries on her head. Immediately, she was shifted to Government Hospital, Gadag and then to KIMS Hospital. However, in spite of the medical treatment, she breathed her last on 13.3.2001. In the meantime, on 11.3.2001 itself Head Constable (PW-18) and SHO of Gadag Rural Police station on getting the medico legal intimation that one Sumithra was admitted in the hospital and that she was assaulted by her husband with an iron implement, he went to the hospital and made enquiry and found that Sumithra, the injured was not in a position to give any statement. As such, he recorded the statement of Siddamma (PW-1) who was present in the hospital and treating the same as first information, came back to the Police Station and registered a case in Crime no. 50/2001 for the offences punishable under Sections 498-A, 504 and 307 IPC, registering the FIR. He again went back to the hospital and there, as per the advise of the Doctor, shifted the injured to KIMS Hospital, Hubli. He again deputed and sent requisition for recording of the dying declaration by the authorised Taluka Executive Magistrate, but the same could not be recorded as Sumithra was in coma. As already noted, at KIMS Hospital, Hubli, in spite of the treatment the injured Sumithra breathed her last. After her death, the offence punishable under Section 307 IPC was altered to Section 302 of IPC and further investigation wa

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2007 Supreme(SC) 196

IMPORTANT POINTWhere a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person.

Cases Referred (14)

IMPORTANT POINT
Where a case rests squarely on circumstantial evidence, inference of guilt can be justified only when all incriminating facts and circumstances are found to be incompatible with innocence of accused or guilt of any other person.