2010 Supreme(SC) 603

2010 (5) Supreme 697
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Dr. B.S. Chauhan and Swatanter Kumar, JJ.
Mannu Sao — Petitioner
versus
State of Bihar — Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1165 of 2009
Decided on : 22-7-2010

IMPORTANT POINTS
1.An accused can be punished if he is found guilty even in cases of circumstantial evidence, provided, the prosecution is able to prove beyond reasonable doubt, complete chain of events and circumstances which definitely points towards involvement and guilt of the suspect or accused, as the case may be. The accused will not be entitled to acquittal merely because there is no eye-witness to the case.
2.The object of recording statement of accused under Section 313 of Criminal Procedure Code is to put all incriminating evidence against accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code,1860-Sections 302,201-Prosecution of appellant for causing death of his wife by throttling her and thereafter setting her on fire-Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal- Deceased died while living with appellant and he was expected to render some explanation which was reasonably possible in the facts and circumstances of the case in regard to cause of her death which he failed to do-Doctor conducting postmortem upon the deceased’s body opined that she had been killed by throttling or strangulating and thereafter she suffered the burn injuries- In the cross-examination of said witness, nothing material could be pointed out which would help the case of the accused- Evidence on record that deceased had left her earlier husband and was living with appellant, who was also staying away from his family in the cabin in his agricultural fields, where that incident occurred- There was definite protest raised by the villagers to their living together- Besides this, even medical evidence had shown that deceased was strangulated or throttled before her body was burnt- The social embarrassment could be a plausible motive for appellant to commit the crime- Appellant took an incorrect, if not a false stand before Court that incident occurred in his absence- His conduct in naming one B from whom he had sought help to take deceased to hospital also not appeared to be correct-Appellant made no effort whatsoever to examine any witness to establish this fact. Appellant admitted that deceased died in front of his eyes and he did nothing except reporting the matter to police at a subsequent stage-Instantly motive suggested by prosecution appeared to be reasonable and in consonance with behaviour of a person placed in a situation like appellant –Apart from that also held difficult to believe that a person would commit suicide without any provocation or incident immediately preceding the occurrence-The explanation rendered by appellant correctly disbelieved by Courts below- No reason to take a different view-Appeal dismissed. (Paras 19, 20)

       Criminal Procedure Code,1973-Section 313-Scope and Object of -The object of recording statement of accused under Section 313 of Code is to put all incriminating evidence against accused so as to provide him an opportunity to explain such incriminating circumstances appearing against him in the evidence of prosecution- At the same time, also to permit him to put forward his own version or reasons, if he so chooses, in relation to his involvement or otherwise in the crime- The Court has been empowered to examine accused but only after the prosecution evidence has been concluded- It is a mandatory obligation upon Court and besides ensuring compliance thereof Court has to keep in mind that accused gets a fair chance to explain his conduct- The option lies with the accused to maintain silence coupled with simplicitor denial or in the alternative to explain his version and reasons, for his alleged involvement in the commission of crime- This is the statement which the accused makes without fear or right of the other party to cross-examine him- However, if the statements made are false, Court is entitled to draw adverse inferences and pass consequential orders, as may be called for, in accordance with law- The primary purpose is to establish a direct dialogue between the Court and the accused and to put to the accused every important incriminating piece of evidence and grant him an opportunity to answer and explain-However conviction of accused cannot be based merely on statement made under Section 313 of Code as it cannot be regarded as a substantive piece of evidence. (Para 8)

       Facts of the Case :

       Appellant was prosecuted herein in the instant case for causing death of his wife by throttling her and thereafter setting her on fire. Trial Court convicted appellant for said offence .Appeal thereagainst was Dismissed by High Court.

       2.Present appeal has been filed against said order of High Court.

       Findings of the Court :

       Evidence on record showed that deceased had left her earlier husband and was living with appellant, who was also staying away from his family in the cabin in his agricultural fields, where that incident occurred. There was definite protest raised by the villagers to their living together. Besides this, even medical evidence had shown that deceased was strangulated or throttled before her body was burnt. The social embarrassment could be a plausible motive for appellant to commit the crime. Appellant took an incorrect, if not a false stand before Court that incident occurred in his absence. His conduct in naming one B from whom he had sought help to take deceased to hospital also not appeared to be correct. Appellant made no effort whatsoever to examine any witness to establish this fact. Appellant admitted that deceased died in front of his eyes and he did nothing except reporting the matter to police at a subsequent stage-Instantly motive suggested by prosecution appeared to be reasonable and in consonance with behaviour of a person placed in a situation like appellant .Apart from that also held difficult to believe that a person would commit suicide without any provocation or incident immediately preceding the occurrence. The explanation rendered by appellant was correctly disbelieved by Courts below. There was No reason to take a different view. Appeal was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed.