2019 Supreme(SC) 1042

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
A.M. KHANWILKAR, DINESH MAHESHWARI, JJ.
SMT. GARGI – APPELLANT(S)
Vs.
STATE OF HARYANA – RESPONDENT(S)
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1046 OF 2010
Decided On : 19-09-2019

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) In judicial proceedings, proof is made by means of production of evidence which may be either oral or documentary.
(2) Presence of marks of resistance would depend on a variety of factors, including method and manner of execution of act of strangulation by culprits.
(3) Last seen theory cannot be operated against appellant only because she was wife of deceased and was living with him.

Headnote:

(A) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – In judicial proceedings, proof is made by means of production of evidence which may be either oral or documentary – As regards its nature, evidence is either direct or circumstantial – Direct evidence proves existence of a particular fact that emanates from a document or an object and/or what has been observed by the witness – Circumstantial evidence is one whereby other facts are proved from which existence of fact in issue may either be logically inferred, or at least rendered more probable – Circumstantial evidence, in context of a crime, essentially means such facts and surrounding factors which do point towards complicity of charged accused – Chain of circumstances means such unquestionable linking of facts and surrounding factors that they establish only guilt of the charged accused beyond reasonable doubt, while ruling out any other theory or possibility or hypothesis. (Paras 13 and 13.5)

(B) Criminal Law – Appreciation of evidence – Strangulation – Presence of marks of resistance would depend on a variety of factors, including method and manner of execution of act of strangulation by culprits – Mere want of such marks cannot be decisive of matter – It is not laid down as an absolute rule in medical jurisprudence that in all cases of strangulation, hyoid bone would invariably be fractured – Medical jurisprudence suggests that only in a fraction of such cases, a fracture of hyoid bone is found – Absence of fracture of hyoid bone would not lead to conclusion that deceased did not die of strangulation. (Para 18.1)

(C) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of husband – Conviction – High Court upheld conviction of appellant but acquitted her brothers on the ground that there was no evidence on record to prove existence of any conspiracy to murder deceased – Several fundamental shortcomings in investigation and several loopholes in prosecution propositions got overlooked by Trial Court as also High Court – Approach of investigating agency had been shrouded in so much of unexplained obscurities – Where it was prima facie appearing that clues available at site might play a significant role in reaching to real culprits, it is also intriguing to notice that Investigating Officer did not take even elementary care to obtain fingerprints from material objects and to get them analysed properly – Investigation was carried out either with pre-conceived notions or with a particular result in view – Appellant had been categorical in her assertion that property and money had been at root of discord in family and same had been cause for family of deceased implicating her – No particulars of any person having illicit involvement with the appellant are to be found on record – So-called dying declaration appearing to be doubtful – In given circumstances, it is difficult to accept that prosecution has been able to establish by cogent and reliable evidence that appellant was involved in illicit relations or was pressurising deceased to transfer property in her name and that there had been strong acrimony between deceased and appellant – Last seen theory cannot be operated against appellant only because she was wife of deceased and was living with him – Appellant neither concealed herself nor altered scene of crime in any manner and there had not been any evidence about any oddity in her manners and demeanour – Appellant extended benefit of doubt and accordingly, acquitted. (Paras 7.1, 10, 15, 15.6, 15.7, 24, 25, 27, 28.3, 29, 34, 35 and 36)

(D) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Borden of proof – Murder of wife – Appellant being none other than wife of deceased and staying under same roof, was last person deceased was seen with – However, such companionship of deceased and appellant, by itself, does not mean that a presumption of guilt of appellant is to be drawn – Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act does not absolve prosecution of its primary burden. (Para 28.1)

(E) Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 – Section 232 – Acquittal – Merely for reason of acquittal of co-accused, another accused in a criminal case may not be acquitted if cogent evidence against him is available and his case could be segregated from case against acquitted co-accused – When alleged collaborators of appellant are acquitted, already existing clouds of doubts on prosecution story get congealed. (Para 31.1)

Facts of Case:

Present appeal by special leave is directed against the common judgement and order dated 05.03.20081 whereby, High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh has partly affirmed judgment and order dated 09.06.1998 in Sessions Case No. 63 of 1997 by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambala and has upheld the conviction of appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code even while acquitting co-accused persons of the charge under Section 302 read with Section 120-B IPC.

Findings of Court:

Fact that the staircase from ground floor was directly leading to room in question where dead body was found, acquires immense significance. Even if it be assumed that deceased was putting up in the said room, some person or persons reaching there directly from the ground floor and carrying out the crime is not ruled out. In the alternative, some person or persons having executed the crime at some other place and then having brought the dead body and hanged it in room in question is also the possibility which cannot be brushed aside as entirely improbable.

Result : Appeal allowed.