1. Death by strangulation in matrimonial home — Charges under Section 302 read with Section 34, IPC — Conviction based on circumstantial evidence. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2020 Supreme(SC) 665
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.
Jayantilal Verma – Appellant
Versus
State of M.P. (Now Chhattisgarh) – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 2015
Decided On : 19-11-2020
Important Points
IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Hostile witness--In absence of any witness protection regime of substance, one has to examine whatever is evidence which is capable of being considered, and then come to a finding whether it would suffice to convict accused.
(2) Husband is bound to explain unnatural death of his wife in his house.
(1) Hostile witness--In absence of any witness protection regime of substance, one has to examine whatever is evidence which is capable of being considered, and then come to a finding whether it would suffice to convict accused.
(2) Husband is bound to explain unnatural death of his wife in his house.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder of wife – Conviction and sentence – Cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation – Suicide theory was ruled out as there were scratch marks found on her neck – Conclusion was based on circumstantial evidence to convict accused – A large number of witnesses turned hostile and Trial Court was also not happy with manner of prosecution conducted this case – But that is not an unusual event in long drawn out trials in our country and in absence of any witness protection regime of substance, one has to examine whatever is evidence which is capable of being considered, and then come to a finding whether it would suffice to convict accused – Most important aspect is where death was caused and body found – It was in precincts of house of appellant where there were only family members staying – High Court also found that location of house and surrounding buildings was such that there was no possibility of somebody from outside coming and strangulating deceased and that too without any commotion being caused or any valuable/jewellery missing – Appellant, as a husband is alleged to have caused death of his wife by strangulation – No explanation has been given as to how wife could have received injuries – This is a strong circumstance indicating that he is responsible for commission of crime – Appellant was under obligation to give a plausible explanation regarding cause of death in statement recorded under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. and mere denial could not be answer in such a situation – No reason to interfere with impugned judgment – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 5, 20, 23, 24, 25 and 26)
Facts of the case:
Murder of woman in her matrimonial home. Court noted that the post-mortem did not indicate any symptom of a snake bite as there was no mark or any poisoning detected in the body. The suicide theory was also ruled out as there were scratch marks found on her neck. The conclusion was, thus, based on circumstantial evidence to convict the accused. All the three accused preferred an appeal before the High Court. In the course of the pendency of the appeal, father-in-law of deceased passed away. High Court concluded that there was no legally admissible evidence to convict mother-in-law of deceased, and hence she was acquitted. However, conviction of appellant herein was upheld by the High Court.
Findings of Court:
The most important aspect is where the death was caused and the body found. It was in the precincts of the house of appellant herein where there were only family members staying. High Court also found that the location of the house and the surrounding buildings was such that there was no possibility of somebody from outside coming and strangulating the deceased and that too without any commotion being caused or any valuable/jewellery missing.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
Judgement Key Points
Certainly. Based on the provided legal document, here are the key points:
- The case involves the prosecution of an accused husband for the murder of his wife, which was determined to be homicidal due to asphyxia caused by strangulation (!) (!) .
- The evidence primarily relied upon circumstantial evidence, including the location of the body within the house, the absence of signs of external entry, and the failure of the accused to provide a plausible explanation for the cause of death (!) (!) (!) (!) .
- The post-mortem examination indicated no signs of snakebite or poisoning, and scratch marks on the neck suggested strangulation rather than suicide (!) (!) .
- The location of the death within the house, where only family members were present, placed a burden on the family members to explain the circumstances, as per the principles of the Evidence Act (!) (!) .
- The testimony of witnesses was considered, with some witnesses turning hostile; however, the court emphasized that the quality of evidence is more significant than the quantity (!) (!) .
- The court noted that the accused's failure to explain the injuries and cause of death was a strong circumstance against him, especially given the evidence that the death occurred in the privacy of the home (!) (!) .
- The appeal was dismissed because the evidence and circumstances sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, and the courts below had correctly applied legal principles (!) (!) .
- The court highlighted that the burden of proof regarding the cause of death shifted to the accused due to the circumstances, and mere denial was insufficient to rebut the evidence (!) (!) .
- The court also directed the authorities to verify whether the accused had completed the required period of actual imprisonment for consideration of his release (!) .
Please let me know if you need a more detailed analysis or specific legal principles summarized.
Legal Category Hierarchy
Advocates Appeared:
For the Appellant(s) :Satish Pandey, Salim Ansari, Mahesh Pandey, Ninanda Nair, Abdul Qadir, Geeta Verma, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Nishanth Patil, Advocates
For the Appellant(s) :Satish Pandey, Salim Ansari, Mahesh Pandey, Ninanda Nair, Abdul Qadir, Geeta Verma, Advocates
For the Respondent(s):Nishanth Patil, Advocates
Table of Contents
2. Incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence and lack of motive versus burden of explanation for inmates under Section 106, Evidence Act. (Para 11 , 12 , 14 , 17 , 18 )
3. Death in private residence without outside intrusion — Failure of accused to provide plausible explanation — Reliability of solitary witness over quantity of witnesses. (Para 5 , 7 , 8 , 9 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24 , 25 )
4. Burden of proving facts especially within knowledge under Section 106, Evidence Act — Requirement for inmates of a private home to explain homicidal deaths occurring therein. (Para 9 , 25 )
5. Appeal dismissed — Conviction upheld — Direction to examine eligibility for release upon completion of actual sentence. (Para 26 , 27 )
6. How does Section 106 of the Evidence Act apply when a death occurs within a private matrimonial home?
While the initial burden of proof remains with the prosecution, if a crime occurs in the privacy of a home, the burden shifts to the inmates to provide a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. (Para 9 , 25 )
7. Can a conviction be based on the testimony of a solitary witness if other witnesses turn hostile?
Yes, the Indian legal system emphasizes the quality, weight, and value of evidence rather than the number of witnesses. A competent court may rely on a solitary witness to record a conviction. (Para 17 , 18 , 20 , 22 )
8. What is the legal implication if an accused fails to provide a plausible explanation under Section 313 of the CrPC in a circumstantial evidence case?
In situations where a death occurs in a private setting, the accused is under an obligation to provide a plausible explanation regarding the cause of death; a mere denial is insufficient. (Para 25 )
JUDGMENT :
SANJAY KISHAN KAUL, J.
1. On the fateful day of 24.8.1999, one Sahodara Bai was found dead on a cot in her matrimonial home located in village Uslapur, District Rajanandgaon, M.P. (now Chhattisgarh). A marg intimation was lodged with the police at the behest of her brother, one Kishore Kumar, who alleged that he had returned to village Uslapur to see his sister, where he was informed by her in-laws that she had died. He related a prior incident from a few days ago alleging that on 19.8.1999, the deceased had returned to her maternal home to village Baiharsari stating that she had been harassed at the hands of her in-laws for the last 6-7 months. The cause for harassment was stated to be that the appellant herein (her husband) had a brother who lived separately and the in-laws would beat and harass her if she attempted to speak to the wife of the brother of the appellant herein. The endeavour of reconciliation took place when Kishore Kumar along with another brother, Lochan, had brought the deceased back to her matrimonial home. Even at that stage, on being asked whether they wanted her to live with them, the in-laws responded that they will see for a few days and then decide. The deceased thereafter stayed back at her matrimonial home.
2. A postmortem was conducted on the body and FIR No. 72/99 came to be registered at P.S. Bodla, District Kawargha on 29.8.1999 arraying the appellant herein, his father, one Lalchand and mother, one Ahiman Bai as accused for offences punishable under Sections 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter referred to as the ‘IPC’). The FIR is stated to have been registered at the behest of one K.P.S. Paikara, the SHO of P.S. Bodla, who relayed the abovementioned information from the marg intimation and also elaborated on the relationship of the deceased and the appellant herein along with the findings of the postmortem report. The marriage between the appellant herein and the deceased had taken place about 8 years prior to the incident and there was a son born, who was only a few months old. The appellant herein, along with the deceased was staying with his parents. The post mortem report stated that the cause of death was asphyxia due to strangulation, and the nature of death was possibly homicidal. On completion of investigation, Chargesheet No. 64/99 was filed and charges were framed by the Sessions Court in Sessions Trial No. 165/1999, arraying the appellant herein and his parents as accused. The version given by the accused in their statements under Section 313 Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (hereinafter referred to as the Cr.P.C.) was that on the morning of the incident all the three accused had gone to the fields, while only the deceased remained at home. Lalchand stated that after taking a bath in the pond, when he returned, he discovered the deceased lying dead in her cot. Thereafter he called the appellant herein and his wife, Ahiman Bai, who were still in the fields. No evidence was led in this regard.
3. The prosecution led evidence of 9 witnesses to establish their case. Five of these witnesses turned hostile PW-2 (Lochan), brother of the deceased, PW-3 (Mukund), PW-4 (Jagdev), PW-5 (Pitambar Verma) and PW-6 (Ghasiya). The case of the prosecution was, thus, based on the testimonies of the remaining witnesses, i.e. PW-1, Kishore Kumar, the brother of the deceased and PW-7, Rajendra Chauhan, who prepared the site plan, PW-8, K.P.S. Paikara, Investigating Officer and PW-9, Dr. M.S. Bachkar, who conducted the postmortem. Thus, effectively the case was based on the testimony of PW-1, apart from the testimony of the doctor who conducted the postmortem.
4. The Sessions Court held all the three accused persons guilty of offences punishable under Section 302 of the IPC, in terms of the judgment dated 21.7.2000.
5. The finding of the Sessions Court was based on the cause of death being asphyxia due to strangulation. The testimony of the doctor, PW-9, was relied u
