SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
ASHOK BHUSHAN, AJAY RASTOGI, JJ.
R. DAMODARAN – APPELLANT
Versus
THE STATE REPRESENTED BY THE INSPECTOR OF POLICE – RESPONDENT
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1008 OF 2010
Decided On : 23-02-2021
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Murder of wife – Conviction and sentence – In medical opinion canvassed through Doctor, it was opined that she died out of shock and haemorrhage due to thoracic injuries because of homicidal violence – Prosecution had no direct evidence to offer – It rested its case upon circumstances which would indicate that in past, he was ill-treating her and there were complaints given to Police – On fateful day, accused appellant alone was present with his family and they living together – It was appellant himself who took her to hospital and made a false statement that she suffered a cardiac arrest but after autopsy was conducted on body of deceased, it was opined that she died out of shock and haemorrhage due to thoracic injuries – In addition to other circumstances, prosecution was able to establish that it was none other than appellant who had committed crime and he wanted to show his innocence by taking deceased to hospital and made a false statement that she suffered a cardiac arrest which on receipt of post-mortem certificate, was found to be false where it was established that death was caused by homicidal violence – Incriminating circumstances pointed out are sufficient with reasonable certainty on established facts which connect accused with commission of crime of committing murder of his own wife – It is case where none other than accused appellant has committed commission of crime with intention to commit murder of his own wife who was at advanced stage of pregnancy – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 7, 8, 9, 10, 16, 18 and 19)
(B) Criminal Law – Circumstantial evidence – In a case based on circumstantial evidence, settled principles of law are that circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances should be conclusive in nature – Circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in chain of events – However, circumstances must be consistent only with hypothesis of guilt of accused and inconsistent with innocence. (Para 13)
Facts of the case:
Accused appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his own wife while she was at the advanced stage of her pregnancy. After facing trial, he was held guilty of charge of murder of his wife under Section 302 IPC and was awarded life imprisonment by the learned trial Judge by judgment dated 3rd September, 2007 and confirmed by the High Court by judgment impugned dated 10th July, 2009. Case of the prosecution was that the appellant attacked with a wooden log and caused her death because of homicidal violence. Defence plea was that it was a cardiac arrest.
Findings of Court:
Of late, Courts have, from the falsity of the defence plea and false answers given to Court, when questioned, found the missing links to be supplied by such answers for completing the chain of incriminating circumstances necessary to connect the person concerned with the crime committed.
Result : Appeal dismissed.
JUDGMENT :
AJAY RASTOGI, J.
1. The accused appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 IPC for the murder of his own wife Nirmala Mary while she was at the advanced stage of her pregnancy. After facing trial, he was held guilty of charge of murder of his wife under Section 302 IPC and was awarded life imprisonment by the learned trial Judge by judgment dated 3rd September, 2007 and confirmed by the High Court by judgment impugned dated 10th July, 2009.
2. The case of the prosecution is that marriage of deceased Nirmala Mary and accused appellant was solemnised on 17th February, 1997. The appellant used to frequently change his rented accommodation and whenever he changed the rented accommodation, he used to quarrel with the deceased and send her to her father to fetch money. Her father extended monetary help to the extent it was possible.
3. Since the date they shifted to Walles Garden area, the accused appellant used to come home after consuming liquor and invariably had a quarrel with the deceased and beat her. Deceased lodged complaint at the Police Station many a times in this regard and in continuation of the occurrence on the fateful night of 28th October, 2005, while he was quarrelling with deceased Nirmala Mary, he picked up a log from the house and beaten deceased Nirmala Mary and caused internal injury in her stomach and murdered her.
4. On the date of the incident, that is 29th October, 2005, Mrs. Glory(PW 2-aunt of the deceased) found her standing in the street. When she called the deceased (Nirmala Mary) and asked her what had happened, she replied that her husband had beaten her up with a wooden log. Since there was a regular quarrel taking place between husband and wife, Mrs. Glory(PW 2) told the deceased that after she come back, she would take the deceased to the hospital for treatment. After returning from work at home, she was informed that the deceased had been taken to the hospital in a serious condition. At about 4.30 p.m. on the same date, i.e. 29th October, 2005, the accused appellant brought his wife to the Kilpauk Medical College and Hospital, Chennai and complained that she had got cardiac arrest. The Doctor medically examined and found her dead. On receipt of the death intimation, PW 8, the Sub Inspector of Police, attached to the Police Station proceeded to the hospital and prepared the inquest report and FIR, in the first instance, was registered under Section 174 Cr.PC for suspicious death.
5. After the autopsy on the dead body was conducted by PW 7, the Professor of Forensic Medicine, Senior Civil Surgeon, Government Kilpauk Medical College, Chennai, it was opined that the deceased died of shock and haemorrhage due to thoracic injuries and on the opinion expressed in the post-mortem report, the case under Section 302 IPC was registered.
6. Pending investigation, the appellant was arrested. In order to substantiate the charge, the prosecution marched 11 witnesses and also relied on 17 exhibits and 4 material objects. On completion of the evidence on the side of the prosecution, the accused was questioned under Section 313 CrPC to the incriminating circumstances found in the evidence of the prosecution witnesses, which he flatly denied as false and no defence witness was examined.
7. It is not in controversy that the incident took place on 29th October, 2005 during day hours and the dead body of the deceased was taken by the accused appellant to the hospital where she was declared dead by the Doctor (PW 6). The case of the prosecution was that the appellant attacked with a wooden log and caused her death because of homicidal violence. The defence plea was that it was a cardiac arrest. Even from the evidence of the Doctor PW 6, it would be clear that when the accused appellant brought the deceased to the hospital, she was dead but still informed the Doctor that she had a cardiac arrest. In the medical opinion canvassed through PW 7 Doctor, it was opined that she died out of shock and haemorrhage du
In a case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances from which conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and such circumstances should be conclusive in nature. Circumstances sho....
The court affirmed the conviction under Section 302 IPC, emphasizing the necessity of a complete chain of circumstantial evidence and the burden on the accused to explain circumstances surrounding th....
The accused's false explanations, inconsistent alibis, and conduct after the incident can be incriminating and lead to the inference of guilt. Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act places the burden....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : R. P. Gupta For the Respondent : C. P. Singh
The judgment emphasizes the principles of circumstantial evidence and the importance of establishing a complete chain of evidence consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of events proves guilt exclusively and the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for an unnatural death occurring ....
Point of Law : Common intention contemplated by Section 34 IPC pre-supposes prior concert. It requires meeting of minds.
The burden of proof in a criminal case lies on the prosecution, but in cases of circumstantial evidence, the burden on the accused to provide a cogent explanation is lighter. Motive and conduct are r....
The burden of proof on the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to offer a plausible explanation for the cause of death and the consequences of offering false explanations.
Login now and unlock free premium legal research
Login to SupremeToday AI and access free legal analysis, AI highlights, and smart tools.
Login
now!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
Copyright © 2023 Vikas Info Solution Pvt Ltd. All Rights Reserved.