1. Conviction under Sections 302, 201, and 498A IPC for the death of a spouse in the matrimonial home following allegations of physical and mental torture. (Para 1 , 2 )
Back
Next 
2024 Supreme(SC) 1220
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
C.T. Ravikumar, Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ.
Ashok Verma – Appellant
Versus
The State of Chhattisgarh – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2022
Decided On : 19-12-2024
Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mrs. Usha Pant Kukreti, Adv. Ms. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. A Sirajudeen, Sr. Adv. Ms. Manjeet Chawla, AOR Mrs. Usha Pant Kukreti, Adv. Ms. Shaik Soni Ahamed, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mrs. Prerna Dhall, Adv. Mr. Piyush Yadav, Adv. Mr. Prashant Singh, AOR
Important Points
The court affirmed the conviction for murder based on circumstantial evidence, emphasizing the appellant's failure to provide a credible explanation for his wife's death.
Subject
Criminal Law - Murder
Act Referred
Headnote
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 300, 302, 201, and 498A - Conviction of appellant for murder and related offences confirmed by High Court - Evidence established that the deceased was tortured and died in matrimonial home - The plea of alibi was not satisfactorily established, and the concurrent findings of the trial Court and High Court were upheld. (Paras 1, 4, 7, 21)
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of proof on the accused when the incident occurs in his residence - Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation leads to an inference of guilt. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, Smt. Pushpa, who died under suspicious circumstances in their matrimonial home, with evidence of prior torture and a lack of credible alibi.
Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings of the trial Court and High Court confirmed the conviction based on the evidence presented, establishing the death as homicide.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the death (homicide vs. suicide) and the adequacy of the evidence supporting the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion of homicide, and the appellant's failure to provide a credible alibi reinforced the conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
(B) Evidence Act, 1872 - Section 106 - Burden of proof on the accused when the incident occurs in his residence - Failure to provide a satisfactory explanation leads to an inference of guilt. (Paras 18, 19)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife, Smt. Pushpa, who died under suspicious circumstances in their matrimonial home, with evidence of prior torture and a lack of credible alibi.
Findings of Court:
The concurrent findings of the trial Court and High Court confirmed the conviction based on the evidence presented, establishing the death as homicide.
Issues: The main issues included the nature of the death (homicide vs. suicide) and the adequacy of the evidence supporting the conviction.
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the evidence overwhelmingly supported the conclusion of homicide, and the appellant's failure to provide a credible alibi reinforced the conviction.
Result: Appeal dismissed.
Legal Category Hierarchy
- crime and sentencing
- practice and procedure
Table of Contents
2. Dispute over whether the death was homicidal or suicidal, the validity of the plea of alibi, and the medical significance of the non-rupture of the hyoid bone. (Para 5 , 6 )
3. The husband's delayed action in cutting the noose, the proximity of the alleged alibi location, and the failure to explain the death under Section 106, Evidence Act. (Para 7 , 8 , 9 , 12 , 13 , 17 , 20 )
4. A plea of alibi fails if the location is not far enough to make presence at the crime scene improbable; Section 106, Evidence Act applies to matrimonial home deaths. (Para 10 , 11 , 13 , 18 , 19 )
5. Appeal dismissed; concurrent convictions and sentences under Sections 302, 201, and 498A IPC confirmed. (Para 21 )
6. What constitutes a valid plea of alibi in criminal law?
A plea of alibi is available only if the accused was at a place so far from the scene of occurrence that it was extremely improbable or impossible for them to have participated in the crime on the relevant date and time. (Para 10 , 13 )
7. How does Section 106 of the Evidence Act apply to deaths occurring within a matrimonial home?
When an occurrence happens inside a residence where the accused is supposed to be, the accused is bound to offer an explanation as the facts are exclusively within their knowledge, though this does not shift the primary burden of proof from the prosecution. (Para 11 , 18 , 19 )
8. What is the legal impact of a false plea of alibi in cases based on circumstantial evidence?
A false plea of alibi can be regarded as an additional circumstance that strengthens the chain of evidence against the accused, although it cannot serve as the sole basis for conviction. (Para 14 , 15 , 16 )
9. Does the non-rupture of the hyoid bone conclusively prove a death was suicidal rather than homicidal?
No. The non-rupture of the hyoid bone is not the sole determinant of the nature of death; strangulation can occur even in the absence of such rupture, and the court must consider the total evidence. (Para 17 )
JUDGMENT
C.T. RAVIKUMAR, J.
1. This appeal is directed against the judgment of the High Court of Chhattisgarh in Criminal Appeal No.845 of 2013 whereby and whereunder it confirmed the conviction of the appellant under Sections 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short the “IPC”) punishable under Section 302, IPC, 201 and 498A of the IPC, in Sessions Trial No. 147 of 2012 and the sentences imposed therefor.
2. Shortly stated, the prosecution case is as hereunder: -
The marriage between the appellant-convict and the deceased Smt. Pushpa was solemnised in the year 2006. The incident which led to the conviction of the appellant in connection with the death of Smt. Pushpa occurred on 26.01.2012 at his house, which is the matrimonial home of the deceased. The paternal home of the deceased is also proximately situated viz., around 50 meters from her matrimonial home. The appellant is addicted to gambling and to lash out money therefor, he used to torture her physically and mentally. He had even mortgaged the jewellery of the deceased for the said purpose. The deceased used to share such sorrowful incidents with PW-8 Aarti, who is her own sister. On 26.01.2012, also when PW-8 went to the house of the deceased she told that she was thrashed by the appellant-husband. At about quarter to 7 pm on 26.01.2012, the appellant went to his in-laws’ house and informed them that Pushpa hanged herself and thereupon, he along with her parents gone back home where Pushpa was seen on bed on her knees and still knotted by dupatta around the neck, which in turn, was tied to a piece of wood near the ceiling fan. Despite the opposition, the appellant cut the noose and took her in a vehicle to Sector-9 Hospital, where the doctor checked and declared her as dead. Autopsy on her body was conducted by PW-11, Dr. P. Akhtar. In fact, initially a case was registered only under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 (for short the “Cr.P.C.”) but, later FIR No.269/12 was registered on 07.04.2012 under Sections 302, 201 and 498A, IPC against the appellant. On being tried, the trial Court convicted him as noted above and for the conviction under Section 300, IPC, he was sentenced under Section 302, IPC, to undergo life imprisonment and also with a fine of Rs.1000/-, for the conviction under Section 201, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years with fine of Rs.500/- and for the conviction under Section 498A, IPC, he was sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for one year with a fine of Rs.500/-. Default sentences were also passed in case of payment of fine imposed for the conviction under the aforesaid sections. The corporeal sentences were ordered to be run concurrently. In the appeal viz., in Criminal Appeal No.845 of 2013, the High Court confirmed the conviction under the aforesaid sections and also the sentences imposed therefor.
3. Heard the learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant and the learned counsel appearing for the respondent-State.
4. The facts expatiated earlier would reveal that the appellant was convicted concurrently for the aforesaid offences and there is concurrency even with respect to the sentences imposed therefor. In such circumstances, there is, in fact, very little scope for interference in an appeal by Special Leave. In such cases, overlooking of a vital piece of evidence which would tilt the balance in favour of the convict-appellant or that the finding is based and built on inadmissible evidence, which if eschewed from evidence, the prosecution case would be substantially discredited or it would impair the prosecution case, are some such situations where this Court may interfere with. When the contentions raised are pitted against the evidence on record, they would reveal no such circumstances. Still, we will proceed to consider the contentions raised to find out any other tenable grounds are raised by the appellant which may persuade us to entertain this appeal against the concurre
