Back
SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
PANKAJ MITHAL, AHSANUDDIN AMANULLAH, JJ.
Ravi – Appellant
Versus
The State of Punjab – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 633 of 2025 [Arising Out of SLP (Crl) No. 7712 of 2022]
Decided On : 10-02-2025
(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 [Bharatiya Nyaya Sanhita, 2023 – Section 103(1)] – Murder of wife – Circumstantial evidence – There must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with innocence of accused and must show that in all human probability act must have been done by accused – Deceased had died due to asphyxia caused by hanging which is established by ligature marks appearing on her neck – Deceased died of asphyxia due to hanging or strangulation inasmuch as Doctor had also opined that death may be due to chronic tuberculosis – He had also explained possibility of ligature marks on neck to be on account of long journey and not solely due to hanging or strangulation – Circumstances of this case, in no way, conclusively establish guilt of appellant rather it gives sufficient room to form a different opinion – On the basis of circumstantial evidence, innocence of appellant cannot be completely ruled out – Once appellant had disclosed about illness of deceased and her treatment in a particular hospital, it was for prosecution to have sought re-examination of doctor conducting post-mortem so as to ascertain as to whether deceased was actually suffering from chronic tuberculosis, though he may have opined that death may be due to asphyxia caused due to tuberculosis – Prosecution failed to do so or to produce any other independent evidence in this regard to dislodge version of appellant – Prosecution has completely failed to produce evidence to prove guilt of appellant beyond shadow of doubt on the basis of circumstantial evidence – Evidence on record gives ample leverage for two conflicting opinions, and in such circumstances, benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of appellant – Appellant directed to be released from custody immediately. (Paras 15, 18, 24, 25 and 27)
(B) Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 [Bharatiya Sakshya Adhiniyam, 2023 – Section 109] – Burden of proof – Initial burden is upon prosecution to first prima facie establish guilt of accused and then only burden shifts upon accused to explain circumstances as contemplated by Section 106 of Evidence Act – Ordinary rule which applies to criminal trials and places onus on prosecution to prove guilt of accused, does not, in any way, stand modified by provisions contained under Section 106 of Evidence Act – Prosecution does not stand absolved from its initial liability to prove offence and it is only when such onus is discharged and a prima facie case of guilt is made out that provisions of Section 106 of Evidence Act may come into play – Section 106 of Evidence Act would apply to cases where prosecution could be said to have succeeded in proving facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding guilt of accused and not otherwise. (Paras 21, 22 and 23)
Facts of the case:
Appellant-accused has been convicted by both courts below for the murder of his first wife by strangulation. Therefore, present appeal.
Findings of Court:
Impugned judgment and order dated 23.01.2019 passed by High Court of Punjab and Haryana at Chandigarh is liable to be and hereby set aside and appeal deserves to be allowed.
Result : Appeal allowed.
JUDGMENT :
PANKAJ MITHAL, J.
1. Leave granted.
2. The appellant-accused Ravi has been convicted by both the courts below for the murder of his first wife Jamni by strangulation. Therefore, the present appeal.
3. The appellant was living in the village Madh, Amritsar by constructing a jhuggi in an open space, where he was working as a labourer. He used to live with his deceased wife Jamni, his second wife Soma and his two sons born from the first wedlock. They all had been living together as such for over 10-12 years.
4. The incident is of 22.08.2014. According to the case of the prosecution, Chaina Ram (PW-1), the brother of the deceased lodged a Zero FIR at Police Station Rajgarh, District Churu, Rajasthan on 22.08.2014 stating that his sister Jamni with her husband i.e. appellant, was living at Rayya Mandi, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, Punjab. On the night of 22.08.2014 at about 11:00 pm, she was murdered by her husband in connivance with his second wife Soma. The husband of the deceased i.e. the appellant, brought the dead body from his village Rayya Mandi to village Gujjuwas in a truck. In the FIR, he also stated that his sister Rajo was residing in the neighbouring jhuggi of the appellant and she, herself, had seen the appellant committing the murder of the deceased by strangulating her with a rope and that he threatened her from disclosing anything about it to anyone.
5. The aforesaid FIR was transferred to the Police Station, Khilchian, Amritsar, Punjab and the dead body of the deceased was also taken there, where the memo of panchnama was executed and the post-mortem was conducted.
6. The panchnama on record reveals that it was conducted at village Rayya Mandi, Police Station Rayya, Tehsil Baba Bakala, District Amritsar, Punjab, i.e. the place where the appellant was living in a jhuggi. The said panchnama, apart from other things, records the marks of injury on the body of the deceased and reports that there were marks of ligature around the neck and the mouth was open with tongue protruding outward.
7. The post-mortem report states that in the opinion of the doctor, the deceased died of asphyxia caused by hanging and that there were ligature marks on the neck.
8. The prosecution, to prove the appellant guilty of the aforesaid offence, examined seven witnesses which included the brother of the deceased Chaina Ram (PW-1), her sister Rajo (PW-2), her cousin Deep Chand (PW-3), the doctor who conducted the post-mortem Dr. Mohan Lal Meena (PW-5), retired DSP Bagla Ram (PW-6), Inspector Rachhpal Singh (PW-4) and Inspector Amolak Singh (PW-7).
9. The entire case of the prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence. Though, the sister of the deceased, i.e. Rajo (PW-2) is said to be an eye witness, she had not seen the commission of the crime. She was simply a resident of the neighbouring jhuggi and as such, may have had the first-hand information.
10. It is an admitted position that after the death of the deceased, the appellant, i.e. her husband carried her dead body on a truck to the native place of the brother of the deceased Chaina Ram (PW-1) and the sister of the deceased Rajo (PW-2) had accompanied him. Chaina Ram (PW-1), the brother of the deceased who had lodged the complaint in his testimony, accepted that her sister was married to the appellant and they were residing in Rayya Mandi. However, he was not aware of what actually happened on 22.08.2014 and stated that her sister died due to her illness. He categorically stated that the appellant was not responsible for her death. The said witness, as such, was declared hostile.
11. It may be pertinent to mention here that the aforesaid witness admitted his signatures on the Zero FIR (Exh.PW4/1) but went on to state that he had signed a blank paper and did not know what was written there.
12. A pursual of the Zero FIR reveals that it is a computerized FIR and is not in the handwriting of the aforesaid witness. It only bears his signatures at the relevant place on both the p
(1) Murder of wife – Where evidence on record gives ample leverage for two conflicting opinions, benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of accused.(2) Burden of proof – Ordinary rule which applie....
The main legal point established is the requirement to fully establish circumstances in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the need for corroborating medical reports with other evidence, and the....
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 ....
Advocates appeared :For the Appellant : R. P. Gupta For the Respondent : C. P. Singh
An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers
Please visit our Training & Support
Center or Contact Us for assistance
Scan Me!
India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!
For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :
Back to top
