IMPORTANT POINT
Murder – Where two views were possible, one taken by Trial Court to acquit accused, if found to be a plausible one, cannot be upset lightly by Appellate Court – Presumption of innocence available to accused gets further fortified by acquittal entered by Trial Court.

JUDGMENT :

(K. Vinod Chandran, J.)

1. The death; not unequivocally proved to be a murder, of a young woman, married for two years, led to the prosecution of her husband and in-laws. The Trial Court acquitted all the three accused finding the death to be a suicide and holding that there was absolutely no circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused. The High Court; on appeal by the State, against the acquittal, upheld the acquittal of the in-laws but convicted the husband under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (hereinafter, ‘the IPC’) and sentenced him to life imprisonment.

2. On facts regarding the incident, suffice it to notice that the husband, on returning from work, found his wife lying supine on the cot inside their house. The accused immediately informed his parents; living nearby and also the Police Station at Mulmula, District – Janjgir, Champa, where it was recorded under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, (hereinafter, ‘the Cr.PC’) as a sudden and unnatural death. The death was detected on 29.01.2017 and the intimation was made on the same day. An inquest was carried out in which a ligature mark was noticed on the front side of the neck of the deceased. No suspicion was raised by anyone regarding the death. On 03.02.2017, on a complaint lodged by the father of the deceased, an FIR was registered and the three accused were arrested. A charge sheet was filed, and charge was framed under Sections 498A & 306 read with Section 34 and in the alternative Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC.

3. In the trial, eight witnesses were examined. PW-1; the Patwari who prepared the site plan, PW- 2; father of the deceased, PW-3; Tehsildar who prepared the inquest report (P-9), PW-4; mother of the deceased, PW-5; who registered the FIR on the complaint (P-5) of PW2, PW-6; the cousin of the deceased, PW-7; the Investigating Officer and PW- 8; the Doctor who conducted the postmortem.

4. The Trial Court acquitted the accused, finding the deceased to have committed suicide and held there was absolutely no circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court emphasized the fact that there is no clear opinion coming from the Doctor, who was examined as PW-8, as to the cause of death. Examining the authoritative medical texts, it was opined that the ligature mark on the front of the neck and the various fractures noticed from the body, as has been stated in the postmortem report, the clear indication is that the death was not one by reason of strangulation; especially since the ligature mark was not found around the neck; ruling out the possibility of death by hanging or strangulation.

5. The High Court however emphasized that the accused and the deceased were living together and hence, the accused should have an explanation regarding the death of his wife under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The defense of the accused that he was on duty, at a nearby cement factory on the ill-fated night was disbelieved, since it was not substantiated by any evidence led on the part of the accused. On the grounds only of the ‘alibi’ put forth having been discredited and the admission of the deceased and the accused living together in the same house, the High Court convicted the accused under Section 302 of the IPC.

6. We have given our anxious consideration, especially in the context of the acquittal by the Trial Court having been reversed by the High Court. The Division Bench of the High Court had, in fact, noticed various judgments of this Court in so far as the consideration of an appeal against acquittal. It is trite that unless it is demonstrated that there is some manifest illegality or perversity in the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court while arriving at the finding of guilt of the accused, an acquittal ordinarily should not be reversed. Where two views were possible, it is also trite, that the one taken by the Trial Court to acquit the accused, if found to be a plausible one, cann