SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2023 Supreme(Del) 4184

IN THE HIGH COURT OF DELHI AT NEW DELHI
Mukta Gupta, Poonam A. Bamba, JJ.
Mohd. Julkar Nain Ansari – Appellant
Versus
State – Respondent
Cr.A. 1383 of 2019
Decided On : 22-05-2023

Advocates appeared:
Mr. Kanhaiya Singhal and Mr. Ujwal Ghai, Advocates, for the Appellant.
Mr. Laksh Khanna, APP for the State.

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete chain of circumstances linking the accused to the crime. The accused has the burden of offering a cogent explanation for the circumstances, failing which, the court may draw an adverse inference against the accused.

Headnote:

CRIMINAL - MURDER - SECTION 302 IPC - CONVICTION - APPEAL - DISMISSED - CIRCUMSTANTIAL EVIDENCE - CHAIN OF CIRCUMSTANCES - EXTRAJUDICIAL CONFESSION - FALSE DEFENCE - MOTIVE - SECTION 106 EVIDENCE ACT - BURDEN OF PROOF.

Fact of the Case:

The appellant was convicted for the murder of his wife. The prosecution's case was based on circumstantial evidence, including the appellant's extrajudicial confession, false defence, motive, and the recovery of the murder weapon from his tenanted room. The appellant denied the charges and claimed alibi.

Finding of the Court:

The court found that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances linking the appellant to the crime. The court held that the appellant's extrajudicial confession, false defence, motive, and the recovery of the murder weapon from his tenanted room were all incriminating circumstances. The court also found that the appellant had failed to offer any cogent explanation for the deceased's death, as required by Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Issues: 1. Whether the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt? 2. Whether the appellant's extrajudicial confession was admissible in evidence? 3. Whether the appellant's false defence and motive were relevant to the case? 4. Whether the appellant had discharged the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act?

Ratio Decidendi: 1. The court held that the prosecution had proved the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt based on the following circumstances: (i) the appellant and the deceased were living together in the same room; (ii) the appellant asked for the keys to the main door to call a rickshaw; (iii) the appellant, along with the deceased and other witnesses, went to the hospital in an e-rickshaw, but the appellant suddenly refused to take her to the hospital and insisted on returning; (iv) the deceased was brought back and found dead with strangulation marks around her neck; (v) the postmortem report confirmed that the deceased died due to homicidal strangulation; (vi) the ligature mark on the deceased's neck corresponded with the ligature material (chunni) recovered from the appellant's tenanted room; (vii) the appellant failed to offer any cogent explanation for the deceased's death; (viii) the appellant took false and contradictory defences, including a false alibi; (ix) the appellant had a motive to commit the crime as he suspected the deceased of having an illicit relationship with another man. 2. The court held that the appellant's extrajudicial confession was admissible in evidence as it was made voluntarily and without any coercion or inducement. 3. The court held that the appellant's false defence and motive were relevant to the case as they showed his consciousness of guilt. 4. The court held that the appellant had failed to discharge the burden of proof under Section 106 of the Evidence Act as he failed to offer any cogent explanation for the deceased's death.

Final Decision: The appeal was dismissed, and the appellant's conviction and sentence were upheld.

JUDGMENT

Poonam A. Bamba, J. Vide this appeal, the appellant is assailing the judgment dated 23.08.2019 (`impugned judgment' in short) passed by Ld. ASJ, FTC, E Court, Shahdara, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi, convicting the appellant for murder of his wife Shahjahan; and order on sentence dated 30.08.2019, sentencing him to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC with fine of Rs.10,000/-, in default to undergo simple imprisonment for six months.

2. Briefly stating, case of the prosecution is, that on 24.02.2015 at about 02.47 p.m. a call was received at PS Jafrabad that at H.No.C-1312, Gali No. 13/1, Near Panchayati Dharamshala, Chauhan Bangar, tenant of the caller has committed murder of his wife Smt. Shahjahan. Said information was recorded vide DD No.16-A (Ex.PW8/A), which was assigned to PW-21 Inspector C.L.Meena, who along with HC Shiv Kumar (PW-6), Ct. Ajay Kumar (PW-7) & Ct. Krishan went to the spot. The said house was built upto fourth floor and, one dead body was lying on a folding iron cot in outer room on the ground floor. One Nafees (PW-15) S/o. Yusuf, relative of the landlord, informed that body is of Smt. Shahjahan W/o. Julkar Nain/the appellant; and that her husband/appellant has confessed in their presence that he has killed his wife by strangulation and that they have caught hold of him. Meanwhile, HC Sanjeev (PW-5) and Ct. Krishan also reached the spot and custody of the appellant was handed over to them. On checking the dead body, marks of strangulation were found on the neck of the deceased. Nafees (PW-15) and other persons, present at the spot also informed that since morning the appellant was telling that his wife was ill. However, when she was being taken to Shastri Park hospital, the appellant compelled them to return and on asking the reason, he told that he wanted to take his wife to his sister's house and said "Main Phans Jayunga". On which they got suspicious and checked the deceased and found injury marks on her neck and face. They brought back the deceased and the appellant to their house and made the deceased lie on a cot. Enquiries were made with the appellant, who admitted that he killed his wife by strangulation. The tenanted room of the appellant at first floor was inspected. Crime team was called. During investigation, in presence of other staff also, the appellant confessed to have killed his wife by strangulating her with chunni and pressing her neck, as he suspected her character. The appellant also got recovered chunni with which he strangulated the deceased. The appellant was arrested vide arrest memo Ex.PW6/A. Post mortem of the dead body was got conducted vide post mortem report Ex. PW11/A and thereafter, the body was handed over to the relatives.

3. Dr. Vishwajeet Singh, PW-11, Sr. Demonstrator, Forensic Medicine Department, UCMS and GTB Hospital, Delhi who conducted post mortem vide his report Ex. PW11/A and subsequent opinion Ex.PW11/B, observed and opined as under:

    "POST-MORTEM REPORT (Ex. PW-11/A)

    DEPARTMENT OF FORENSIC MEDICINE

    UCMS AND GTB HOSPITAL, Delhi-110095

    POSTMORTEM REPORT No. 239/15

    Date & Time of receiving dead body and Inquest Paper: 25/02/15 at 2.00 pm

    Date & Time of starting autopsy: 25/02/15 at 2.10 pm

    Date & Time of concluding autopsy: 25/02/15 at 3.30 pm

    Body brought & Identified by

    .......

    Name of deceased: Smt. Shahjahan Husband: Mohd. Julkar Nain Age 32 years Sex: Female

    Address: H. No. C-1312, G. No. 13/1, Chauhan Bangar, Delhi.

    Brief history of the case (As per Inquest Paper): Alleged history of found dead on 24/02/2015 at 2.47 PM vide DD no. 16 A.

    .....

    (A) General Observation: Dead body of an adult female wrapped in white sheet and wearing violet salwar, green colour maxi with black prints, pink panty with white prints and white chunni with blue prints. Eyes closed, mouth partially open. Face congested. Subconjunctinal hemorrhage present in both eyes. Rigor mortis passing off. Postmortem staining present over back and fixed, greenish discolouration over chest, abdomen. Lig

Click Here to Read the rest of this document
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
SupremeToday Portrait Ad
supreme today icon
logo-black

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

qr

Scan Me!

India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

whatsapp-icon Back to top