Back
2024 Supreme(Online)(JHK) 1600
HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND
SRI ANANDA SEN, SRI GAUTAM KUMAR CHOUDHARY, JJ
MADHUSUDAN MALLICK – Appellant
Versus
STATE OF JHARKHAND – Respondent
Cr.A(DB) 396 / 2011
Mr. Aishwarya Prakash, Advocate; Mr. Manoj Kumar Mishra, A.P.P.; Ms. Neeharika, Advocate
Circumstantial evidence must establish a clear chain pointing to guilt without any alternative hypothesis; injuries inconsistent with accidental death support a murder conviction.
Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Section 302 - Conviction for murder - The appellant was convicted and sentenced for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence, including a history of marital discord and the nature of injuries sustained by the deceased. (Paras 1, 6, 10, 12)
(B) Circumstantial Evidence - The prosecution must establish a chain of circumstances that unerringly points to the guilt of the accused, without any hypothesis compatible with innocence. (Para 7)
(C) Homicidal Death - The court found that the injuries sustained were inconsistent with an accidental fall, leading to the conclusion of homicidal death. (Paras 11, 15)
Facts of the case:
The appellant was accused of murdering his wife, who was found dead at their home. The informant, their son, received a message about her death and alleged a history of domestic violence. (Paras 2, 3)
Findings of Court:
The court affirmed the conviction based on circumstantial evidence and the failure of the appellant to provide a plausible explanation for the death. (Paras 6, 15)
Issues: The main issues included whether the evidence presented established the appellant's guilt beyond a reasonable doubt and the nature of the deceased's injuries. (Paras 7, 12)
Ratio Decidendi: The court ruled that the circumstantial evidence, including the nature of the injuries and the history of marital discord, was sufficient to uphold the conviction. (Paras 10, 15)
Result: Appeal stands dismissed.
JUDGMENT
Reserved on: 08.08.2024 Pronounced On: 27.08.2024 Per Gautam Kumar Choudhary, J. This appeal is preferred against the judgment of conviction and sentence passed in Sessions Trial No.550 of 2009 by Additional Sessions Judge, FTC-III, Dhanbad by which the appellant has been convicted and sentenced under Section 302 of the IPC .
2. Informant is the son of the appellant, deceased is the mother of the informant and wife of the appellant. As per the FIR deceased was Assistant Teacher in a Government School and she lived with her husband (appellant) at Dhanbad, whereas the informant along with his sister was living at Bangalore. Informant received message regarding death of his mother on 24.07.2009 through a SMS sent by the appellant. On receipt of the information, informant and his sister came to Dhanbad on
24.07.2009 at 11.00 a.m. and found her dead body in the Dhanbad Police Station.
3. Informant tried to contact his mother on 23.07.2009, but her mobile was found to be switched off and attempt to contact his father also failed. It is alleged that the appellant had given wrong information to the police on 23.07.2009 that his wife was suffering from thyrodism and consequently had suffered accidental fall from stair case resulting in her death. It has been alleged in the FIR that there was history of marital discord and the appellant used to assault his mother under influence of liquor.
4. On the basis of written report, Dhanbad P.S. Case No.626/09 was registered on 02.08.2009 against the appellant. On investigation, charge sheet was submitted under Section 302/120B of the IPC and he was put on trial under Section 302 of the IPC for committing murder of his wife.
5. Altogether six witnesses were examined on behalf of the prosecution and relevant documents including post-mortem examination report has been adduced into evidence and marked as exhibits.
6. Learned trial court convicted the appellant on the basis of circumstantial evidence, marital discord and frayed nature of relationship. The Court found it to be a case of homicidal death caused within the precinct of home, for which appellant failed to offer any plausible explanation.
7. It is argued by the learned counsel on behalf of the appellant that in order to prove the offence by circumstantial evidence, it is incumbent on the prosecution to establish the chain of circumstance which should unerringly point to the guilt of accused, without any hypothesis compatible with his innocence. The death occurred due to fall from a stair case and post-mortem report disclosed injuries, which can be said to be in consonance with the defence version that it was a case of accidental death by fall. None of the witnesses from locality has been examined to prove the charge that death was the result of assault.
8. Learned A.P.P. has defended the judgment of conviction and sentence. ANALYSIS
9. Admittedly, there is no eye witness to the incidence and the prosecution case hinges on the testimony of informant (P.W. 5) who is the son, P.W. 1 (daughter) of the deceased and their maternal uncles P.Ws. 2 and 3. Their testimony is with regard to the events that preceded to, and followed the death of the deceased. Apart from this, letters sent on different dates by the deceased have been adduced into evidence and marked as Exhibit 1/1, 2 – 2/11.
10. P.W. 4 is the Autopsy Surgeon who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Asha Mallick aged about 56 years, on 24.07.2009 found following ante mortem external wounds on the dead body: -
I. Lacerated wound i. 3/4” x 1/4” scalp deep over left frontal region of head.
ii. 3/4” x 1/4” scalp deep over top of head.
iii. 1/4” x 1/6” scalp deep 1/4” apart from injury no.ii above.
II. Swelling with bruise all over the parietal and frontal region of head.
III. On dissection, ecchymosis with blood clots found beneath scalp on both parietal, frontal and vertex of skull.
IV. Cause of death has been opined to be due to shock as a result of hard and blunt
