2012 Supreme(SC) 622

Supreme Court of India
B.S. CHAUHAN & FAKKIR MOHAMED IBRAHIM KALIFULLA, JJ.
Dr. Sunil Clifford Daniel
Versus
State of Punjab
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2001 of 2010
Decided On : 14-09-2012

IMPORTANT POINTS
1. The mere act of absconding, on the part of the accused, alone does not necessarily lead to a final conclusion regarding the guilt of the accused, as even an innocent person may become panic stricken and try to evade arrest, when suspected wrongly of committing a grave crime; such is the instinct of self-preservation.
2. When the attention of the accused is drawn to such circumstances that inculpate him in relation to the commission of the crime, and he fails to offer an appropriate explanation or gives a false answer with respect to the same, the said act may be counted as providing a missing link for completing the chain of circumstances.
3. Merely because the recovery memo was not signed by the accused, will not vitiate the recovery itself, as every case has to be decided on its own facts. In the event that the recoveries are made pursuant to the disclosure statement of the accused, then, despite the fact that the statement has not been signed by him, there is certainly some truth in what he said, for the reason that, the recovery of the material objects was made on the basis of his statement.

Headnote:Indian Penal Code, 1860- Sections 302 and 201-Prosecution of appellant for causing death of his wife by strangulating her -Conviction by Trial Court-Appeal-Dismissed by High Court-Appeal-Case based on circumstantial evidence- In his statement, under Section 313 Cr.P.C., appellant changed the version of his story, from one given to PW.1, stating that blood stained clothes handed over by him, were found in the balcony, interconnecting various rooms, as against his original statement wherein he had disclosed that he had found them in his room- Appellant failed to furnish any explanation with respect to how the blood stained clothes were found in his room-Post mortem report revealed that deceased died of strangulation i.e. asphyxia, and she also had several injuries to her head, which could have been caused by a dumb bell, which was one of the materials recovered and found to have blood stains on it- As the appellant had a strained relationship with his wife, he no doubt wanted to get rid of her- Although appellant claimed that petitions for divorce by mutual consent were pending before court, no documents adduced in this respect - Recoveries of blood stained gunny bag, dumb bell, tie etc. were made on basis of disclosure statement of appellant himself-No reason to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by courts below- Appeal dismissed (Paras 39, 40)

        Circumstantial evidence -In a case of circumstantial evidence, prosecution must establish each instance of incriminating circumstance, by way of reliable and clinching evidence, and the circumstances so proved must form a complete chain of events, on the basis of which, no conclusion other than one of guilt of the accused can be reached- Undoubtedly, suspicion, however grave it may be, can never be treated as a substitute for proof- While dealing with a case of circumstantial evidence, the court must take utmost precaution whilst finding an accused guilty, solely on the basis of the circumstances proved before it (Para 17)

        Criminal Trial-Absence of motive-. In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance and importance, for the reason that the absence of motive would put the court on its guard and cause it to scrutinize each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof (Para 20)

       Facts of the Case :

        Present appeal has been preferred by appellant against order passed by High Court affirming conviction and sentence passed by Trial Court against him under Sections 302 and 201 of IPC for committing murder of his own wife.

       Findings of the Court :

        Post mortem report revealed that deceased died of strangulation i.e. asphyxia, and she also had several injuries to her head, which could have been caused by a dumb bell, which was one of the materials recovered and found to have blood stains on it. As the appellant had a strained relationship with his wife, he no doubt wanted to get rid of her. Although appellant claimed that petitions for divorce by mutual consent were pending before court, no documents adduced in this respect . Recoveries of blood stained gunny bag, dumb bell, tie etc. were made on basis of disclosure statement of appellant himself. There was No reason to interfere with concurrent findings recorded by courts below. Appeal was dismissed.

       Result : Appeal dismissed