2022 Supreme(SC) 1047

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
DINESH MAHESHWARI, ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.
Md. Anowar Hussain – Appellant
Versus
State of Assam – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2019
Decided On : 13-10-2022

IMPORTANT POINTS
(1) Murder – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an additional link in chain of events.
(2) If motive is proved, that would supply another link in chain of circumstantial evidence but absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject prosecution case, though such absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of accused.

Headnote:

(A) Constitution of India – Articles 134 and 136 – Supreme Court (Enlargement of Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction) Act, 1970 – Section 2 – Appeal by Special Leave – Scope and ambit – It is not a matter of regular appeal – Supreme Court would not interfere with concurrent findings of fact based on pure appreciation of evidence nor it is scope of these appeals that Supreme Court would enter into re-appreciation of evidence so as to take a view different than that taken by Trial Court and approved by High Court. (Para 11)

(B) Indian Penal Code, 1860 – Section 302 – Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Section 106 – Murder of wife – Life sentence – Circumstantial evidence – If in a case based on circumstantial evidence, accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an additional link in chain of events – If motive is proved, that would supply another link in chain of circumstantial evidence but absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject prosecution case, though such an absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favour of accused – Trial Court and High Court have concurrently recorded findings in this case that prosecution has been able to establish chain of circumstances leading to conclusion that appellant is guilty of offence of murder of his wife – Victim had died because of asphyxia which was a result of throttling – Other undeniable fact has been that victim was wife of appellant and before her death, she was living with appellant – It cannot be said that prosecution has not discharged its primary burden of bringing home cogent circumstances pointing towards guilt of appellant – Basic fact as to when did he part with company of his wife was within knowledge of appellant alone – He explained nothing in that regard – Falsehood cooked up by witnesses (regarding illness and hospitalisation of victim) and readily accepted by appellant coupled with undischarged burden of Section 106 of Evidence Act provide such strong links in this matter that chain of circumstances is complete, leading to conclusion on guilt of appellant beyond any doubt – Site plan prepared by I.O. could not have been removed out of consideration merely because of curable fault that it was not annexed with charge-sheet – It is not a case where motive could have played any decisive role nor it had been a case where two views were possible – Appeal dismissed. (Paras 12.9, 12.10, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 and 21)

Facts of the case:

Present appeal is directed against the judgment and order dated 19.08.2016 in Criminal Appeal, whereby Gauhati High Court dismissed the appeal against judgment and order dated 18.07.2013/25.07.2013, as passed by Trial Court whereby appellant was held guilty of offence under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and was awarded the punishment of imprisonment for life and fine of Rs. 5,000/- with default stipulations.

Findings of Court:

Date of arrest also loses its relevance because the material fact remains undeniable that appellant was not found at the place and the area of his dwelling house and had admittedly gone to Nidanpur, as stated by himself in his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. Place from where dead body was picked up to be carried to the police station, has hardly any bearing in the present case because the only other place suggested by the appellant in league with the witnesses PW-1 to PW-6 had been hospital where the victim was allegedly admitted. Such a suggestion has been found to be false to the core.

Result : Appeal dismissed.