Summary
A man took his sons, aged 9 and 6, to a Delhi canal. He then told water-plant staff, a petrol-pump attendant and the police on a 100 call that they had drowned by accident. Post-mortem examinations showed death by manual strangulation. The Supreme Court upheld his murder conviction. His wife, though hostile, admitted leaving the boys with him. The false drowning story was a further link, and his silence under Section 106 of the Evidence Act told against him. Motive was shown by his doubts about the boys' paternity. A plea of unsoundness of mind, first raised in the Supreme Court, failed: he had been treated only for alcohol de-addiction, and the crime showed a calculating mind.
Issues
- Whether the chain of circumstantial evidence, including last seen, medical evidence of strangulation and the accused's false account of accidental drowning, was complete despite hostile family witnesses and a disputed motive.
- Whether the appellant could claim the benefit of Section 84 IPC, or the trial was vitiated for not following Section 329 CrPC, on the basis of his alcohol de-addiction treatment and later psychiatric treatment in jail.
Provisions considered
- Sections 105 and 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Once the prosecution proved that the children were last with their father and were strangled, the burden lay on him to explain facts especially within his knowledge; the burden of bringing his case within Section 84 IPC was also on him. (¶¶ 14, 16, 21)
- Sections 84, 86, 201 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The convictions for murder and causing disappearance of evidence were affirmed; no material showed unsoundness of mind, or intoxication at the time negating intent, so the offence could not be reduced to culpable homicide under Section 304. (¶¶ 2, 19, 27, 30)
- Section 329, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973Nothing in the material or the conduct of the trial obliged the Trial Court to inquire into whether the accused was of unsound mind and incapable of making his defence. (¶¶ 25, 27)
Held
- Applying Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the post-mortem evidence of manual strangulation was unshaken; the wife, though hostile, admitted leaving both sons with the appellant, and the credible part of a hostile witness's evidence may be used (Sudru); and three independent witnesses proved his false account of accidental drowning, which became a further link in the chain. (¶¶ 13, 16)
- With the boys last in their father's sole company and homicidally killed, Section 106 of the Evidence Act operated heavily against the appellant, who offered no explanation, even under Section 313 CrPC (Trimukh Maroti Kirkan, Sabitri Samantaray). (¶¶ 14, 16)
- Absence of motive weighs in favour of an accused but does not defeat a proved chain of circumstances; here motive was shown in any case by the evidence of the wife's uncles and the appellant's brother that the appellant doubted his wife's character and the paternity of the children. (¶¶ 15, 17)
- The burden of proving insanity under Section 84 IPC is on the accused; the plea was never raised at trial, the de-addiction centre's manager deposed that the appellant was mentally fit and treated only for alcohol addiction, and the methodical killing of the children one by one and the false narrative showed a calculating mind; psychiatric treatment in jail in 2013, after which he was found without gross psychopathology, is irrelevant. (¶¶ 21, 22, 23, 24, 26, 27, 28)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2023 dismissed; conviction under Sections 302 and 201 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment, affirmed by the Delhi High Court on 29.02.2016 in Criminal Appeal No. 879 of 2013, upheld.