Summary
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court's reversal of an acquittal and the life sentences of a husband, his aunt and her husband for strangling the young wife within six months of marriage and pouring paint and kerosene into her mouth to make it look like suicide. The medical evidence of ante-mortem neck injuries, a fractured hyoid bone and no poison, the motive arising from the husband's illicit relationship with the aunt, the shared residence, the unproved alibi and the accused's conduct formed a complete chain. The accused gave no acceptable explanation, as Section 106 of the Evidence Act required.
Issues
- Whether the circumstantial evidence formed a complete chain establishing that the accused murdered the deceased.
- Whether Section 106 of the Evidence Act placed a burden on the accused, who lived with the deceased, to explain how she died.
- Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the trial court's acquittal.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872As the accused lived with the deceased and failed to establish their alibi, they had to explain the circumstances of her death; their silence or false explanation became an additional link in the chain, applying Trimukh Maroti Kirkan. (¶¶ 10, 23, 24)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The accused's statement that all three were away at a function and found the deceased unconscious on return was not established and was treated as a false explanation forming part of the chain. (¶¶ 21, 23)
- Sections 302 and 120B, Indian Penal Code, 1860Convictions for murder and criminal conspiracy, with life imprisonment, affirmed: the first two accused strangled the deceased with the aid and support of the third. (¶¶ 1, 26)
Held
- Where there is no eyewitness, guilt must be inferred from a firmly established chain of circumstances that is consistent only with guilt and excludes every other reasonable hypothesis, as laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda. (¶¶ 19, 20)
- The post-mortem and doctor's evidence showed contusions on the arms, shoulders and neck and a hyoid fracture caused before death, death from pressure on the neck, and no poison in the viscera, establishing homicide inconsistent with the suggested consumption of paint. (¶¶ 7, 8, 9, 22)
- When an offence occurs in the privacy of a home where the accused were present, they must explain how the death occurred, so the onus shifts to a limited extent; a false explanation or silence is an additional link. The accused, who lived with the deceased, failed to prove their alibi and did not tell her family of her death. (¶¶ 23, 24)
- Motive was established through the illicit relationship between the husband and the aunt, to which the deceased had become an obstacle; although the third accused's motive was unclear, his aid in the crime could not be ruled out. (¶ 25)
- Motive, presence, false explanation, conduct before and after the incident and the medical evidence together formed a complete chain proving beyond reasonable doubt that the first two accused, with the third's support, strangled the deceased. (¶¶ 21, 26, 27)
- An appellate court should not ordinarily reverse an acquittal, but the trial court's view that medical evidence mattered little without an eyewitness, and its rejection of consistent testimony as presumption, was not plausible; the High Court had addressed each ground of acquittal with reasons and rightly interfered. (¶¶ 27, 28)
Result
Both appeals (by the aunt and her husband, and separately by the husband) dismissed; conviction under Sections 302 and 120B IPC and life imprisonment with fine affirmed.