Summary
A mother was convicted under Section 302 IPC of strangling her five-year-old daughter with her saree at her mother-in-law's house in Perambalur on 21.06.2007, the trial court and the Madras High Court rejecting a plea of alibi supported only by her father. The Supreme Court dismissed her appeal: concurrent findings are not reappreciated in an appeal by special leave; discrepancies between the mother-in-law's complaint and deposition were normal for a 65-year-old witness deposing a year later; two independent neighbours saw the appellant beside the body and she was arrested the same day; her silence under Section 313 CrPC when last seen with the child attracted Section 106 of the Evidence Act; and a morning quarrel was no grave and sudden provocation.
Issues
- Whether concurrent findings convicting the appellant of murdering her child on circumstantial evidence could be disturbed in an appeal by special leave on account of discrepancies in the prosecution witnesses' versions and a plea of alibi.
- Whether the failure of the appellant, last seen alone with the child, to offer any explanation in her examination under Section 313 CrPC attracted the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
- Whether a quarrel with the mother-in-law that morning reduced the offence to culpable homicide not amounting to murder.
Provisions considered
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaFollowing Pappu, Mekala Sivaiah and Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai, concurrent findings of fact are not reopened in an appeal by special leave unless based on no evidence, perverse, built on inadmissible evidence or reached by overlooking vital evidence; wholesale reappreciation is outside the scope of the appeal. (¶¶ 11, 11.1, 12.3, 13)
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Once the prosecution established that the child was last seen alive with the appellant alone and died of strangulation shortly after, she owed an explanation of the circumstances of death; her failure to give any, as explained in Satpal and Sabitri Samantaray, operated heavily against her, while Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden (Satye Singh). (¶¶ 12.7, 12.8, 12.9, 20)
- Section 313, Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973The appellant merely denied the circumstances put to her; following Ramnaresh, an accused may remain silent but the court may draw an adverse inference, and nothing prevented her from seeking examination of her husband or making specific submissions in that examination. (¶¶ 12.6, 19, 20)
- Sections 300 and 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860A quarrel with the mother-in-law that morning because the appellant wished to go to her father's place could not amount to grave and sudden provocation; the proved circumstances and the manner of strangling a sleeping child brought the case under none of the Exceptions to Section 300. (¶ 22)
Held
- Following Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, circumstances must be fully established, consistent only with guilt and form a complete chain; following Shyamal Ghosh, Bharwada Bhoginbhai Hirjibhai and Gangadhar Behera, only material contradictions that affect the core of the prosecution case, not normal discrepancies from lapse of time, shock or limited powers of observation, justify rejecting a witness; and following Gangabhavani, evidence of related witnesses is scrutinised with care but not discarded for relationship alone. (¶¶ 12.1, 12.2, 12.3, 12.4, 12.5)
- The plea of alibi was rightly rejected: the father's assertion that he took the appellant back to Kolakkudi on 20.06.2007 was uncorroborated and the appellant led no evidence of her absence; the mother-in-law, sister-in-law and co-daughter-in-law consistently placed her at the scene, and even leaving aside the related witnesses, the landlord and a neighbour, with no reason to depose falsely, saw her sitting beside the dead child immediately after the incident, and she was arrested at the bus stand the same day. (¶¶ 14, 15, 15.1, 15.2)
- Discrepancies in the mother-in-law's account, whether the appellant gave her money for idli, whether the appellant ran away or was taken to the police station, and what she saw on returning, were normal and natural for a sixty-five-year-old deposing from memory a year later and did not displace the core facts that she left the child with the appellant and returned to find the child dead with the appellant beside her; the medical evidence of a 20 cm by 2 cm ligature wound and fractured thyroid cartilage was consistent with strangulation by a twisted saree, which was recovered; the suggested motive of unwillingness to live in the matrimonial home could not be ruled out, and the husband, abroad at the time, was not a material witness. (¶¶ 16, 16.1, 16.2, 16.3, 17, 18, 19)
Result
Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 2012 dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of imprisonment for life with fine of Rs. 2,000 imposed by the Sessions Judge, Mahila Court, Perambalur on 15.10.2009 in Sessions Case No. 9 of 2008, as affirmed by the Madras High Court on 09.03.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 1 of 2010, upheld.