Summary
The appellant's 20-year-old wife, who lived with him in Goalpara district, Assam, died of asphyxia from throttling. Her grandfather brought the body to the police station and named the appellant in his FIR; the inquest there noted injuries to her eyes, cheeks and neck. At trial, all six private witnesses claimed instead that she fell ill and died in hospital, and the appellant adopted that story. He had been found two days later far from home, saying he had gone for medicines. The Supreme Court upheld his murder conviction. Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not lift the prosecution's primary burden. But once it proved a homicidal death in the matrimonial home and his absence, he had to explain facts within his special knowledge. With no hospital record, and no reason to take the body to the police had she died in hospital, his false story and false alibi completed the chain.
Issues
- Whether, on circumstantial evidence, the appellant's conviction for murdering his wife was sustainable where the private witnesses turned against the prosecution and the appellant offered a false explanation.
- How Section 106 of the Evidence Act and a false explanation under Section 313 CrPC operate in a case of homicide within the matrimonial home.
Provisions considered
- Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872Once the prosecution established the foundational facts, the facts especially within the appellant's knowledge (parting company, injuries, alleged illness, his absence) had to be explained, and his failure and false explanations supplied additional links. (¶¶ 12.3, 12.4, 12.7, 15, 16, 17, 18)
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860The conviction and life sentence were upheld on a complete chain of circumstances. (¶¶ 1, 18, 21)
- Article 136, Constitution of IndiaConcurrent findings of fact are not reappraised as in a regular appeal unless vitiated by error of law, misreading of evidence or manifest illegality. (¶¶ 11, 11.1)
Held
- Section 106 does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden, and a false explanation can only be an additional link once the other circumstances are proved; but where a homicide occurs in the privacy of a house, the burden on the prosecution is comparatively lighter and inmates must give a cogent explanation, as held in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan. (¶¶ 12.1.1, 12.3, 12.4, 12.6, 12.7, 12.9)
- The foundational facts were proved: the body was brought to the police station, the inquest there was signed by the informant and other witnesses, death was by throttling, the deceased lived with the appellant alone, and he was absent and found at a distant place. (¶¶ 14, 14.1)
- The witnesses' and appellant's story of illness and hospital death was false, being uncorroborated by any record and contradicted by the inquest and post-mortem; together with the unexplained facts within his knowledge and the false alibi, it completed the chain of circumstances. (¶¶ 14.1, 16, 17, 18)
- Objections about the site plan not being annexed to the charge-sheet, the date of arrest and the place from which the body was brought were immaterial; absence of motive played no decisive role. (¶¶ 19, 20)
Result
Appeal dismissed; conviction under Section 302 IPC and sentence of life imprisonment upheld.