Summary
A man was convicted under Sections 302 and 201 IPC for murdering his wife in 1988 and throwing her body into the village well, on the theory that he had reported her missing to conceal the crime; the Jharkhand High Court affirmed despite noting that the investigating officer was never examined. The Supreme Court acquitted him: the deceased's father said nothing against him and confirmed that the accused's father had reported her missing two days before the body was found; her uncle's suspicion was uncorroborated hearsay and he admitted no complaint of ill-treatment had ever been made; another relative's claim of habitual beating surfaced for the first time in court; and without the investigating officer the inquest record relied on by both courts and the Section 201 charge were unproved. Suspicion cannot replace proof and the Sharad Birdhichand Sarda conditions were unmet.
Issues
- Whether a conviction for the murder of a wife and for causing disappearance of evidence can be sustained on circumstantial evidence consisting of hearsay suspicion of relatives and an unproved inquest record, where the investigating officer was not examined.
Provisions considered
- Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860Conviction and life sentence set aside as the circumstances relied upon were not proved and did not point exclusively to the guilt of the accused. (¶¶ 1, 15, 16, 20)
- Section 201, Indian Penal Code, 1860The charge of causing disappearance of evidence by lodging a false missing report could not be proved without examining the investigating officer; there was no ocular or documentary evidence of any such report. (¶¶ 8, 14)
Held
- Following Sharad Birdhichand Sarda, the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with guilt; here the father of the deceased deposed nothing against the accused, the uncle's statement that the accused killed her was hearsay with no disclosed source, and the third witness's account of habitual beating was vague hearsay deposed for the first time in court, with no complaint of ill-treatment ever having been registered. (¶¶ 7, 9, 10, 11)
- Both courts rested their findings on the inquest record and the investigating officer's supposed statement, yet the officer was never examined though available and no colleague deposed to the investigation; this renders the prosecution case doubtful if not false. The courts presumed guilt from the accused being last seen with the deceased and allegedly lodging a false report, ignoring that his father had himself informed her father of her disappearance two days earlier; doubt and suspicion cannot found a conviction and interference with concurrent findings is warranted to prevent a travesty of justice. (¶¶ 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19)
Result
Appeal allowed; conviction and sentence under Sections 302 and 201 IPC by the Additional Sessions Judge, Daltonganj dated 10.05.2001, as affirmed by the Jharkhand High Court on 23.07.2004, set aside; appellant, already on bail, acquitted and his bail bond discharged.