Summary
The husband challenged his murder conviction after the High Court acquitted his relatives and set aside the cruelty conviction. The Court upheld his individual conviction on the circumstantial evidence of throttling, his separate room with the deceased, the timing of death and the proved threat. It rejected doubts based on the delayed signature of the detailed post-mortem report.
Issues
- Whether acquittal of co-accused charged with murder and common intention precluded an individual murder conviction.
- Whether the medical and surrounding evidence excluded suicide despite inconsistencies and the delayed post-mortem report.
Held
- The medical injuries and testimony supported death by throttling rather than hanging. The low room height reinforced the conclusion on this record; taking the deceased to hospital did not establish innocence in light of the other evidence. (¶¶ 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30, 32, 33)
- The authorities concerning acquittal of named participants did not compel acquittal of the husband individually. Here, evidence established throttling, a prior threat by him and death in the separate bedroom at a time when he would be with his wife. His case stood on a distinct evidentiary footing from that of the acquitted relatives. (¶¶ 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39)
- The later date on the detailed post-mortem report was explained by the unavailability of a doctor to sign it. The contemporaneous provisional certificate, signed by both doctors and identifying the deceased and cause of death as throttling, provided assurance supporting the detailed report. (¶¶ 40, 41, 42)
- Ordinarily the medical report prevails over an inquest description of injuries because of the doctor’s expertise. On the evidence here, discrepancies in the inquest did not displace the medical conclusion of throttling. (¶ 43)
Result
Appeal dismissed and Section 302 IPC conviction upheld. Bail bonds cancelled; the appellant was to be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.