| Headnote |
Criminal Law : Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 201-Death of wife-Strangulation and destruction of dead body by burning to destroy evidence-Sessions Court convicting husband on the basis of post- mortem report and medical and other circumstantial evidence- Acquittal by High Court- Whether justified- Symptoms on dead body showing death due to pressure on neck-Medical evidence revealing ante-mortem strangulation and 95% post-mortem bum injuries-Doctor's evidence clear, cogent, truthful, reliable and conclusively establishing death due to asphysxia, and consistent with medical jurisprudence-Circumstantial evidence connecting husband-accused with the crime-Hence death homicide and not suicide-High Court not justified in reversing Sessions Court's conviction of husband-Accused. Criminal Trial Murder of wife-Motive- Proof- Absence of- Whether material when facts are clear- Whether breaks the link in the chain of circumstances connecting husband accused with the crime - Murder of wife and destruction of evidence-Suspicion that someone amongst parents and brother of husband-accused might have facilitated accused to screen evidence- Whether a substitute for proof-Acquittal of these -accused-Whether proper Medical Jurisprudence : Ante-mortem and post-mortem bum injuries-Distinction between. The first respondent, his brother and parents were charged under Section 302 read with section 34 and section 201 l.P.C. for the murder of first respondent's wife and screening of evidence.After seventeen months of marriage of the deceased with the first respondent, PW. 15, deceased's brother received a telegram that his sister had died. Immediately, the same night at 9.00 P.M., he came to the first respondent's place and found that his sister was dead. He alleged that the first respondent had made extra judicial confession that the deceased was strangulated for not getting the dowry of their demand, and that she was burnt to destroy the evidence and sought pardon of him. He sent for his people. A compromise was mooted to which he was not agreeable. A complaint was lodged with the police the next day. PW.1, the doctor, held the autopsy and found that the death was due to asphyxia.The prosecution adduced evidence of PWs. 9 and 15 for the motive of demand for more dowry, extra judicial confession of first respondent , said to have been made to PW.15 that the deceased was strangulated, for not getting dowry of their demand and burnt to destroy evidence, and recoveries etc. PW.1, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem in his evidence stated that the deceased died due to asphyxia, as a result of strangulation, which was ante-mortem and sufficient to cause death in the ordinary course of nature, and that burn injuries were 95 per cent, on the entire body except on the feet, and these were post-mortem. The Sessions Judge disbelieved the extra judicial confession spoken to by PW.15 and others, but accepted the evidence of PW.1 and other circumstantial evidence and found that the first respondent had strangulated the deceased and burnt the body to destroy the evidence, and convicted him under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. However, the Sessions Judge acquitted the other respondents giving them benefit of doubt. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the first respondent and confirmed the acquittal of the other respondents. Aggrieved, the brother of the deceased, the complainant, and the State filed appeals by special leave, before this Court. It was contended on behalf of the respondents that since palms were not clenched and the eyes did not protrude but were half closed, the mouth was closed and tongue was not protruding and the duration of death was of 5 to 10 minutes, as opined by the doctor, it was not a case of strangulation, but suicide, that the respondents had no motive, and in fact, the High Court bad found that the evidence was not sufficient to establish motive, and the case was based on circumstantial evidence and, therefore, motive being absent, the prosecution had failed to establish this important link in the claim of circumstances to connect the accused, and that the evidence of DW.4, and the statement of first respondent under Section 313 Cr.P.C. B dearly established that the respondent is not at home when tile occurrence had taken place. |
