Supreme Court: In an appeal filed against the judgment of Chhattisgarh High Court, wherein, the Court confirmed the conviction of the appellant (‘convict’) for offences punishable under Sections , and , the division bench of C.T. Ravikumar* and Prashant Kumar Mishra, JJ. upheld the impugned judgment rejecting the convict husband’s defense that he had made a sincere attempt to save his wife’s life, affirming that the evidence of his actions established his culpability in the death of the deceased.
The Court also reiterated that the plea of alibi, can be applied only if the ‘elsewhere place’ is far away from the place of occurrence so that it was extremely improbable or impossible for the person concerned to reach the place of occurrence and to participate in the crime on the relevant date and time of occurrence.
Background:
The convict was married to the deceased in 2006, and the tragic incident leading to her death occurred in 2012 at their matrimonial home. The convict, who was addicted to gambling, subjected his wife to both physical and mental abuse, often in pursuit of money to feed his addiction. He even mortgaged her jewellery for this purpose. On the day of the incident, the deceased confided in her sister that she had been physically assaulted by her husband. Later that evening, the convict informed the deceased’s parents that she had committed suicide by hanging herself. When they arrived at the scene, they found her body suspended by a dupatta tied to a ceiling fan. Despite the circumstances, the convict removed the noose and took her to a nearby hospital, where she was declared dead. Initially, a case under Section of the (‘CrPC’) (suspicious death) was registered, but an FIR was later filed under Sections 302 (murder), 201 (destruction of evidence), and 498A (cruelty) of the IPC. The Trial Court convicted the husband, sentencing him to life imprisonment for murder, three years for destruction of evidence, and one year for cruelty. Aggrieved, the convict appealed against the conviction, but the High Court upheld the Trial Court’s decision, and the sentences imposed, confirming his guilt in the death of his wife. Thus, the present appeal was filed.
Analysis and Decision
The Court emphasised that more often criminals would try to dub a murder as suicidal or accidental death. The identification of the nature of the death is, therefore, always an important medico-legal problem. Thus, the Courts concerned must study the total evidence to discern whether death is a case of homicide or suicide or accidental.
The Court, after carefully reviewing the evidence on record, upheld the concurrent findings of both the trial court and the High Court, which concluded that the death of the deceased was homicidal and not suicidal. It emphasized that while presumption is a principle in the realm of burden of proof, the circumstances surrounding the case had been thoroughly examined, and the reasoning provided by both courts was sound and well-supported by the evidence. The convict’s contention that the death was not homicidal was firmly rejected, as both the Trial Court and High Court had already refuted this argument based on the available evidence and circumstances. Thus, the Court refused to entertain the convict’s repeated claim that the death was not the result of homicide.
The Court critically examined the evidence presented and observed that there was no indication that the deceased was alive when the convict cut the noose. Both the prosecution and defense versions failed to establish that she had been breathing or showing any signs of life on the way to the hospital. The convict’s actions were particularly suspicious as he refrained from cutting the noose immediately upon discovering his wife hanging; instead, he waited until witnesses were brought to the scene before taking any action. This delay was deemed inconsistent with a genuine attempt to save her life. Furthermore, the absence of self-inflicted injuries, as highlighted by the necroscopical evidence and the testimony of a witness, further contradicted the convict’s claim of trying to save her. Had his actions been genuine, he would have cut the noose at the moment he saw her hanging, instead of waiting to inform others first. Given these facts, the Court rejected the convict’s defense that he had made a sincere attempt to save his wife’s life, affirming that the evidence of his actions established his culpability in the death of the deceased.
Plea of Alibi
Noting that the convict took up the plea of alibi on the ground that he was in a nearby garden to the place of occurrence at the relevant point of time, the Court said that the convict was bound to explain what happened on that day at his house by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act since he and the deceased were man and wife, and the incident had occurred in the house where they were residing. Therefore, he was bound to explain and establish the same as it is a fact, exclusively within his knowledge, by concrete evidence, if he fails to establish the plea of ‘alibi’.
The Court highlighted the effect of a false plea of alibi while taking note of Babudas v. State of M.P., and G. Parshwanath v. State of Karnataka, . In G. Parshwanath’s case, it was held that when the accused gave a false plea that he was not present on the spot, his statement would be regarded as additional circumstance against him strengthening the chain of circumstances already found firm. In Babudas’s case (supra), it was held that in a case of circumstantial evidence, a false plea of alibi set up by the accused would be a link in the chain of circumstances but then it could not be the sole link or sole circumstances based on which a conviction could be passed.
Referring to Binay Kumar Singh v. State of Bihar , , the Court reiterated that the plea of alibi, can be applied only if the ‘elsewhere place’ is far away from the place of occurrence so that it was extremely improbable or impossible for the person concerned to reach the place of occurrence and to participate in the crime on the relevant date and time of occurrence. In such circumstances, the Court viewed that the said contention was rightly rejected by the Courts below.
Whether the convict who was bound to offer his version as to how the occurrence had taken place in the circumstances obtained in this case, had discharged his onus by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
The Court clarified that Section of the serves as an exception to the general rule in Section 101, which places the burden of proof on the party asserting the affirmative of the issue. However, Section 106 does not relieve any person from the fundamental duty of proving their case. The Court emphasized that when an incident occurs inside the residence of the convict, as in this case, the convict is required to offer an explanation regarding the circumstances. In the present case, it was undisputed that the convict and the deceased were living together in the house where the incident took place.
Given his exclusive presence at the scene and his failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for his wife’s death, the Court found that the prosecution had successfully established convict’s involvement in the crime. The absence of any explanation or defense from the convict, coupled with the surrounding circumstances that pointed to his culpability, led the Court to conclude that the only plausible inference was that the convict had participated in the commission of the crime.
The Court highlighted that the prosecution successfully established that the place of occurrence was the matrimonial home of the deceased, where both the convict and the deceased resided. The testimony of the sister of the deceased regarding the physical and mental torture inflicted on the deceased by the convict, was not contradicted during cross-examination, which was noted by both the Trial Court and the High Court.
The Courts, after considering the cumulative effect of all the evidence and circumstances, along with the sound reasoning provided by the Trial Court found no merit in the convict’s arguments.
As a result, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence stood affirmed.
CASE DETAILS
| Citation: Appellants : Ashok Verma Respondents : State of Chhattisgarh | Advocates who appeared in this case For Petitioner(s): For Respondent(s): |
CORAM :
Buy Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
Buy Penal Code, 1860
The post appeared first on .