Brief Facts
- Appellant, was convicted by the High Court for the murder of his wife. Initially acquitted by the trial court, Appellant faced charges under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC for allegedly killing his wife with a knife. The post-mortem revealed 17 incised wounds on wife’s body. Appellant, who claimed innocence, asserted that robbers had killed his wife and injured him as well. Despite his defense, the High Court, upon reviewing the evidence and finding the trial court’s judgment flawed, reversed the acquittal and convicted Appellant of murder. Appellant has appealed this decision before the Supreme Court.
Issues
- Whether failure to provide appropriate explanation upon an incriminating circumstance can be considered as providing a missing link for completing chain of circumstances?
- Nature of evidence required to prove the crime against the married women inside her matrimonial home and role of section 106 of the Evidence Act in proving such offences.
- Role of the Presiding Officer (Judge) during the course of criminal trial.
Held
- The Apex Court upheld the judgment of the High Court and affirmed the conviction of the Appellant for the offence under section 302 IPC as the Appellant failed to discharge his burden under section 106 of the Evidence Act.
- In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye witness is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete.
- When the attention of the convict appellant Wazir Khan was drawn to the incriminating circumstances that inculpated him in the crime, he failed to offer appropriate explanation or gave a false answer. The same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing a chain of circumstances.
- Cases are frequently coming before the Courts where the husbands, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards the character, have gone to the extent of killing the wife. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. Like the present case, no member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member.
- If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon by the Courts. Reference could be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007 Criminal Law Journal, page 20, in which this Court observed that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. This Court proceeded to observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case.
Relevant Page No.
- 8, 9, 10, 11