Kerala High Court
Gijin @ Giji vs State Of Kerala on 23 October, 2017
Author: P. Somarajan
Bench: A.M.Shaffique, P.Somarajan
IN THE HIGH COURT OF KERALAATERNAKULAM
PRESENT:
THE HONOURABLE MR.JUSTICE A.M.SHAFFIQUE
&
THE HONOURABLE MR. JUSTICE P.SOMARAJAN
MONDAY, THE 23RD DAYOF OCTOBER 2017/1ST KARTHIKA, 1939
CRL.A.No. 154 of 2012 (D)
--------------------------------------
AGAINST THE JUDGMENT IN SC 289/2009 of II ADDL.DISTRICT COURT,
ERNAKULAM, DATED24-01-2012
APPELLANT: ACCUSED NO.1: -
------------------------------------------------
GIJIN @ GIJI, AGED 37 YEARS,
S/O.AYYAPPAN,
PAZHUKKOLITHANDEL HOUSE,
CHELIKUZHITHANU BHAGOM,
KARUKAKOM KARA,
KOTHAMANGALAM VILLAGE,
ERNAKULAM DISTRICT.
BY ADVS.SRI.B.RAMAN PILLAI
SRI.R.ANIL
SRI.MANU TOM
SRI.M.SUNILKUMAR
SRI.SUJESH MENON V.B.
SRI.SHYAM ARAVIND
RESPONDENT/COMPLAINANT: -
------------------------------------------------
STATE OF KERALA,
REP. BYTHE PUBLIC PROSECUTOR,
HIGH COURT OF KERALA, ERNAKULAM.
R1 BY PUBLIC PROSECUTOR SRI. NICHOLAS JOSEPH
THIS CRIMINAL APPEAL HAVING BEEN FINALLYHEARD ON 04-10-2017,
THE COURT ON 23.10.2017 DELIVERED THE FOLLOWING:
DMR/-
C.R.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE &
P. SOMARAJAN, JJ.
------------------------------------------------
Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012
------------------------------------------------
Dated this the 23rd day of October, 2017
J U D G M E N T
P. Somarajan, J.
This appeal is against the conviction and sentence imposed under the judgment dated 24.01.2012 in Sessions Case No.289 of 2009 of the IInd Additional Sessions Judge, Ernakulam, by accused No.1.
2. One Amitha, the wife of accused No.1, found lying dead during the early hours at 3.30 a.m. on 21.08.2007 in an artificial tank situated near the house of accused No.1. At that time, accused No.1 and the victim were residing in the said house along with their only daughter aged 1 = years, his brother, parents (mother and father) and PW6, Prasanth, the nephew of accused No.1. The father of the deceased (PW1) came to the house on getting information and gave the First Information Statement to PW19, Sub Inspector of Police, Kothamangalam, who registered a crime for unnatural death. An inquest was conducted by PW10 and post-mortem examination was conducted by PW17, the Assistant Police Surgeon, Medical College Hospital, Alappuzha. After the Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 2 investigation, a final report was submitted for the offence punishable under Sections 302, 201 and 498A read with Section 34 of the IPC as against the appellant herein, the husband of the deceased, along with his mother, accused No.2, the mother-in-law of the deceased who was charged with offence punishable under Section 498A read with Section 34 IPC. The learned Sessions Judge, on consideration of evidence and after hearing both the parties, found accused No.1 guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 and sentenced him to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs.1,00,000/-, in default to undergo rigorous imprisonment for a further period of one year, with a direction to release the fine amount at the rate of Rs.25,000/- each to PW1 and PW9 and Rs.50,000/- to the child of the deceased. Accused No.2 was found not guilty and accordingly acquitted. The appellant was also found not guilty for the offence punishable under Sections 201 and 498A IPC. The conviction and the sentence imposed under Section 302 IPC against the appellant/accused No.1 is under challenge in this appeal.
3. There is no eye witness to the alleged incident and hence the prosecution is heavily relying on the circumstantial Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 3 evidence. PWs 1 to 24 were examined by the prosecution and got marked Exhibits P1 to P46 and identified MOs 1 to 11. PW1 is the father, PW9 is the mother and PW20 is the sister of the deceased. PW2 is the brother and PW6 is the nephew of the appellant. PW3 is one Hanitha Chandran, with whom, according to the prosecution, accused No.1 maintained an intimacy and illegal relationship, which prompted him to commit the alleged crime. PW3 turned hostile to the prosecution when examined. Exhibit P17 is the inquest report proved through PW7. PW10 is the Tahsildar who conducted the inquest on the body of the deceased. PW11 is the Village Officer who prepared the site plan. PW12 is a neighbour who was examined by the prosecution in order to prove the recovery of MO4 Lungi belongs to accused No.1 under a seizure mahazar. PW13 is the husband of the employer of accused No.1. Accused No.1 at that time was working as a marketing agent and he was provided with a mobile phone by the employer (identified as MO2). PW14 is the photographer who took Exhibit P23 series of photographs and PW15 is the temple poojari who issued the marriage certificate pertaining to the deceased with accused No.1. PW16 is the Magistrate Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 4 who recorded 164 statement of PW2, PW3 and PW8, which were respectively marked as Exhibits P3, P25 and P18. PW17 is the Doctor who conducted post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased and issued Exhibit P26 post-mortem examination certificate. PW18 is another Doctor who inspected the spot along with PW17 so as to have a scientific study regarding the possibility of an accidental fall in the water tank and commission of suicide. PW19 is the Sub Inspector who recorded Exhibit P1 FIS and registered Exhibit P1(a) FIR at 8.00 a.m on 21.08.2007. PW21 is the attester of scene mahazar. PW22 is the Circle Inspector of Police. On his measurement of the tank, the water level was found to be 1.04 metres. PW24 is the D.Y.S.P who took the investigation from 08.09.2007 onwards.
4. The prosecution case is that accused No.1 married Amitha, the deceased in this case, on 04.05.2003 and they were living with the parents and younger brother of accused No.1 at Pazhukkalil Thandel Veedu, Karukadom, Kothamangalam Village. While so, accused No.1 fell in love with one Hanitha @ Sari and began to torture Amitha, both mentally and physically. During the odd hours of 21.08.2007, Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 5 accused No.1 tried to strangulate the deceased by his hand and she fell unconscious. Thereon, he took her and put in the water tank situated 4.65 metres north-west of the said house and dipped her in the water till death. The prosecution heavily relied on the oral testimony of PW1, PW9, PW20 and the medical evidence to prove the chain of circumstances consistent with the guilt of accused. PW2 and PW6 are the two other witnesses relied on by the prosecution.
5. The first question to be ascertained is whether the death of the victim was due to strangulation or due to drowning and if it was drowning, whether it was a case of accidental death, homicide or suicide. In order to bring home the complicity of the accused in the alleged crime, the prosecution has to establish that the death was not the result of suicide or due to an accidental fall. The body was recovered from the tank on the early morning on 21.08.2007. Even according to PW2 and PW6, it was PW2 who took the body from the tank on his hand and tried to climb the step. The length, width and depth of the tank are reported as 2.88 metres, 1.56 metres and 1.25 metres respectively. At that time, the water level was only 1.04 metres. The victim Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 6 was a lady having a height of 155cm. If that be so, it is not possible to have a death by drowning by an accidental fall as there was no sufficient water in the tank at that time. The depth of the tank is also not sufficient to cause an accidental death by drowning. It is also not possible to have a suicide since the water level is only 1.04 metres and length and width of the tank are 2.88 metres and 1.56 metres respectively and depth of the tank is only 1.25 metres. So, there cannot be a suicidal death as the water level in the tank was only 1.04 metres as on the date of the alleged incident. If it is assumed that the water level of the tank was up to 1.25 metres, then also it is not at all possible to have a suicidal death or an accidental death due to drowning as the water level in the tank is not sufficient enough to cover the height of the victim up to her nose. The fact that it has only 1.56 metres width would sufficiently show that the person can stretch his/her hands on the top of the tank so as to float himself/herself over the water. The Doctor, PW18, who conducted the post-mortem examination on the body of the deceased, had given oral evidence ruling out all the possibilities for having an accidental death by drowning or Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 7 suicide, unless somebody has tied her legs and hands or she had become unconscious due to any injury sustained. In the instant case no injury, much less any injury to her body, sufficient to bring her unconscious, was reported. PW17 and PW18, two Doctors, are in agreement and ruled out the possibility of having a suicidal drowning, which, according to them, is remote. The Doctor who conducted the post-mortem examination also is of the opinion that the nature of the tank and its shallowness are of such a nature that possibility of an accidental fall or drowning by suicide is remote. If the victim was in an unconscious stage drowning can occur. If the victim was conscious, she could easily get away. According to him, the victim can easily get up from the tank even if she fell into it, unless her hands and legs are tied up. This would rule out the possibility of an accidental fall in the tank resulting in death due to drowning as well as the possibility of having a suicide. So it can be safely concluded that the death of the victim was homicide and not a suicide or an accidental death due to drowning.
6. The circumstances relied on by the prosecution to prove the guilt of accused No.1 are:
Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 8
(1) That on an earlier occasion there was an attempt on the part of accused No.1 to strangulate and kill the deceased during night time while she was sleeping in her bedroom.
(2) The deceased was found in the company of accused No.1 and they were last seen together alive.
(3) The behaviour of accused No.1 after the commission of the offence.
(4) The statement alleged to have been made by the victim before the incident (mistakenly taken as dying declaration in the impugned judgment).
(5) The extra marital relationship of accused No.1 with PW3 and the strained relationship in between the deceased and accused No.1 on account of the said relationship.
7. According to the prosecution, there was an earlier attempt to kill the victim by her husband, accused No.1, while they were sleeping in their bedroom. According to PWs 1, 9 and 20, accused No.1 tried to strangulate the victim during night time while she was sleeping in her bed within the secrecy of their bedroom. Feeling pressure over her neck, she woke up. Thereon, accused No.1 withdrawn from his attempt. Immediately, she switched on the light inside the bedroom and Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 9 found a twisted piece of cloth lying near to her bed. It was a piece of window curtain which was lying twisted near to the bed. On seeing this, she enquired the matter to accused No.1. Thereon he had given a reply that he was just playing a game over her. PW9 has asserted that she had disclosed the said incident to the police, but there was an omission to state the reply given by accused No.1 to the victim on that day. It is also true that there is omission to mention the said incident in Exhibit P1 FIS. While giving FIS there may be some omissions, especially regarding an earlier incident which was happened almost one month prior to the incident, if it was given by a near relative of the victim who may be under some mental depression on account of the death of the victim. The first informant PW1 is the father of victim. Her mother PW9 has categorically asserted that she had disclosed the said incident to the Investigating Officer. No other omission except D2 was brought out during the cross examination of PW9. On the other hand, D2 omission is only a natural minor omission and not a material one. Nothing else was brought out to discredit the oral evidence of PW9. The omission on the part of PW1 to mention an incident which has happened on an Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 10 earlier occasion would not be fatal, especially when it was disclosed by PW9 before the Investigating Officer and asserted the same during her examination and hence the above said act would come under the purview of Section 8 of the Evidence Act.
8. The declaration made by the deceased Amitha that she is apprehending death in the hands of accused No.1 cannot be brought under the expression "dying declaration". The expression "dying declaration" stands for the statement made by a person as to the cause of his/her death in which the cause of that person's death comes into question. In other words, it should be after the commission of the offence or during the course of commission of the offence. The statement made by the victim before the commission of offence "apprehending danger from some other person" would not come under the purview of Section 32 of the Evidence Act and cannot be treated as a dying declaration. Hence, much weight cannot be given to the argument advanced by the prosecution in that behalf.
9. Regarding the motive for the crime, though PW3 was examined by the prosecution so as to show the intimacy Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 11 developed in between accused No.1 and PW3 and their illegal relationship, she turned hostile to the prosecution denying the alleged relationship. But, accused No.1, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., gone to the extent stating that he did not know PW3. Though PW3 turned hostile to the prosecution, she had admitted even in the chief examination that accused No.1 is known to her and he is the friend of her lover by name 'Tasleem'. The statement given under Section 164 Cr.P.C. by her before the concerned Magistrate will not give much assistance to the prosecution as the same is not a substantive evidence. It can be used only to corroborate or contradict that witness. The evidentiary value of Section 164 Cr.P.C. had been considered in State of Delhi v. Shri Ram Lohia [AIR 1960 SC 490].
10. PWs 1, 9 and 20 had spoken about the strained relationship in between accused No.1 and the deceased and the love affair of accused No.1 with PW3. It may not be possible for the prosecution, invariably in all cases, to trace out the real mensrea behind the crime which is known only to the accused, the perpetrator, and when there is sufficient materials to show the strained relationship, it would be sufficient to Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 12 prove the motive behind the crime. The oral deposition of PW3 has to be scrutinized in relation to the attending circumstances as spoken by PWs 1, 9 and 20. The strained relationship between accused No.1 and the victim as spoken by PW1, PW9 and PW20 cannot be ignored in view of relationship maintained by the accused with PW3. It was argued that the strained relationship, if any, between the accused and the victim as set out by the prosecution is not sufficient to commit such a heinous offence of murder. In Nathuni Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and another (1998) 9 SCC 238, the Supreme Court considered the distinction between motive and mensrea and held that the mere fact that motive alleged by the prosecution is not strong enough for others to develop such a degree of grudge would not mean that the assailant had no serious reasons to do this. It was further held that motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Though, it is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive it is unsound to suggest that Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 13 no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of assailant. The legal position was again reiterated in Mulakh Raj v. Satish Kumar and Others [AIR 1992 SC 1175] in the following words:
"In cases of circumstantial evidence motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and sometime it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case."
11. Then again the very same question was taken up in a subsequent decision drawn in Suresh Chandra Bahri v. State of Bihar [AIR 1994 SC 2420] and held as under:
"Sometimes motive plays an important role and becomes a compelling force to commit a crime and therefore motive behind the crime is a relevant factor Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 14 for which evidence may be adduced. A motive is something which prompts a person to form an opinion or intention to do certain illegal act or even a legal act but with illegal means with a view to achieve that intention. In a case where there is clear proof of motive for the commission of the crime it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. But the absence of proof of motive does not render the evidence bearing on the guilt of the accused nonetheless untrustworthy or unreliable because most often it is only the perpetrator of the crime alone who knows as to what circumstances prompted him to a certain course of action leading to the commission of the crime."
12. The evidence tendered through PWs 1, 9 and 20 and the oral deposition of PW3, through turned hostile, would sufficiently establish the strained relationship between the accused and the victim and the intimacy developed with PW3 and it would satisfy the requirement of proving motive behind the crime.
13. PW2 is none else, the brother of accused No.1/appellant. PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution, but admitted that at the time of alleged incident he along with his father, mother, his brother - Gijin, accused No.1 herein, his Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 15 wife Amitha, the deceased, their daughter aged 1 = years and PW6 were residing in the house. Further, he had admitted that he was in the said house on the date of incident, i.e on 22.08.2007. He woke up and came out of his bedroom on hearing the sound of his brother, accused No.1 herein, calling his wife. At that time, accused No.1 was in his bedroom. PW2 went to the hall and enquired about it. He was told by accused No.1 that his daughter urinated on the bed. Hearing the sound of accused No.1, the father and mother also came out of their room and enquired about the victim. Thereon accused No.1 informed them that she went to the bathroom, but not returned so far. Thereon, the mother of accused No.1 came out of the house in search of the wife of accused No.1 and called her name. Since there was no response from the deceased, the mother went to the bathroom and found that the door of the bathroom was lying opened. PW2 also accompanied her. He could not say whether there was any light inside the bathroom, but admitted that somebody has switched on the tube light on the backside of the kitchen. They made a search in the house under construction situated in their own property and also in the surrounding places. The Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 16 father of accused No.1 who joined with them had detected the body of the deceased lying in the artificial tank. PW2 along with Prasanth (PW6) immediately rushed to the place and recovered the body from the tank. Since PW2 turned hostile to the prosecution, he was cross examined by the Prosecutor and got marked Exhibits P1 to P8.
14. PW6, Prasanth, is the nephew of the appellant/ accused No.1. He had also given evidence in tune with the oral evidence tendered by PW2. According to him, he came out of the house on hearing the sound of appellant. Accused No.1 was found standing at the sit out attached to the kitchen carrying his daughter on his hand and PW6 was informed by accused No.1 that Amitha, the deceased, went to the bathroom. He also turned hostile to the prosecution. It is pertinent to note that PW6 had given a version that accused No.1/appellant informed him that Amitha was found missing, at the time when he approached the appellant on hearing the sound. Accused No.1 was found standing near the kitchen along with his daughter. The body of the deceased was removed from the tank to the courtyard by PW2 and PW6. Neither PW2 nor PW6 had any case that accused Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 17 No.1/appellant also joined with them to take the body of the deceased from the tank. On the other hand, they are in agreement that they alone took the body of the deceased from the tank to the courtyard.
15. During the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., accused No.1 has admitted the version given by PW2 to the effect that PW2 came out of his room on hearing the sound of accused No.1 calling Amitha and that accused No.1 informed him that Amitha went to the toilet outside the house and in spite of lapse of time she did not return. It is also admitted by both PW2 and PW6 that the tube light on the kitchen side was lit up by that time and that there was sufficient light up to the toilet. It is also admitted by PW6 that the door of the bathroom was lying opened. Even according to the admission made by accused No.1 during 313 examination that the deceased went to the toilet and not returned in spite of lapse of considerable time, he did not say anything about the time in which he waited for the return of the deceased. He did not have any case that he had made any enquiry or search either in the toilet or nearby places, but he waited in the room itself and called the name of his wife aloud. The bathroom is just Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 18 few metres away from the house and there was sufficient light up to the bathroom and it could be possible to see the bathroom even from the back side of the house. At this juncture, it is pertinent to note that PW2, during his cross- examination by prosecution, had admitted that it is the usual practice of the daughter of the appellant to urinate on the bed during night and accused No.1 never disturbed the inmates in the house for that reason during night time. This would show that this was the first time in which accused No.1 caused PW2, PW6 and his father and mother to wake up and to procure their presence on the backside of the house. What actually prompted the appellant to make that much of noise and sound so as to attract all the inmates in the house and to procure their presence either to his room or on the backside of his house would also relevant in the backdrop of circumstances leading to the death of victim. If the victim had actually gone for urination, as claimed by accused No.1 before PW2 and PW6, she would have returned within a reasonable time. What is spoken by accused No.1/appellant to PW2 and PW6, even according to their version, is that he was waiting for the return of the deceased who went for urination outside the house. Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 19 Even according to the version given by accused No.1 to PW2 and PW6, she did not return in spite of lapse of time. If that be so, it is not clear why he had not made any enquiry either to the place wherein she had gone for urination or in the surrounding places. The fact that there was tube light on the backside of the house and it it is switched on, the light would reach up to the toilet and that the toilet was lying open would clearly show that no attempt was made by the appellant either to ascertain the presence of the deceased in the bathroom or in the nearby place. It is also not clear why he had waited for a long time without making any search. It is also highly improbable that had had permitted his wife to go outside the house during the odd hours of the night. Nobody will wait inside the room for a long time if she had gone for urination outside the house, especially when the toilet is situated very near to the house. The conduct of accused No.1/appellant in not making an enquiry or at least calling her name within a reasonable time and simply waited for her arrival for a long time and then called her name aloud so as to attract and awaken the inmates in the house and to procure their presence on the backside of the house and thereafter standing in the sit Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 20 out of the kitchen watching the enquiry/search conducted by the inmates of the house to trace out the victim, would amply show that he had something to conceal from the knowledge of the inmates of the house. All these subsequent conduct of accused No.1 are relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. There was no practice to call the help of other inmates of the house by the appellant on the ground that his daughter aged 1 = years has pissed during night over the bed and this was the first time accused No.1 sought the help of others and had awaken the inmates by calling the name of his wife aloud. It is also discernible from the oral evidence tendered by PW2 and PW6 that all the inmates in the house woke up and came out of the house hearing the sound of accused No.1. Then also accused No.1 did not whisper anything with respect to the disappearance of his wife. On the other hand, he claimed that he is calling his wife because of the reason that his daughter pissed on the bed. Then to the enquiry what happened to his wife, he had given a reply that she went out of the house to attend the toilet, but not returned so far in spite of lapse of time. It will reveal the intention of the appellant to procure the attention of all the inmates in the house that he was still Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 21 remaining in his bedroom along with his daughter so as to make it appear that he is innocent in the matter and to bring the same to their notice.
16. Accused No.1/appellant had also admitted, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., that it was PW2 and PW6 who took the body of the deceased Amitha from the tank to the courtyard of the said house. He had not joined with either PW2 or PW6 in taking her body out of the tank, but simply stood there as a silent spectator. Even according to PW6, PW2 tried hard to pull her body out of the tank and to climb the steps provided therein and PW6 thereon helped and assisted him in bringing the body of the deceased out of the tank. Accused No.1/appellant was simply standing near to his father at that time and it was also admitted by him during the examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. The said conduct of accused No.1 is against the normal conduct of an ordinary person, especially when the deceased was his wife and her body was found lying in an artificial tank situated on the backside of their house. The said conduct is also a strong indication of complicity of accused No.1 with the crime and relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. He had also Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 22 admitted during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C that on that day when PW6 came out of his room he informed PW6 that his wife is missing. It would show that accused No.1 has knowledge about the missing of his wife even at the time when PW6 approached him on that night. He had also admitted during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. that the lights in the bathroom as well as backside of the kitchen were lit up at that time. It is not clear how accused No.1 came to know about the disappearance of his wife at the time when PW6 came out of the house on hearing his sound.
17. PW2 and PW6 are also in agreement that accused No.1 and the deceased and their only daughter aged 1 = years were residing in the house along with his father, mother, younger brother (PW2) and nephew (PW6) of accused No.1. Section 106 of the Evidence Act casts a duty on the appellant to speak what happened to his wife when she was residing in the company of her husband, the appellant, and what actually happened to her at the odd hours of the night of the ill fated day. It was submitted that Section 106 of the Evidence Act would come into play only when something is in the special knowledge of accused No.1 alone and it cannot be made Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 23 applicable when accused No.1 and the victim along with some others are residing in the said house. There are other inmates in the house and hence there cannot be a special knowledge to the accused with respect to what actually happened to his wife and it may be known to other inmates in the house. Section 106 of the Evidence Act would come into play only when a fact is within the special knowledge of the accused alone. In other words, it should be an exclusive knowledge to the accused alone. In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006 KHC 1469) the Apex Court has elaborately considered the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Paragraph 12 of the above said judgment is extracted below for reference:
"12. If an offence takes place inside the privacy 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 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, as noticed above, is insisted upon by the courts. A judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. A Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 24 Both are public duties. (See Stirlahd v. Director of Public Prosecution (1944 AC 315) quoted with approval by Arijit Pasayat, J. in State of Punjab v. Karnail Singh 2003 (11) SCC 271. 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. Here it is necessary to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. Illustration (b) appended to this section throws some light on the content and scope of this provision and it reads:
(b.) A is charged with traveling on a railway without ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him."
Where an offence like murder is committed in secrecy inside a house, the initial burden to establish the case would undoubtedly be upon the prosecution, but the nature and amount of evidence to be led by it to establish the charge cannot be of the same degree as is required in other cases of circumstantial evidence. The burden would be of a comparatively lighter character. In view of S.106 of the Evidence Act there will be a corresponding burden on the inmates of the house to give a cogent explanation as to how the crime was committed. The inmates of the house Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 25 cannot get away by simply keeping quiet and offering no explanation on the supposed premise that the burden to establish its case lies entirely upon the prosecution and there is no duty at all on an accused to offer any explanation."
18. The earlier decision rendered by the Apex Court in State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Others [2000 (8) SCC 382] and the principles laid down in paragraphs 31 to 34 had taken note of by the Apex Court and extracted, which are as follows:
"31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty.
32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore narrated circumstances, the court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognised by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this.
Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 26
33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when S.114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case.
34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the accused would tell the court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody." Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 27
19. Earlier, this principle was approved and followed in Balram Prasad Agrawal v. State of Bihar and Others (AIR 1997 SC 1830). Then again in Ram Gulam Chaudhary and Others v. State of Bihar (2001 (8) SCC 311) this principle was applied and followed.
20. In the instant case, there are other inmates in the house. But, the alleged incident has happened within the secrecy of their bedroom during the odd hours of the night on the ill fated day. None of the inmates of the house witnessed what actually transpired or happened between accused No.1 and the deceased, the husband and the wife, within the secrecy of their bedroom or at the backside of their house or at the place from where the body was recovered - the tank situated on the backside of the house. It is known to the appellant/accused No.1 and the victim alone. In order to attract Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the presence of other inmates in the house may not have much relevance when the alleged incident took place within the secrecy of the bedroom of accused and deceased and no one else was there in the said room. The admission made by accused No.1 during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. reveals the same. He Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 28 had admitted what is spoken by PW2 and PW6. If that be so, it casts a duty on accused No.1 to speak what actually happened to the victim on the ill fated night. Non forwarding of an explanation or forwarding a false explanation would amount to an additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused. It happened within the secrecy of their bedroom. What is admitted by accused No.1 during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C. and what is spoken by PW2 and PW6 would clearly reveal that accused No.1 explained the absence of his wife by advancing a story that she came out of the house for urination. They did not have any case that she had gone out of the house without the consent and knowledge of accused No.1. The prosecution also failed to establish the alleged absconding of accused No.1 after the commission of the alleged crime. No independent witnesses were examined in order to prove the alleged absconding of accused No.1. The Apex Court in Matru Alias Girish Chandra v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [1971 SCC (Cri) 391] had the occasion to consider the factors governing evaluation of circumstantial evidence by relying on the earlier decision in Hanumant v. State of M.P., [1952 SCR 1091 : Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 29
AIR 1952 SC 343] and Prabhu Babaji Navle v. State of Bombay [AIR 1956 SC 51 : 1956 Cr LJ 147]. The Apex Court in Matru Alias Girish Chandra's case supra had settled the legal position. In a case of circumstantial evidence, the circumstances on which the prosecution relies must be consistent with the sole hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. It is also necessary to consider whether the cumulative effect of the circumstances establishes the guilt of the accused beyond the "shadow of doubt". The test which requires the exclusion of other alternative hypothesis is far more rigorous than the test of proof beyond reasonable doubt. See the decision drawn in Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1981 SC 765].
21. Another circumstance raised by the prosecution based on "last seen" theory is also assailed by the appellant and took support from the decision drawn in Rambraksh alias Jalim v. State of Chhattisgarh [AIR 2016 SC 2381] wherein it was held as follows:
"It is trite law that a conviction cannot be recorded against the accused merely on the ground that the accused was last seen with the deceased. In other words, a conviction cannot be based on the only Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 30 circumstance of last seen together. Normally, last seen theory comes into play where the time gap, between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were seen last alive and when the deceased is found dead, is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the perpetrator of the crime becomes impossible. To record a conviction, the last seen together itself would not be sufficient and the prosecution has to complete the chain of circumstances to bring home the guilt of the accused."
22. The legal principle is also summarized and settled in a subsequent decision of Apex Court in Nathiya v. State represented by Inspector of Police, Bagayam Police Station, Vellore [(2016) 10 SCC 298]. In that case, the body of the deceased was found floating in a well and there was a failure on the part of prosecution to rule out the possibility of suicide. The position of law was reiterated in another decision in State through C.B.I. v. Mahender Singh Dahiya [AIR 2011 SC 1017]. But, in the instant case, as discussed in earlier paragraphs, the possibility of suicidal death or an accidental death already ruled out.
23. The Apex Court in Ashok V. State of Maharashtra [(2015) 4 SCC 393] clarified the position regarding the application of "last seen together" theory and the role of Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 31 prosecution. It was held that initial burden of proof is on the prosecution to adduce sufficient evidence pointing towards the guilt of accused. However, in case, it is established that accused was last seen together with deceased, prosecution is exempted to prove exact happening of the incident as accused himself would have special knowledge of incident and thus, would have burden of proof as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act. But, "last seen together" itself is not conclusive proof. But, along with other circumstances surrounding the incident like relation between accused and deceased, enmity between them, previous history of hostility, recovery of weapon from accused, etc. non-explanation of death of deceased, etc. etc. may lead to a presumption of guilt of accused.
24. The statutory duty cast under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to speak when something within the special knowledge of accused only, when the incident was happened within the secrecy of either in the dwelling house of victim and accused or some other exclusive place without the presence of any other witnesses/inmates stands on a more rigorous footing, being a species under the theory "last seen together". In other words, when the victim and accused alone were in the Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 32 dwelling house and when the incident was happened within the secrecy of dwelling house, without having witnessed by any other person, the duty cast upon the accused to explain what happened to the victim is so heavy and more rigorous than the duty cast under the theory of "last see together".
25. One of the ear studs identified as MO3(a), and 'sankiri', identified as MO3(b), were recovered from the tank where the body of the deceased was found lying. But, a piece of gold chain worn by her, identified as MO6, was found lying near to the tank. The 'sankiri' (it is a part of ear ornament in the form of a cap with screw therein used for fixing the ear ring) was obtained from the courtyard of the said house. It is not explained by accused No.1, who was with the victim at the time of the alleged incident and what happened to the chain and ear stud worn by her. MO3(a) and MO3(b), ear stud and sankiri, were recovered from the tank from where the body was recovered. But, a piece of gold chain owned by her, identified as MO6, was found lying near to the tank. There may be a possibility of breaking the chain or unscrewing the ear stud during the time of removal of the body from the tank to the courtyard and hence no much reliance can be placed on Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 33 the recovery of these articles from the tank as well as from the courtyard and it will not improve the prosecution case.
26. As discussed in earlier paragraphs, the following incriminating circumstances were brought out by the prosecution:
(i). The death of the victim is not a suicidal death or accidental death by drowning.
(ii). The medical evidence adduced rules out possibility of suicidal death or accidental death.
(iii). The medical evidence supports the prosecution case of homicidal death.
(iv). The width, length and depth of the tank and the water level available at the time of alleged incident rules out death by drowning either accidentally or by committing suicide, but supports only a homicidal death by drowning.
(v). Accused No.1 was found in the company of the deceased on the night of the ill fated day. The alleged incident had happened in and around 3.00 a.m. to 3.30 a.m. within the secrecy of their bedroom and the tank situated in the backyard of the house.
Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 34
(vi). Nobody else was there in the bedroom except their daughter aged 1 = years old.
(vii). No proper explanation was forwarded by accused No.1 as to what happened to his wife within the secrecy of their bedroom or in the backside courtyard of their house.
(viii). The explanation forwarded by accused No.1 with respect to the alleged missing of his wife during the night time is a total falsehood.
(ix). Accused No.1 remained in the bedroom and did not accompany the deceased when she had gone out of the house for urination.
(x). He had not made any enquiry about what happened to his wife, but remained in the bedroom in spite of the fact that she had not returned to the room even after a long time.
(xi). He did not conduct any search in the near vicinity -
backside of the courtyard or toilet which is few meters away from the said house.
(xii) There is a conscious attempt on the part of the appellant to bring all the inmates in the house, to his room, under the guise of urination of his daughter, for which he called the name of his wife aloud, so as to attract and wake up Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 35 all the inmates in the house, though the toilet is situated very close to the house and that there were tube lights and lights provided both in backside of the house and the toilet.
(xiii). When they woke up and approached accused No.1, he did not mention the absence of his wife to them, but assigned a reason for calling his wife aloud stating that his child urinated over the bed.
(xiv). Accused No.1 pretended himself as innocent in the matter of disappearance of his wife and remained in the veranda of the said house carrying his daughter so as to appear that he did not know anything about the disappearance of his wife.
(xv). He did not make any request for conducting a search of his wife to the inmates of the house, but simply told them that she had gone out of the house for urination and not returned yet. On the other hand, when the inmates approached him he had simply informed them that his daughter pissed over the bed.
(xvi). He did not join with other inmates in the house to have a search of his missing wife, the victim herein, but remained in the veranda attached to the kitchen, simply Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 36 watching the search for his wife conducted by the other inmates.
(xvii). He did not make any anguish or shared any apprehension with the inmates in the house regarding the disappearance of his wife, but simply stated that she had gone out of the house for urination and that in spite of lapse of time she had not returned.
(xviii). He did not join with PW2 who tried hard to remove the dead body from the tank to the courtyard and on one or two occasions PW2 slipped over the steps provided to the tank. It is PW6 who helped PW2 to bring the body out of the tank to the courtyard. In all these times, accused No.1 remained as a silent spectator.
(xix). It is after that he came back to the veranda of the kitchen of their house and fell unconscious on the floor as a part of gimmick to appear that he is innocent.
(xx). There is no reason for involvement of any intruder or stranger as the toilet is situated very near to the said house and it is quite easy to hear any sound, screaming or crying, if any, from said place to the bedroom.
Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 37
(xxi). The accused did not have any case that he was under deep sleep when his wife gone out of the house for urination. On the other hand, she gone out of the house after informing him that she wants to urinate.
(xxii).There is no sign of any scuffle or attack either in the backside of the courtyard or in the toilet or nearby place including the tank wherein the dead body was lying except the recovery of some material objects.
(xxiii). There is no outward injuries on the body of deceased which also rules out the interference of an intruder or stranger in the incident.
(xxiv). Prosecution established the motive behind the crime and the strained relationship in between accused No.1 and the deceased.
(xxv). On an earlier occasion accused No.1 tried to strangulate the deceased by using a piece of cloth of window curtain and he had withdrawn from that attempt when the victim woke up due to pressure applied on her neck.
27. Circumstance Nos.1 to 4 enumerated above would show that the death of the victim is a homicidal death. Circumstance Nos.5 to 9 are relevant under Section 106 of the Crl. Appeal No.154 of 2012 38 Evidence Act pointing towards the guilt of accused No.1. Circumstance Nos. 10 to 25 are relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act and pointing towards the guilt of accused No.1, fills up all the chain of circumstances leading to the guilt of accused and no other hypothesis other than pointing towards the guilt of the accused No.1 is possible. All the circumstances are consistent with the guilt of accused No.1 alone. Hence, there is no reason for any interference with the finding of guilt of accused No.1 for the offence punishable under Section 302 of IPC and conviction thereunder.
The sentence awarded is the lesser punishment and deserves no interference by this court. The appeal lacks any merits, deserves only dismissal and we do so.
A.M.SHAFFIQUE (JUDGE) P. SOMARAJAN (JUDGE) DMR/-