Supreme Court - Daily Orders
Puliycheri Rafeek vs State Of Kerala on 26 February, 2014
L.
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1729 OF 2012
PULIYCHERI RAFEEK .....APPELLANT
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA ....RESPONDENT
O R D E R
The appellant, aggrieved by his conviction under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (for short the ’IPC’) and sentence of imprisonment for life, has preferred this appeal with the leave of the Court.
The appellant happens to be the husband of the deceased. According to the prosecution, they were living together in a house taken on rent. The relationship between them was strained and after strangulating the deceased, the appellant left the place of occurrence carrying their infant baby. Prosecution story further is that the appellant went to the police station and stated about the death of his wife.
The trial court and the High Court relying on the circumstantial evidence came to the conclusion that they pointed towards the guilt of the appellant and accordingly, convicted and sentenced the appellant as above.
Mr. Kaushal Yadav, learned counsel appearing for the appellant, draws our attention to the evidence of PW-7 and other defence witnesses and contends that the deceased was suffering from several ailments and she committed suicide by strangulation. In this connection, he has drawn our attention to the evidence of PW-17 Dr. S. Gopalkrishna Pillai who in his cross-examination has stated that there is remote possibility of self strangulation. Accordingly, Mr. Yadav submits that the appellant cannot be held guilty of murder of his wife.
Mr. M.T. George, learned counsel appearing for the respondent- State, however, submits that this aspect has been considered by the trial court and the High Court in detail and they have observed that in the facts of the present case, suicide by self strangulation is absolutely ruled out.
We have bestowed our consideration to the rival submissions and we do not find any substance in the submission of Mr. Yadav.
Committing suicide by self strangulation by the deceased herself is a remote possibility and for that the person committing suicide by strangulation has to take aid of a contrivance so as to ensure application of sufficient force until death. There is no material on record to suggest that the deceased has resorted to any such contrivance. We are of the opinion that the theory propounded by the appellant that the deceased strangulated herself to death is fanciful. We reject it accordingly.
Mr. Yadav then submits that in the case of circumstantial evidence, motive is an important factor and if the prosecution is not able to prove any motive, the accused deserves to be given the benefit of doubt. We do not find any substance in this submission also. Merely the fact that the appellant and the wife are going together to a Mosque for prayer itself shall not lead to the conclusion that they had cordial relation. The deceased herself has disclosed to the witnesses that her life is not peaceful.
We are of the opinion that the trial court on appraisal of the evidence rightly came to the conclusion that the circumstances proved point towards the guilt of the appellant. The High Court has on re- appraisal has affirmed that. We do not find any error in the same.
In the result, we find no merit in this appeal and it is dismissed accordingly.
.........................J [Chandramauli Kr. Prasad] ........................J [Pinaki Chandra Ghose] New Delhi;
February 26, 2014.
ITEM NO.107 COURT NO.9 SECTION IIB
S U P R E M E C O U R T O F I N D I A
RECORD OF PROCEEDINGS
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.1729 OF 2012
PULIYCHERI RAFEEK Appellant (s)
VERSUS
STATE OF KERALA Respondent(s)
(With appln(s) for bail,permission to file statement of witnesses and
exemption from filing O.T. and office report) Date: 26/02/2014 This Appeal was called on for hearing today.
CORAM :
HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE CHANDRAMAULI KR. PRASAD HON’BLE MR. JUSTICE PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE For Appellant(s) Mr. Kaushal Yadav, Adv.
Ms. Mamta Rani, Adv.
For Mrs. Geetha Kovilan,Adv.
For Respondent(s) Mr. M.T. George,Adv.
Ms. Kavitha K.T., Adv.
UPON hearing counsel the Court made the following O R D E R This appeal is dismissed in terms of the signed order.
| (Sanjay Kumar) Court Master| (Indu Satija) |
| |Assistant Registrar |
| | |
(Signed order is placed on the file)