Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court dismissed the criminal appeal filed by the accused challenging his conviction under Sections 302 and 309 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court upheld the trial court’s judgment sentencing him to life imprisonment for murdering his wife with a hammer and two months’ imprisonment for attempting suicide by slitting his own throat with a marble cutter. The Court ruled that the prosecution had successfully established a complete chain of circumstances, and the failure of the accused to provide a plausible explanation for the wife’s death inside the house was a strong incriminating circumstance against him.
Facts
The deceased was married to the accused in 2004 and they had three children. The marriage, however, was strained as the accused constantly suspected his wife’s chastity and often assaulted her.
On the night of the incident (04/05 October 2017), the accused returned home after work. The couple argued after the wife told him she would have to leave early for work at Hedgewar Hospital. Later that night, their daughter Netal telephoned her grandmother, informing her that her father had struck her mother with a hammer and attempted to kill himself with a marble cutter.
The mother rushed to the spot and found her daughter and son-in-law lying injured. Both were taken to Ghati Hospital, where the wife was declared dead due to severe head injury. Police registered FIR under Sections 302 and 309 IPC, seized bloodstained hammer, marble cutter, and clothes, and filed a charge-sheet.
The trial court convicted the accused, leading to the present appeal.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved beyond reasonable doubt that the accused murdered his wife.
- Whether conviction based on circumstantial evidence was justified when the sole eyewitness (daughter) turned hostile.
- Whether Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act could be applied to hold the accused responsible for the death inside his own house.
- Whether the conviction under Section 309 IPC for attempted suicide was sustainable.
Petitioner’s (Accused’s) Arguments
The accused denied all allegations and claimed false implication. His counsel argued that the only eyewitness, the daughter, had turned hostile and retracted her earlier statement under Section 164 CrPC. Since her testimony could not be relied upon, the prosecution had no direct evidence.
He further argued that the hammer allegedly used in the assault was never shown to the medical officer who conducted the postmortem. The doctor did not state that the injuries were “sufficient in the ordinary course of nature to cause death.”
It was also argued that the injury on the accused’s throat was not conclusively self-inflicted. The prosecution suppressed medical evidence of his treatment. The defence suggested that either the wife injured herself or that an outsider could have entered the house.
The defence stressed that under Section 106 Evidence Act, the burden never shifted to the accused because the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances. Several contradictions in witness testimonies were highlighted, and acquittal was sought.
Respondent’s (Prosecution’s) Arguments
The State supported the trial court’s conviction, submitting that the chain of circumstances was fully established. The accused and deceased were alone in the house along with children, and the wife died due to fatal head injuries caused by a blunt object. The hammer and marble cutter seized from the house bore bloodstains matching the deceased’s blood group.
The accused’s attempt to slit his own throat after the killing itself was evidence of guilt. No signs of theft or third-party intervention were found in the house.
The prosecution argued that even if the eyewitness turned hostile, other evidence including medical, forensic, and circumstantial evidence was sufficient to sustain conviction. Applying Section 106 Evidence Act, the accused’s failure to explain how his wife suffered fatal head injuries inside their own home was an additional link against him.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated that when cases rest on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a chain of circumstances so complete that it excludes every hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. It relied on the five golden principles laid down in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984).
The Court noted that though the daughter turned hostile, her Section 164 statement could only be used for corroboration or contradiction and was not the sole basis of conviction. The other evidence, including medical testimony and seizure of weapons, established the case.
Section 106 Evidence Act was discussed. The Court held that since the death occurred inside the matrimonial home and only the accused and deceased were present, it was for the accused to explain the circumstances. His explanations were found to be false and improbable, thereby strengthening the prosecution’s case.
Precedent Analysis
The Court considered multiple judgments cited by both sides:
- Shankarlal Gyarasilal Dixit v. State of Maharashtra (1981) – Held that circumstantial evidence must exclude every other hypothesis.
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) – Laid down the five golden principles governing circumstantial evidence.
- Shambhu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) – Clarified the limited scope of Section 106 Evidence Act.
- Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar (2021) – Failure to explain facts within exclusive knowledge can strengthen prosecution’s case.
- Murlidhar v. State of Rajasthan (2005) – Burden of proof lies on prosecution, Section 106 only supplements it.
- Balvir Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2024) – Failure to give acceptable explanation about death in custody of accused is an incriminating circumstance.
The Court harmonised these precedents, concluding that the prosecution had discharged its burden and the accused’s silence or false defence added strength to the case.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court held that the prosecution proved the following incriminating circumstances:
- The deceased died an unnatural death due to head injury caused by a blunt object.
- Bloodstained hammer and marble cutter were recovered from the scene.
- The accused was present in the house when the incident occurred.
- The accused had a motive – constant suspicion about his wife’s character and frequent quarrels.
- The accused attempted suicide immediately after the incident.
- No evidence of theft or third-party intervention was found.
- The accused failed to provide a plausible explanation under Section 106 Evidence Act.
Together, these circumstances formed a complete chain pointing only to the guilt of the accused.
Conclusion
The High Court upheld the conviction of the accused under Sections 302 and 309 IPC. It affirmed the sentence of life imprisonment for murder and two months’ rigorous imprisonment for attempting suicide. The Court dismissed the appeal, holding:
“The failure of the accused to give a plausible explanation about the fatal head injury to his wife itself forms an additional link in the chain of circumstances.”
Implications
This judgment reaffirms the evidentiary value of circumstantial evidence in cases where eyewitnesses turn hostile. It clarifies that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act cannot shift the initial burden from prosecution but can operate once incriminating circumstances are established.
The case also underlines that false or improbable defences by the accused can strengthen the prosecution’s case. It highlights judicial sensitivity towards domestic violence-related killings, where suspicion and harassment often culminate in tragic homicides.
FAQs
1. Can a conviction be sustained if the sole eyewitness turns hostile?
Yes. If circumstantial evidence forms a complete chain and is corroborated by medical and forensic proof, a conviction can be sustained even when eyewitnesses turn hostile.
2. What is the role of Section 106 Evidence Act in such cases?
Section 106 applies when facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused. If the death occurs inside the matrimonial home and the accused gives no plausible explanation, it is an additional link against him.
3. Why was the accused also convicted under Section 309 IPC?
The accused attempted suicide by slitting his throat with a marble cutter after killing his wife. The medical evidence supported this, leading to conviction under Section 309 IPC.