Prosecution Failed To Dislodge His Version That It Was Natural Death Due To Illness: SC Acquits Man In Wife’s Murder Case After He Spent 10 Years In Jail
The appellant-accused filed the appeal before the Apex Court challenging his conviction for the murder of his first wife by strangulation.
The Supreme Court acquitted a man in his wife’s murder case observing that the prosecution failed to produce any evidence to dislodge his claim that it was a natural death due to illness.
The appellant accused was convicted by the lower courts for the murder of his first wife by strangulation. Therefore, the appeal was filed before the Apex Court.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Ahsanuddin Amanullah asserted, “In view of the totality of the facts and circumstances of this case, we are of the opinion that the prosecution has completely failed to produce evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence.”
AOR T. Mahipal represented the Appellant while DAG Bhakti Pasrija represented the Respondent.
Factual Background
The appellant was living in the village Madh, Amritsar by constructing a jhuggi in an open space, where he was working as a labourer. He used to live with his deceased wife, his second wife and his two sons born from the first wedlock. They were living together as such for over 10-12 years. The incident dates back to the year 2014 when the brother of the deceased lodged a Zero FIR stating that his sister was murdered by her husband in connivance with his second wife.
The husband of the deceased i.e., the appellant, brought the dead body from his village in a truck. In the FIR, he also stated that his sister Rajo residing in the neighbouring jhuggi of the appellant, herself saw the appellant murdering the deceased by strangulating her with a rope.
Reasoning
The Bench took note of the fact that the entire case of the prosecution was based on circumstantial evidence. Though the sister of the deceased (PW-2) is said to be an eyewitness, she had not seen the commission of the crime. She was simply a resident of the neighbouring jhuggi and as such, may have had the first-hand information. “A pursual of the Zero FIR reveals that it is a computerized FIR and is not in the handwriting of the aforesaid witness. It only bears his signatures at the relevant place on both the pages of the Zero FIR”, it added.
Though the other three witnesses turned hostile, one of the witnesses i.e. the Doctor who conducted the postmortem report, in his testimony, stated that he had conducted the post-mortem. The doctor opined the cause of death to be asphyxia due to hanging with ligature marks on the neck but in the cross-examination admitted that the ligature marks could be on account of the long journey of the dead body and that the cause of death of the deceased could also be due to chronic tuberculosis. Therefore, his evidence didnot conclusively establish the cause of the death.
Even the evidence of the Inspector (PW-7) did not establish beyond a shadow of a doubt that the rope which he recovered was the same rope with which the crime may have been committed as similar ropes were easily available in the market.
On the law relating to circumstantial evidence, the Bench referred to the judgment in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) where the golden rules of circumstantial evidence have been drawn out. The Bench was of the view that the circumstances of this case, in no way, conclusively established the guilt of the appellant rather it gave sufficient room to form a different opinion. On the basis of the above circumstantial evidence, the innocence of the appellant couldn’t be completely ruled out.
The Bench further noticed that the appellant in his statement under Section 313 CrPC, on being asked if he had anything further to say, categorically stated that the deceased had died a natural death as she was suffering from chronic tuberculosis for which she was under treatment at Beas hospital. As per the Bench, once the appellant had disclosed the aforesaid illness of the deceased and her treatment in a particular hospital, it was for the prosecution to have sought a re-examination of the doctor conducting the post-mortem to ascertain whether the deceased was suffering from chronic tuberculosis, though he may have opined that the death may be due to asphyxia caused due to tuberculosis. The prosecution failed to do so or to produce any other independent evidence in this regard to dislodge the version of the appellant.
The Bench noted that the prosecution completely failed to produce evidence to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond the shadow of doubt on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. “Rather the evidence on record gives ample leverage for two conflicting opinions, and in such circumstances, the benefit of doubt has to be given in favour of the appellant”, the Bench said while allowing the appeal. Considering the fact that the appellant had been in jail for over 10 years, the Bench directed his release.
Cause Title: Ravi v. The State of Punjab (Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 170)
Appearance:
Appellant: AOR T. Mahipal
Respondent: D.A.G. Bhakti Pasrija, AOR Karan Sharma, AOR
