LexBIRENDER PODDAR versus STATE OF BIHAR
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2011] 6 S.C.R. 873 BIRENDER PODDAR v. STATE OF BIHAR (Criminal Appeal No. 373 of 2006) A MAY 16, 2011 B [ASOK KUMAR GANGULY AND DEEPAK VERMA, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: ss. 302134 and 498-A - Murder - Circumstantial C evidence - Death of a married woman in her matrimonial home - Evidence of beating and torture of deceased by her husband and his relatives - Medical evidence indicating injuries on dead body which were sufficient to cause the death - HELD: It was a case of homicidal death -There was nothing D on record to establish the defence case that deceased was suffering from jaundice and she died a natural death - There is no reason to interfere with the concurrent finding of guilt recorded by two courts below - Conviction of husband upheld - Circumstantial evidence. E Evidence: Related witnesses - Testimony of - HELD: Just because evidence is given by interested persons, that is no ground for discarding the same - In the instant case, the evidence of the F relatives of the deceased is quite cogent and it clearly established the prosecution case - Penal Code, 1860 - ss. 302134 and 498-A. . The appellant along with three others was convicted G and sentenced to imprisonment for life u/s 302/34 IPC for causing the death of appellant's wife. The appellant was also convicted u/s 498-A IPC. The High Court affirmed the conviction and the sentence. The SLP as regards the 873 H 874 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 6 S.C.R. A three others stood dismissed, as they did not surrender, and leave was granted only to the appellant. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD: 1.1. The instant case rests solely on B circumstantial evidence. It is true that in cases where death takes place within the matrimonial home, it is very difficult to find direct evidence. But, for appreciating circumstantial evidences, the court has to be cautious and find out whether the chain of circumstances led by c the prosecution is complete and the chain must be so complete and conclusive as to unmistakably point to the guilt of the accused. [para 8] [878-D-E] Hanumant Govind Nargundkar and another v. State of Madhya Pradesh 1952 SCR 1091 = AIR 1952 SC343; D Bhagat Ram v. State of Punjab AIR 1954 SC 621 and Eradu and others v. State of Hyderabad AIR 1956 SC 316 - relied on 1.2. The evidence of PWs 5, 6, 7 and 8 on which the E prosecution relied, shows that there is consistent evidence of ill-treatment of the deceased. The appellant had an illicit relation with his brother's wife and as the deceased was complaining of such illicit relations, she was subjected to torture. Some letters were written by F the deceased to PW-8 complaining of such ill-treatment, one of which has been made an exhibit (Ext. 1). [para 9] [878-H; 879-A-B] 1.3. There is also evidence of beating and injury mark on the deceased. There is clear evidence of the doctor G (PW-9), who conducted the post-mortem, and the postmortem report (Ext.-4), indicating deep incised injuries on the neck and on the abdomen of the deceased, which were sufficient to cause the death. [para 9, 11 and 12] [879-A, G-H; 880-A-B] H BIRENDER PODDAR v. STATE OF BIHAR 875 1.4. The case of the defence that the deceased was A suffering from jaundice has not been proved at all. The only evidence that the deceased was suffering from jaundice and was given some treatment is the evidence of PW-12, who in his evidence, did not claim that he is a medical practitioner. He did not depose that the B deceased was suffering from jaundice. He merely stated that, for treatment, the deceased was referred to Patna on 02.09.1993. Thus, the High Court has rightly opined that the defence case is wholly inconsistent with the material on record and it is a case of homicidal death in the c matrimonial home. [para 13) [880-C] 1.5. As regards the identification of the dead body, the High Court concluded that there was positive evidence of identification, not only by the father of the deceased (PW-8) but also by her cousin and her own D brother, that is, PWs 5 and 7. The High Court has noted that it may be true that there was petrification in the dead body having regard to the time gap between the death and the postmortem, but there is nothing in the postmortem report to suggest that the body was beyond E identification. The High Court has noted that there is no such suggestion given to the doctor in his cross • examination on behalf of the appellant.
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.