DINESH BORTHAKUR versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2008] 4 S.C.R. 881 · Decided: 13-03-2008 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: S.B. SINHA · Disposal: Case Allowed

Judgment (excerpt)

---/ 
r \ 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 881 
DINESH BORTHAKUR 
v. 
STATE OF ASSAM 
(Criminal Appeal No.687 of 2007) 
MARCH 13, 2008 
(S.B. SINHA AND DALVEER BHANDARI, JJ.) 
Penal Code, 1860; Section 302: 
A 
B 
Murder - Accused-husband convicted for committing 
murder of his wife and adppted daughter on the basis of C 
circumstantial evidence - Sentenced to undergo rigorous 
imprisonment for life - Affirmed by High Court - Correctness 
of - Held: Incorrect - A finding of guilt cannot be based on a 
presumption - No motive for committing the crime was 
identified - No finding has been recorded by the Courts below D 
as to the presence of accused at the place of occurrence - No 
material produced by prosecution to show that any resistance 
offered by the deceased when accused allegedly committed 
the crime - Medical report does not conclusively show that 
deceased suffered homicidal death - Deposition of witnesses E 
including star witness reveals that there was no unusual 
conduct noticed on the part of accused - Merely because 
accused did not cry/weep on seeing the dead body of his wife 
and daughter, cannot be made the basis for holding him liable 
for committing the crime - No incriminating evidence linking 
F 
accused in administration of poison to deceased has been 
brought on record - Thus, circumstantial evidence leading to 
guilt of accused for committing the murder of his wife and 
daughter not established by prosecution - Hence, judgment 
of conviction and sentence against accused cannot be G 
sustained and set aside - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction 
based upon. 
Delay in lodging of FIR by husband - Adverse inference 
- Held: Accused asked someone to inform police about the 
M1 
H 
-
882 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2008] 4 S.C.R. 
A incident and when he did n.ot inform, then only the accused 
~·
did so - Under the circumstances, no presumption of adverse 
inference could be raised against the accused. 
On the fateful· day, accused-husband, after returning 
B 
from Office knocked the door of his house, when no 
response received, he called his immediate neighbour, 
PW-1, for help. He went inside the premises from backside 
and found both his wife and daughter lying dead on 
different beds. PW-1 also found dead bodies of both, wife 
-.{ -
and daughter of the accused, lying on beds. He then went 
c to the Police Station and lodged an FIR. During 
investigation, a sniffer dog was brought into service by 
the Police. It allegedly went close to the accused husband. 
Police, after examining various witnesses, submitted 
charge-sheet against the accused for committing the 
D murders of his wife and daughter. Trial Court found him 
guilty for committing the offence of murder of his wife and 
daughter; convicted him u/s. 302 IPC and sentenced him 
to undergo rigorous imprisonment for life. Appeal filed 
thereagainst was dismissed by the High Court. Hence the 
E present appeal. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1 The Trial Judge failed to analyse the 
evidence of the prosecution witnesses in a proper and 
F effective manner. Although opining that the accused had 
no motive to kill his wife and the adopted daughter, the 
'.,£ 
effect thereof was not considered keeping in view the fact 
that the prosecution rested its case only on circumstantial 
evidence. The Trial Judge, although took notice of the 
G statements of PW13, a resident living about a furlong from 
the house of the accused, that the spectacles of the 
appellants were found lying on a book of the deceased 
daughter of the appellant, drew no inference therefrom. 
)..__ 
He also did not make any attempt to determine the 
H 
relevance of the said evidence. This Court does not find 
-· 
DINESH BORTHAKUR v. STATE OF ASSAM 
883 
the said evidence having any relevance to the prosecution A 
case. (Para - 29) [893-8, C, D] 
1.2 The Trial judge accepted that there was no 
evidence brought on record to show that the accused was 
_seen at the place of the occurrence of crime during the 8 
period between 11.30 A.M. in the morning hours and at 
about 4.00/5.00 P.M. in the afternoon, so as to enable him 
to infer that the accused could forcibly administer poison 
to the deceased or strangulate them or to do the both so 
as to cause their deaths. He further recorded that PW6 
admitted in his evidence that the nail scrapping taken from C 
the two deceased did not correspond to the skin 
scrapping taken from the body of the accused. Thus, there 
was no evidence of any mark of s

Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.