JAYANTILAL VERMA versus STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)

Citation: [2020] 12 S.C.R. 411 · Decided: 19-11-2020 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: SANJAY KISHAN KAUL · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 5 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
411
JAYANTILAL VERMA
v.
STATE OF M.P. (NOW CHHATTISGARH)
(Criminal Appeal No. 590 of 2015)
NOVEMBER 19, 2020
[SANJAY KISHAN KAUL AND HRISHIKESH ROY, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860:
s. 302 – Death caused by strangulation – In matrimonial house
of the deceased – Chargesheet against the husband (appellant-
accused) and father-in-law and mother-in-law of the deceased –
Trial Court relying on evidence of PW-1 and medical evidence
convicted all the accused u/s. 302 – During appeal to High Court
prosecution against father-in-law of the deceased abated due to
his death – High Court acquitted the mother-in-law while convicting
the appellant-accused – Appeal to Supreme Court – Held: Evidence
of PW-1 was consistent and cogent – In view of the facts that family
members were present in the house, some time before the incident
and there was no possibility of outsider coming and strangulating
the deceased, it was for the accused to explain how the deceased
could have received the injuries – There was no explanation given
by the accused – Therefore there is no reason to interfere with the
impugned judgment – Conviction of appellant-accused upheld –
However, State is directed to consider the release of the accused on
completion of 14 years of actual sentence.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD : 1.1 It is no doubt true that a large number of
witnesses turned hostile and the Trial Court was also not happy
with the manner, the prosecution conducted this case.  But that
is not an unusual event in the long drawn out trials and in the
absence of any witness protection regime of substance, one has
to examine whatever is the evidence which is capable of being
considered, and then come to a finding whether it would suffice
to convict the accused. [Para 20][420-D-E]
   [2020] 12 S.C.R. 411
411
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
412
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2020] 12 S.C.R.
1.2 The rationale adopted for coming to the conclusion
behind the reason for the real brother of the deceased turning
hostile while step brother stood his ground is also obvious and
correctly appreciated, i.e., to preserve the close family ties which
continued to exist by marriage in the instant case, in view of the
siblings of the deceased and appellant herein being married. In
the Indian context, there exists a continued relationship between
two families wherein the daughter-in-law comes from another
house. [Para 21][420-E-G]
1.3 The case of the prosecution rests only on the testimony
of PW-1 and the medical evidence.  The statement of PW-1 was
consistent and cogent except to the extent that in the earlier
statement he had not mentioned the factum of the death being
attributed to snakebite. However, that itself would not nullify the
remaining part of his testimony.  In fact, the said witness did not
back out from the statement, but could not state the reason why
the police did not record it in the FIR though it was mentioned.
[Para 22][420-G-H; 421-A]
Yanob Sheikh Alias Gagu v. State of West Bengal (2013)
6 SCC 428 : [2012] 13  SCR 1150 ; Gulam Sarbar v.
State of Bihar (Now Jharkhand) (2014) 3 SCC 401 :
[2013] 12 SCR 1 – referred to.
1.4 The doctor opined the cause of death to be asphyxia
due to strangulation.  Thereafter, he has stated that nature may
be homicidal.  This was so stated because asphyxia being the
cause of death, the doctor himself could not have conclusively
said whether it was homicidal or suicidal. It was also voluntarily
opined, that there had to be a minimum of five minutes of forceful
pulling to cause the death. [Para 23][421-A-C]
1.5 The death was caused and the body was found in the
precincts of the house of the appellant, where there were only
family members staying.  The High Court also found that the
location of the house and the surrounding buildings was such
that there was no possibility of somebody from outside coming
and strangulating the deceased and that too without any
commotion being caused or any valuable/jewellery missing.  [Para
24][421-B-D]
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
413
1.6 In the present case, the Court is confronted with a
situation where the appellant, as a husband, is alleged to have
caused the death of his wife by strangulation. The fact that the
family members were in the home some time before the incident
is also quite obvious.  No explanation has been given as to how
the wife could have received the injuries. This is a strong
circumstance indicating that he is responsible for commission of
the crime. The appellant was under an obligation to give a 

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