JOSE @ PAPPACHAN versus THE SUB-LNSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY & ANOTHER

Citation: [2016] 8 S.C.R. 115 · Decided: 03-10-2016 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 2 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2016] 8 S.C.R. 115 
JOSE @ PAPPACHAN 
v. 
THE SUB-lNSPECTOR OF POLICE, KOYILANDY & 
ANOTHER 
(Criminal Appeal No. 919 of2013) 
OCTOBER 03, 2016 
[PINAKI CHANDRA GHOSE AND AMITAVA ROY, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860: s.302 - Death of appellant's wife by 
hanging - Prosecution case that appellant alo11g with his brother 
murdered his wife - Conviction of appellant only u/s.302 - Acquilla/ 
of appellant and brother-accused u/s.498-A -
Conviction 
challenged by appella11t - Held: The evidence of witnesses when 
considered in conjunction with the testimony of the doctor did not 
link the appellant directly or indirectly with the actual act leading 
to the unnatural death of the deceased - The circumstantial evidence 
adduced by the prosecution fell short of the require111e11t i11 law to 
return a .finding of guilt against the appellant ll'ithout any element 
of doubt whatsoever - The fact that both the accused persons were 
exonerated of the charge of cruelty u/s. 498A and that the co-
accused, who allegedly had assisted the appellant in the 
perpetration of the crime had been fully acquitted by the courts 
below of all the charges also weakens the prosecution case - The 
facts and circumstances admit of a reasonable doubt in favour of 
appellant - Benefit of doubt grarited to him. 
Criminal jurisprudence: Suspicion of commission of crime -
Held: Suspicion however grave cannot take the place of proof -
Prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford 
to lodge its case in the realm of "may be true" but has to essentially 
elevate it to the grade of "must be true". 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1. Admittedly there is no eye-witness to the incident. 
The testimony of PWs 1, 6 and 7 would evince that when the 
persons sent by the appellant had reached the house of the 
appellant to fetch the medical records of his brother, they found 
the door open and when the deceased did not respond to their 
115 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
116 
A 
B 
c 
D 
E 
F 
G 
H 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2016] 8 S.C.R. 
call, they entered through the door and found her in a hanging 
posture with movements, whereupon they raised alarm for which 
the appellant and others rushed to the place and the body of the 
deceased was brought down by cutting the saree. Though the 
conduct and the movements of the appellant prior thereto had 
been somewhat unusual and disoriented, the same per se does 
not irrefutably establish his culpability. The medical evidence also 
does not decisively establish the case to be of homicidal hanging. 
The unchallenged expositions of the doctor performing the post-
mortem examination highlighting the absence of the characteristic 
attributes attendant on death due to homicidal hanging following 
strangulation further reinforce the possibility of suicide. The 
absence of definite medical opinion about the homicidal death of 
the deceased is a serious set back to the prosecution. [Paras 45, 
47 and 48] [132-G; 133-E-G] 
2. The evidence of the witnesses when considered in 
conjunction with the testimony of the doctor does not link the 
appellant directly or indirectly with the actual act leading to the 
unnatural death of the deceased. In absence of any persuasive 
evidence to hold that at the relevant time the appellant was 
present in the house, it would also be impermissible to cast any 
burden on him as contemplated under Section 106 of the Evidence 
Act. The consistent testimony of the appellant and his son to the 
effect that after alighting from the bus on their return from Pota, 
the deceased was made to accompany DWl back home while the 
appellant did go in search of labourers for works in his compound 
on the next day and that thereafter till the time DWl had departed 
for his ancestral house, the appellant did not return home, 
consolidates the defence plea of innocence of the appellant. This 
version of the appellant and his son is in accord with the statement 
made by the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C. as well. The 
reasoning of the courts below to dismiss the testimony of DWl 
as untrustworthy on the ground that he feigned ignorance about 
the lady with whom his father allegedly had extra marital affairs 
and towards the appellant and thus insensitive to the death of his 
mother cannot be accepted. This witness at the time of
1his 
deposition was a major with the required maturity in the life's 
perspectives, and expectedly would not have lied for the appellant, 
JOSE @ PAPPACHAN v. THE SUB-INSPE

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