LexKHIM SINGH versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2014] 8 S.C.R. 239 KHIM SINGH . v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND (Criminal Appeal No: 1986 of 2009) ·JULY 8, 2014 [SUDHANSU JYOTI MUKHOPADHAYA AND V. GOPALA GOWDA, JJ.] A B Penal Code, 1860 - s. 302 - Murder ofmarrifJcJ .. woman - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of - Conviction of C appellant-husband by Courts below - Sustainal1iUty - Held: Sustainable - Appellant was unhappy with his wu..· and this resulted in quarrels between them off and on ;. Qi.Jarrel took place even in the evening preceding the date of the death - On the fateful night, when deceased was killed by means of D a Kulhari, except the appellant, nobody was residing in the said house - Therefore, deceased could not be killed as a result of assault by anybody else other than the appellant - Conduct of the appellant in ,the next morning was unnatural - He failed to explain as to where he remained on the. fateful E night/- The Investigation Officer, (PW-6) clearly stated tha·t at the instance of appellant, Kulhari used in the crime was recovered - Medical Officei, PW-7, ·in his examination in chief • stated .that ante mortem injurif(JS on the person of the deceased could have been caused by heavy sharp-~dged F · weapon such as Kulhari - PW-4 stated that door of the house of appellant was not bolted from inside - This is one of the .. incriminating circumstances to conclude that appellant after committing the offence opened the door and went out - Statements of PW-1-mother of appellant, PW-4- Pradhan and PW-2- sister-in-law also suggest that appellant was last seen G with the deceased - All the circumstances taken together lead to only hypothesis of the· guilt of appellant - Chain of 239 H 240 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2014] 8 S.C.R. A circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution complete to hold appellant guilty u/s.302 !PC. · The appellant allegedly murdered his wife with an axe (kulhari). There was no eye-witness to the occurrence. B The prosecution case was based on circumstantial evidence. The appellant was convicted by the trial court under Section 302 IPC and sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life. The conviction and sentence was affirmed by the High Court. C In the instant appeal, the question which arose for consideration was whether the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution formed a series of events and whether the chain of circumstantial evidence was complete, which could be sufficient to show involvement D of the appellant in the commission of murder. Dismissing the appeal, the Court HELD:1. The prosecution in order to bring home the guilt of the appellant has relied upon the testimony of PW- E 1, PW-2, PW-4 and PW-5. In order to see whether frequent quarrels were there between the appellant and his wife, the statements of these witnesses are relevant. From the testimony of the witnesses, it can be concluded that the appellant was unhappy with his wife and this resulted in · F quarrels between them off and on. The quarrel took place even in the evening preceding the date of the death. In the night intervening 17th and 18th July, 1987 the deceased was killed by means of a Kulhari. Except the appellant, nobody was residing in the said house. G Therefore, the deceased could not be killed as a result of assault by anybody else other than the appellant. The conduct of the appellant in the morning of 18th July, 1987 was unnatural. He failed to explain as to where he remaineq on the fateful night. [Paras 13, 16, 17] [249-E-F; H 250-H; 251-A-C] KHIM SINGH v. STATE OF UTIRAKHAND 241 2. The prosecution successfully proved that there A was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife in the preceding evening. The conduct of the appellant was unnatural in not disclosing the place where he remained in the fateful night, making it clear that his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not believable. From the B testimony of the real mother of the appellant, PW-1 as well as PW-4, Pradhan of the village, it is fully established that the appellant was very much present in the house on the fateful night and there was a quarrel between the appellant and his wife. In the absence of any reason for c leaving his house, it can be held that the appellant remained in his house in that night. [Paras 18, 19) [251- H; 251-B-D] 3 .. PW-4 clearly stated that none of the residents of the village had any enmity with the deceased Devi. It is D evident from the record t
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.