MD. ANOWAR HUSSAIN versus STATE OF ASSAM

Citation: [2022] 18 S.C.R. 721 · Decided: 13-10-2022 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed
cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this case
Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
721
MD. ANOWAR HUSSAIN
v.
STATE OF ASSAM
(Criminal Appeal No. 414 of 2019)
OCTOBER 13, 2022
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND ANIRUDDHA BOSE, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Circumstantial Evidence –
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106 – Appellant was held guilty of the offence
u/s.302 for murder of his wife and was awarded the punishment of
imprisonment for life – On appeal, held: Victim was none other
than the wife of the appellant and was living with him – Thus, the
basic fact as to when did he part with the company of his wife was
within the knowledge of the appellant alone however, he explained
nothing in that regard – When the appellant’s wife was found killed
with the dead body carrying several injuries and the cause of death
having been asphyxia due to throttling, the appellant was required
to explain such injuries, which the deceased sustained while living
with him in the same dwelling house – Again, there was no
explanation from him – If his wife, who was residing with him, had
been so ill as to be taken to hospital, the facts in that regard were
also especially within the knowledge of the appellant and he was
required to explain the nature of ailment as also the mode and manner
by which she was admitted to the hospital – But, there was no
explanation on these aspects from the appellant – Further, if his
wife had died and still he had gone to some other place, the reason
for doing so was also especially within the knowledge of the
appellant alone – The reason as assigned by him (about his own
illness) is found to be far away from truth – Prosecution has
discharged its primary burden of bringing home cogent
circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the appellant – All the
facts and factors, which ought to be in the knowledge of the
appellant, are either not clarified or the explanation given by the
appellant turns out to be false – Hence, such omission coupled with
falsehood indeed provide additional links in the chain of
circumstances – The falsehood cooked up by the witnesses
(regarding illness and hospitalisation of the victim) and readily
[2022] 18 S.C.R. 721
721
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
722
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2022] 18 S.C.R.
accepted by the appellant coupled with the undischarged burden
of s.106 of the Evidence Act provide such strong links in this matter
that the chain of circumstances is complete, leading to the conclusion
on the guilt of the appellant beyond any doubt – Concurrent findings
do not call for interference in this case – Constitution of India –
Article 136.
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006)
10 SCC 681 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156; Sharad
Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4
SCC 116 : [1985] 1 SCR 88; Balaji Gunthu Dhule v.
State of Maharashtra (2012) 11 SCC 685 : [2012]
7 SCR 577; Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar (2021) 10
SCC 725; Gargi v. State of Haryana (2019) 9 SCC 738
: [2019] 13 SCR 1; Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of
Maharashtra
(2021) 3 SCALE 384 : (2021)
5 SCC 626; Satye Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
(2022) 3 SCALE 534 : (2022) 5 SCC 438; Anwar Ali
and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2020) 10 SCC
166 : [2020] 9 SCR 878; Jose Alias Pappachan v. Sub-
Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Anr. (2016) 10 SCC
519 : [2016] 8 SCR 115; Sarwan Singh v. State of
Punjab AIR 1957 SC 637 : [1957] SCR 953; Trimuk
Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC
681 : [2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156; Alber Oraon v. State
of Jharkhand (2014) 12 SCC 306 : [2014] 9 SCR 330;
Sudru v. State of Chhattisgarh (2019) 8 SCC 333;
Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab (2007) 13 SCC 90 :
[2007] 13 SCR 653; Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan
(2014) 12 SCC 439 : [2013] 1 SCR 1070; Pappu v.
The State of Uttar Pradesh (2022) SCC OnLine SC
176; Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952
SC 343 : [1952] SCR 1091; Sabitri Samantaray v. State
of Odisha (2022) SCC OnLine SC 673 - referred to.
Case Law Reference
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156
referred to
Para 8.2
[1985] 1 SCR 88
referred to
Para 9.5
[2012] 7 SCR 577
referred to
Para 9.5
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
723
[2019] 13 SCR 1
referred to
Para 9.6
(2021) 5 SCC 626
referred to
Para 9.6
[2020] 9 SCR 878
referred to
Para 9.7
[2016] 8 SCR 115
referred to
Para 9.8
[1957] SCR 953
referred to
Para 9.8
[2006] 7 Suppl. SCR 156
referred to
Para 10.2
[2014] 9 SCR 330
referred to
Para 10.4
[2007] 13 SCR 653
referred to
Para 10.5
[2013] 1 SCR 1070
referred to
Para 10.5
[1952] SCR 1091
referred to
Para 12.1
(2021) 10 SCC 725
referred to
Para 9.5
(2019) 8 SCC 333
referre
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.