MULAKH RAJ ETC. versus SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS

Citation: [1992] 2 S.C.R. 484 · Decided: 10-04-1992 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: KULDIP SINGH · Disposal: Case Partly allowed

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

Judgment (excerpt)

A· 
MULAKH RAJ ETC. 
v. 
SATISH KUMAR AND OTHERS 
APRIL 10, 1992 
B 
[KULDIP SINGH AND K. RAMASWAMY, JJ.) 
Criminal Law : 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sections 302 and 201-Death of wife-Stran-
--
c gulation and de.ttruction of dead body by burning to destroy evidence-Ses-
-"""\ 
sions Court convicting husband on the basis of post-mortem report and 
medical and other circumstantial evidence-Acquittal by High Court-
-~ 
Whether justified-Symptoms on dead body showing death due to pressure 
on neck-Medical evidence revealing ante-mortem strangulation and 95% 
D 
post-mortem bum injuries-Doctor's evidence clear, cogent, tTUthfu~ reliable 
and conclusively establishing. deatlt due to asphysxia, and consistent with 
medical jurisprudence-Circumstantial evidence connecting husband-accused 
with the crime-Hence death homicide and not suicide-High Court not 
justified in reversing Sessions Court's conviction of husband-Accused. 
E 
Criminal Trial 
Murder of wife-Motive-Proof-Absence of-Whether material when 
facts are clea,.....Whether breaks the link in the chain of circumstances con-
necting husband accused with the crime. 
-
F 
Murder of wife and destTUction of evidence-Suspicion that someone 
amongst parents and brother of husband-accused might have facilitated · 
accused to screen evidence-Whether a substitute for proof-Acquittal of these 
-~ 
accused-Whether proper. 
j 
G 
Medical JurispTUdence : 
Ante-mortem and post-mortem bum injuries-Distinction between. 
The first respondent, his brother and parents were charged under 
-~-
Section 302 read with section 34 and section 201 l.P.C. for the murder of 
H first respondent's wife and screening of evidence. 
484 
MULAKH RAJ v. SATISH KUMAR 
485 
~ 
After seventeen months of marriage of the deceased with the first A 
respondent, PW. 15, deceased's brother received a telegram that his sister 
had died. Immediately, the same night at 9.00 P.M., he came to the first 
respondent's place and found that his sister was dead. He alleged that the 
first respondent had made extra judicial confession that the deceased was 
~ 
strangulated for not getting the dowry of their demand, and that she was 
burnt to destroy the evidence and sought pardon of him. He sent for his B 
people. A compromise was mooted to which he was not agreeable. A 
complaint was lodged with the police the next day. PW.1, the doctor, held 
,..____ 
the autopsy and found that the death was due to asphyxia • 
,.__ 
. 
The prosecution adduced evidence of PWs. 9 and 15 for the motive c 
of demarid for more dowry, extra judicial confession of first respondent , 
~-
said to have been made to PW.15 that the deceased was strangulated, for 
not getting dowry of their demand and burnt to destroy evidence, and 
recoveries etc. 
PW.1, the Doctor, who conducted post-mortem in his evidence stated D 
that the deceased died due to asphyxia, as a result of strangulation, which 
was ante-mortem and sufficient to cuase death in the ordinary course of 
nature, and that burn injuries were 95 per cent, on the entire body except 
on the feet, and these were post-mortem. 
->-
The Sessions Judge disbelieved the extra judicial confession spoken E 
to by PW.15 and others, but accepted the evidence of PW.I and other 
circumstantial evidence and found that the first respondent had strangu-
-
lated the deceased and burnt the body to destroy the evidence, and con-
victed him under Sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. However, the Sessions Judge 
acquitted the other respondents giving them benefit of doubt. On appeal, F 
the High Court acquitted the first respondent and confirmed the acquittal 
\ 
of the other respondents. 
Aggrieved, the brother of the deceased, the complainant, and the 
State filed appeals by special leave, before this Court. 
G 
It was contended on behalf of the respondents that since palms were 
not clenched and the eyes did not protrude but were half closed, the mouth 
..., 
was closed and tongue was not protruding and the duration of death was 
of 5 to 10 minutes, as opined by the doctor, it was not a case of strangula-
•. 
tion, but suicide, that the respondents had no motive, and in fact, the High H 
486 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[1992] 2 S.C.R. 
A 
Court bad found that the evidence was not sufficient to establish motive, 
and tbe case was based on circumstantinl elidence and, therefore, motive 
being absent, the prosecution had failed to estabiish this impor.a,il link 
in the cnain of circumstances to connect the accused, and that the

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