NARENDRA SINGH AND ANR. versus STATE OF M.P.

Citation: [2004] 3 S.C.R. 1148 · Decided: 12-04-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: Y.K. SABHARWAL · Disposal: Appeal(s) allowed

Cited by 3 judgment(s) · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
NARENDRA SINGH AND ANR. 
v. 
··rt 
STATE OF M.P. 
APRIL 12, 2004 
B 
[Y.K. SABHARWAL AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
Penal Code, 1860; Ss. 201 and 302/Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973; 
Section 313: 
' 
c 
Husband allegedly harassed wife for demand of dowry-Committed her 
murder in collusion with his mother-Caused disappearance of evidence with 
the help of mother, father and sister-Trial Court acquitted all the accused-
High Court convicting husband and mother-On appeal, Held: Findings of 
the trial Court did not warrant interference by the High Court-High Court 
D erred in holding that because accused was husband of the deceased, he had 
a chance to throttle her without any resistance-On the one hand it held that 
accused-mother along with accused-son liable for committing murder of the 
deceased, on the other hand, mother was held guilty of the offence only under 
Section 201 1PC-Since entire case is based on circumstantial evidence, all 
E 
links in the chain of circumstances need to be proved-One of the vital links 
about escaping of accused after committing the crime has not been established-
Benefit of doubt thereof must go to the accused-appellant-Judgment of High 
Court set aside. 
,...
The allegation against accused-appellant No.I was that he was 
F 
harassing his wife for more and more dowry and when some of the 
demands could not be met, he had committed her murder by throttling 
and later in collusion with his mother-appellant No.2, father and sister 
caused disappearance of evidence by setting the body of the deceased on 
fire. FIR was lodged by the brother of the deceased. Police investigated 
the matter and charge-sheeted the accused. Trial Court acquitted all the 
G accused persons, holding that having committed the murder of his wife, 
it was impossible for the accused-husband to move out from the place of 
occurrence to escape by jumping from the window to the lane without 
being noticed; and that the post mortem report was not reliable because 
, 
of the cuttings and overwriting therein. On appeal preferred by the State, 
H 
1148 
~. 
, 
NARENDRA SINGH v. STATE OF M.P. 
1149 
High Court reversed the judgment of trial Court holding accused-husband A 
guilty under Section 302/34 and Section 201 IPC, and appellant No.2 guilty 
under Section 201 IPC and sentenced them accordingly. Hence, the 
present appeal. 
It was contended by the appellant that the post mortem report should 
not have been relied upon by the High Court since burns have been held B 
to be ante mortem in nature although cause of death was said to be due 
to asphyxia; that presence of accused-husband at the place of occurrence 
at the time of murder of the deceased-wife was not proved; that evidence 
of some of the witnesses should not have been relied upon by the High 
Court having regard to the improvement/omission/contradiction contained C 
therein; that since it would be impossible for any person to jump from 
the open space/window without being noticed and that too unhurt, the 
findings of High Court believing the same to be true is untenable; that 
the judgment of acquittal should not have been renewed by the High Court 
without any cogent and sufficient reasons thereof; and that since 
relationship between the accused-husband and deceased-wife was cordial, D 
the demand of a meagre sum of money not met out by the in-laws, could 
not be the motive behind the crime. 
Respondent-State submitted that having regard to the facts and 
circumstances of the case and nature of injury, commission of suicide by 
deceased- wife by setting herself on fire was unlikely; that commission of E 
the murder by intruder without being noticed was wholly improbable; that 
refusal by the brother of the deceased to pay the money as demanded by 
the accused established sufficient motive for the accused to commit murder 
of his wife; that since accused failed to prove the plea of alibi as to the 
proximity of time and the place of occurrence and time of murder? burden p 
of proof lies upon the accused and he has failed to discharge the burden. 
Allowing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: 1.1. High Court considered the escape of the accused-
husband but did not assign any reason as to how the same can be said to G 
have been established; such a case was not even made out by the 
prosecution. Investigation has not been carried out by the Police to show 
as to whether it was possible for a person to climb the wall before slipping 
out of one of the two places as mentione

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