LexROHTASH KUMAR versus STATE OF HARYANA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
A B [2013) 3 S.C.R. 884 ROHTASH KUMAR V. STATE OF HARYANA (Criminal Appeal No. 896 of 2011) MAY 29, 2013 [DR. B.S. CHAUHAN AND DIPAK MISRA, JJ.) Penal Code, 1860: c s.302 - Murder of wife by husband - Circumstantial evidence - Conviction and sentence of life imprisonment awarded by courts below - Upheld - Principles, including the last seen theory, to be applied while convicting the accused on the basis of circumstantial evidence and the issues 0 pertaining to number of witnesses to be examined, discrepancies in depositions, evidence of hostile witness, police official as a witness, motive and explanation of accused u/s 313 CrPC, discussed - Criminal law- Motive - Evidence - Circumstantial evidence - Last seen theory - Evidence of E hostile witness - Evidence of police witness - Discrepancies in depositions. The appellant was prosecuted for committing the murder of his wife. The prosecution case was that it was an inter-caste marriage, and not approved by family F members of the bride. The married life of the couple was not happy and they filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent. The first motion was complete and the second motion was fixed for 3.9.2004. On 2.9.2004, the appellant visited the girls hostel where his wife was residing and G met her. After an hour the appellant left alone. Later, the dead body of the wife was found in the hostel premises. Considering the circumstantial evidence, medical evidence and the recoveries made, the trial court convicted the appellant uls 302 IPC and sentenced him H 884 ROHTASH KUMAR v. STATE OF HARYANA 885 to life imprisonment. The High Court dismissed hh; A appeal. Dismissing the appeal; the Court HELD: B Circumstantial evidence: 1.1. The instant case is of circumstantial evidence, as there exists no eye-witness to the occurrence. This Court, in R. Shaji's case, enumerated principles to be c considered while convicting a person on the basis of the circumstantial evidence. In the instant case, in view of the evidence, the facts that emerge are: (i) The appellant and the deceased were classmates of different castes and had developed intimacy and got married; (ii) Their 0 marriage was not cordial and within a year they filed a petition for divorce by mutual consent. Just before the second motion, the appellant met the deceased, and - assured her that he would agree to the said divorce; (iii) This information was furnished by deceased to her mother (PW.3). PW.1, the father of the deceased, went to E meet her; (iv) PW.1, on reaching at the place of deceased, was informed that the appellant had come to meet the deceased and that she was lying dead in the garden. PW.8 also furnished him with all the requisite details, as regards the visit of the appellant. PW~1 then lodged an F FIR; (v) The Police recovered the dead body, as well as various material objects lying near it, including a rope; (vi) The post-mortem report suggests that the deceased had died of asphyxia caused as a result of smothering and throttling; (vii and ix) The appellant stayed at a Guest G House with a fictitious name and address, and the following day tried to commit suicide. He was chased by the Guest House staff, but he managed to run away. He left a diary, a wrist watch and a letter, and recovery thereof was proved; (viii) On 2.9.2004, the appellant had H 886 SUPREME COURT REPORTS (2013] 3 S.C.R. A made certain telephone calls from the mobile phone belonging to the deceased to the mother as well as to several other relatives of the deceased, informing them about her murder that had been committed by him, and further stated that he would commit suicide; (x) The B appellant remained absconding for several days, and on his arrest and disclosure statement, the mobile phone belonging to deceased was recovered from a shop; (xi) The call records clearly prove that the mobile phone belonging to deceased, was used even after her death c and that the same was in the possession of the appellant; (xii) During the investigation, the appellant refused to participate in the Test Identification Parade, as he could have been i~entified by Hostel staff as well as by the staff of the Guest House; (xiii) PW.2 though turned hostile, has 0 provided material information, and has also accepted his signatures on the recovery memo and his statements, as well as those of the other attendant; (xiv)The appellant gave a specimen of his
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.