LexSAHABUDDIN & ANR. versus STATE OF ASSAM
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
[2012] 13 S.C.R. 1067 SAHABUDDIN & ANR. v. STATE OF ASSAM (Criminal Appeal No. 629 of 2010) DECEMBER 13, 2012 [SWATANTER KUMAR AND GYAN SUDHA MISRA, JJ.] Penal Code, 1860 - s. ·302134 - Murder - Of a woman - By her husband and. his brother - Circumstantial evidence - A B . Deceased refusing to go to her matrimonial home before the C incident - Her death caused in the matrimonial house - Various injuries on the person of the deceased - Witnesses to the injuries - Post mortem report and inquest report corroborating the prosecution case - Defence taking plea of alibi - Conviction by trial court and High Court - On appeal, D held: The prosecution has established various circumstances which complete the chain of events pointing towards the guilt of the accused - The statements of PWs were reliable and trustworthy, as they fully corroborated other documentary and ocular evidence - The contradiction in the evidence of PWs E not material - The evidence of hostile witnesses would not carry any weight in the face of evidence of PWs 3 to 7 - Plea of alibi a falsehood - Conviction upheld. Criminal Trial - If the plea of alibi is disbelieved and there is absence of explanation uls. 313 Cr.P.C., Court is entitled F to draw adverse inference against the accused - Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 - s. 313. Investigation - Conduct of Investigating Officer to misdirect the evidence and to withhold the material evidence G from the Court - Doctor who conducted postmortem, made his evidence totally vague, uncertain and indefinite - Direction to State to take disciplinary action against the officers. 1067 H 1068 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2012] 13 S.C.R. A Appellant-accused alongwith another accused (his brother) was prosecuted for having killed his wife. The prosecution case was that a couple of months prior to the date of the incident, when the deceased had come to her parents' house, she expressed her unwillingness to B go back to her husband's house apprehending that her husband and brother-in-law would kill her. However, she came to her husband's house. On the day of the incident, brother-in-law of the deceased informed PW7 (uncle of the deceased) that the deceased died after falling down c in the kitchen. PW7 informed this to PW3 (mother of the deceased). PW3 suspecting that it was not a natural death, lodged an FIR. During trial, PWs 8 and 9 (the neighbours of the accused) turned hostile. The accused took the plea of alibi and in its support, produced three 0 witnesses. Trial court, disbelieving the defence case, convicted both the accused u/s. 302/34 IPC. Trial Court also observed that the Medical Officer, who had conducted post mortem, needed to be censured as his report was found to be perfunctory in nature. High Court E confirmed the judgment of trial court. In appeal to this Court, appellants contended that the prosecution did not establish the case beyond reasonable doubt; that PWs 3 to PW7 were not reliable as they were Interested witnesses by the virtue of being F related to the deceased; that the statements of PWs were contradictory and that PWs 8 and 9 being hostile were not reliable. Dismissing the appeal, the Court G HELD: 1.1 This is a case of circumstantial evidence, as there is no eye- witness to the occurrence which has been produced by the prosecution. The prosecution has been able to establish various circumstances which complete the chain of events and such chain of events H undoubtedly point towards the guilt of the accused SAHABUDDIN & ANR. v. STATE OF ASSAM 1069 persons. These circumstances are: the victim coming to A her parental home and declining to go back to her matrimonial home, she being persuaded to go to her matrimonial home by her parents and within a few days thereafter, she dies at her in-laws place. Further that she had various injuries on her lower abdomen and that her B neck and face were congested and swollen. The post mortem report completely corroborates the statements of PWs. The inquest report, also fully substantiates the case of the prosecution. Besides this, PW3 had categorically stated that her daughter was not suffering c . from epilepsy or any other disease and that she died as a result of torture inflicted on her by the accused persons. [Paras 10 and 22] [1076-E; 1084-B-E] 1.2 The post mortem report, clearly corroborates the statement of five witnesses, PW3, PW4, PWS, PW6 and D PW7 and ther
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.