SARDAR KHAN versus STATE OF KARNATAKA

Citation: [2004] 1 S.C.R. 891 · Decided: 20-01-2004 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DORAISWAMY RAJU · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

. 
'· .. 
' 
SARDAR KHAN 
A 
v. 
STATE OF KARNATAKA 
JANUARY 20, 2004 
[DORAISWAMY RAJU AND S.B. SINHA, JJ.] 
B 
Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302 and 498A-Within two years of 
marriage husband committing bmta/ murder of wife and also al/empting to 
burn her dead body-Husband, his brother and sister harassing and tor/I/ring C 
the victim earlier-Facts establishing motive on the part of husband to commit 
murder of h1~· wife--Recovel)' r?f"weapons, blood stained clothes andjewelleries 
of wife-No eye-witness-However ill treatment meted out to victim 
corroborated by her parents, her brother and also independent 11'ilnesses-
Also nothing on record lo show that outsider broke open the house and 
caused the murder-Conviction and sentence of husband by trial Court and D 
acq11ittal of brother and sister-Husband preferring appeal-High Court 
upholding conviction, however. enhancing punishment from life imprt:\'Onment 
lo death sentence-On appeal, held on the basis of circumstantial evidence, 
conviction justified-Benefit of doubt given to co-accused cannot be extended 
to accused-husband-However. having regard to the facts and circumstances E 
of the case, death sentence altered to life imprisonment. 
According to the prosecution, appellant-husband committed brutal 
murder of his wife by cutting her neck and gagging cloth in her mouth 
and also attempted to burn the dead body within two years of marriage. 
After the marriage the victim was harassed by appellant-husband, his F 
brother and sister. It was for obtaining financial benefits from her parents. 
Appellant also pawned his wife's jewelleries. The victim's father had taken 
a premises on rent for the appellant and the victim. Three months before 
the incident appellant assaulted the victim when she was pregnant which 
resulted in her abortion and she had to be hospitalised. Thereafter her 
father brought her to his own house. However, en mediation by elders G 
· she came back to her matrimonial house. 
Appellant was arrested after a week of the incident. On the basis of 
his statement, the weapon used in the crime, blood stained clothes, victim's 
891 
H 
892 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2004] 1 S.C.R. 
A ornaments pledgcll \vith pawn broker were recovered and prosecution 
witnesses were examined. Trial Court convicted the appellant under 
Sections 302 and 498A IPC and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for 
life. However, it acquitted appellant's brother and sister. Appellant filed 
an appeal. High Court maintained the conviction and enhanced sentence 
B of life imprisonment to death sentence. Hence the present appeal. 
Appellant contended that the courts below erred in convicting the 
appellant as there was no eye-witness to the occurrence and the entire case 
was based upon circumstantial evidence; that the appellant was also not 
last seen with the deceased; and that this case cannot be said to be one of 
C the rarest of rare cases warranting death penalty. 
Dismissing the appeal, the Court 
HELD: l. To satisfactorily prove the commission of a crime on the 
basis of circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must satisfy: (I) the 
D circumstances from which an inference of guilt is to be drawn must be 
cogently and firmly established; (2) the circumstances should have a 
tendency to unerringly point to the guilt towards the accused; and (3) the 
circumstances taken cumulatively should form a chain so complete that 
there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probabilities 
E the crime is committed by the accused and none else. !897-E-FJ 
2.1. In the instant case, the systematic manner in which the deceased 
was subjected to ill-treatment and torture as also assault when she was 
pregnant resulting in her abortion proves motive on the part of the 
appellant to cause murder of the deceased. The weapon of attack as also 
F clothes and jewclleries were recovered on the statement made by the 
accused. Further it is not disputed that there was no eye-witness to the 
occurrence, however the ill-treatment meted out to the deceased by the 
appellant has been proved by her father and brother and also stands 
corroborated by the evidence of the person who mediated between the 
G appellant and the deceased and land lord. Also, it was proved that the 
jewelleries belonging to the deceased were pawned by the appellant. Also 
it is not disputed that after the deceased was assaulted resulting in her 
abortion she had to be hospitalized. Further, there is nothing on record

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