LexSTATE THROUGH C.B.I. versus MAHENDER SINGH DAHIYA
Open in Lexace · Ask the AI about this caseJudgment (excerpt)
,, [2011) 1 S.C.R. 1104 A STATE THROUGH C.B.I. v. .J.._. MAHENDER SINGH DAHIYA "\ v (Criminal Appeal No. 1360 of 2003) ~ B JANUARY 28, 2011 [B. SUDERSHAN REDDY AND SURINDER SINGH NIJJAR, JJ.] "r" ~ Penal Code, 1860: s.302 and s.201 - Diabolic murder-- ' c Strangulation to death and dismemberment and mutilation of body parts - Respondent an Indian orthopedic doctor got engaged with deceased and shifted to London to stay with ~- laws - Marriage took place subsequently - Honeymoon t 'p was arranged for 5 days - Respondent returned from trip after D 2 days without deceased and stated that the deceased abandoned him - Thereafter he absconded and remained ~ . Underground until arrest - Body parts found in the rubbish bin ~ and lake near the hotel where the couple stayed and identified to be that of deceased - Allegation against respondent that E he strangulated his wife to death on the first night of honeymoon and thereafter dismembered and mutilated parts of her body and disposed them of 1 Trial court held that circumstances pointed out towards the guilt of the respondent and convicted him u/s.302 and s.201 - Acquittal by High - F Court on the ground that the prosecution failed to connect the respondent with the alleged murder - On appeal, held: Prosecution had miserably failed to connect the respondent with the alleged murder of his wife - Resentment of the respondent to the friendly behaviour of the deceased towards G the other men would not be sufficient to hold that he had the necessary motive to kill the deceased - There was nothing )..- '- to suggest that the deceased or her family members had apprehended any harm or threat to life of deceased at any stage till the couple left for the honeymoon - Given the H 1104 }> STATE THROUGH C.8.1. v. MAHENDER SINGH 1105 DAHIYA previous attitude of the deceased, it was possible that she had A walked out on her husband - Explanation given by respondent consistently from beginning was that the deceased had left him voluntarily - As regards the circumstances relating to the state of affairs that existed in the hotel room, the evidence of the hotel staff was inconsistent - Finger print B expert was not able to connect the palm prints of body parts recovered with the palm prints of the deceased - The reports submitted by the doctors contained numerous discrepancies - That apart the identification marks given by the witnesses did not coincide with the reports and therefore, no reliance c could be placed upon them for establishing the identity of these body parts as that of the deceased - Articles and clothes taken on trip by deceased not produced for . identification by witnesses at the time of trial- There was no reliable evidence to indicate that the blood that was recovered 0 from the bathroom of hotel room definitely belonged to the deceased - An adverse inference against the respondent cannot be drawn merely because he remained in hiding till he was arrested - Prosecution a/so did not produce any evidence with regard to the recovery of any weapon of offence E - Order of acquittal was justified. Criminal law: Motive - Held: In cases based on circumstantial evidence, motive for committing the crime assumes great importance - Absence of motive would put the court on its guard to scrutinize the evidence very closely to F ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof - In a case where there is motive, it affords added support to the finding of the court that the accused was guilty for the offence charged with. Evidence: Suspicion no matter how strong cannot, and should not be permitted to take the place of proof- Therefore, courts are to ensure a cautious and balanced appraisal of the intrinsic value of the evidence produced in Court. G 1106 SUPREME COURT REPORTS [2011] 1 S.C.R. A The prosecution case was that the respondent was guilty of murdering his wife. The respondent was an Orthopedic surgeon. He belonged to a village called Turkpur, District Sonepat. PW-48, a native of Punjab had migrated to England in 1962. He was settled there with B his wife (PWUK-1) and children. The victim-deceased was his daughter. In 1978, PW-48 visited India to find suitable Indian boy for marriage with the deceased. They found the respondent to be a suitable match for her. The engagement ceremony was held between the respondent c and the deceased on 31st August 1978 at v
Excerpt shown. Read the full judgment & AI analysis in Lexace.