VAHITHA versus STATE OF TAMIL NADU

Citation: [2023] 3 S.C.R. 942 · Decided: 22-02-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: DINESH MAHESHWARI · Disposal: Dismissed

cites 8 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
942
SUPREME COURT REPORTS
[2023] 3 S.C.R.
   [2023] 3 S.C.R. 942
942
VAHITHA
v.
STATE OF TAMIL NADU
(Criminal Appeal No. 762 of 2012)
FEBRUARY 22, 2023
[DINESH MAHESHWARI AND BELA M. TRIVEDI, JJ.]
Penal Code, 1860 – s.302 – Conviction under – Strangulation
of child – Prosecution case that appellant strangulated her five
year old child to death while PW-1 (mother-in-law of appellant)
had gone out of the house – As per the FIR, when PW-1 came back
to the house, she saw the appellant tie the outer end of her saree
tightly around the neck of the child – During her testimony PW-1
stated that she found the appellant sitting silently next to the
deceased child when she came back to the house – Upon hearing
PW-1 shout; daughters of PW-1 i.e. PW-2 and PW-3 also arrived at
the scene of occurrence – Two independent witnesses PW-4 and
PW-5 (landlord and neighbour of PW-1) also testified that they saw
the appellant next to the body of the deceased child – According to
post-mortem report, cause of death of child was asphyxia due to
strangulation – However, PW-6- father of appellant deposed that
appellant was with him at his village and that he accompanied her
back to in-laws place after receiving information about death of
child – Trial Court convicted appellant u/s. 302 and rejected plea
of alibi – High Court affirmed findings of trial Court and held that
appellant was last person to be seen with child, hence onus was on
appellant to explain how death occurred – On appeal, held: Plea
of alibi rejected – No evidence adduced to prove that appellant
was not present at time and place of incident; two independent
witnesses testified that they saw the appellant near the body of the
deceased child; appellant arrested on the same day of the incident
at bus stand – Although, there were discrepancies in versions of
PW-2 between the complaint and her assertions before the Court
such discrepancies are normal and natural or the result of her want
of proper comprehension – Trial Court rightly analysed matter and
observed that PW-1 was deposing from memory one year from
incident hence discrepancies would not result in rejection of her
testimony – Further, saree recovered from appellant had blood stains
A
B
C
D
E
F
G
H
943
– Motive of appellant to not live in matrimonial house and thus
committing offence cannot be ruled out looking to fact that she was
living with her parents and was only forced to come to in-laws place
for the upbringing of the child – Further, the appellant has not
given any explanation in her statement u/s. 313 CrPC apart from
denying the circumstances put to her – Burden u/s. 106 of the
Evidence Act operates heavily against appellant – Alternative
submission that case would be of culpable homicide not amounting
to murder rejected.
Dismissing the appeal, the Court
HELD: 1. The Trial Court and the High Court have
examined the evidence on record and have rejected this plea of
alibi with reference to the significant features of the case that
there is no corroborative evidence on record, to the assertion
made by PW-6, that on 20.06.2007, he took his daughter back to
his village Kolakkudi. The accused-appellant did not adduce any
evidence to prove that she was not present at her mother-in-
law’s place, at the time and place of incident. Apart from the fact
that PW-1, PW-2 and PW-3 consistently maintained their versions
that the appellant was available at the time and place of incident,
two independent witnesses, PW-4, landlord of PW-1 and PW-5,
neighbour of PW-1 testified that they saw the appellant sitting
with or near the body of the deceased child immediately after,
and at the place of, the incident. Although there appears to be no
reason to discard the testimonies of PW2 and PW-3 but even if
for the sake of argument their testimonies are left aside for being
directly related witnesses who might not be favourably disposed
towards the appellant, there appears no reason to disbelieve and
discard the testimonies of PW-4 and PW-5. Nothing even remotely
has been shown as to why PW-4 and PW-5 would be interested in
testifying about the presence of appellant around the time, and at
the place of incident. [Para 15.1][981-B-D]
2. Apart from the foregoing, fact of the matter also remains
that the appellant was arrested on 21.06.2007 i.e., the very day
of the incident, albeit nine hours after the incident, at the bus
stand. However, when the theory propounded by PW-6 that the
appellant had travelled to his village with him

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