VIJAY @ GYANCHAND JAIN versus THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH

Citation: [1994] SUPP. 3 S.C.R. 80 · Decided: 02-09-1994 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: G.N. RAY · Disposal: Dismissed

Judgment (excerpt)

A 
VUAY@GYANCHAND JAIN 
v. 
THE STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH 
SEPTEMBER 2, 1994 
B 
(G.N. RAY AND N.P. SINGH, JJ.] 
Indian Penal Code, 1860: Sectipn Joo-Exception ~Sections ~02 and 
309. 
C 
Accused--Fntstrated on account of Heavy indebtedness-Killing wife 
and attempting suicide-Letter written by accused unfolding decision to mur-
der and then commit suicide-Defence-Consent of victim-Held Exception 
5 should receive strict interpretation-Act alleged to be consented must be 
considered with a close scrutiny-Consent by necessary implication should 
D not be pemiitted-Conviction under 302 and 309 upheld. 
Evidence Act, 1872 : Section 73. 
Murder-Accused-Procurement of handwriting by Naib Tehsil-
dal-Specimen obtained and a letter purported to have been written by 
E accused sent to expert-Section 73 held not violated. 
The appellant was prosecuted under Sections 302 and 309 of the 
Indian Penal Cod~, 1860 for murdering his wife and attempting to commit 
suicide. The prosecution case was that the appellant, who was in difficult 
financial circumstances, murdered his wife by causing knife injuris on her 
F 
neck and chest in a r'oom of his home where there was no outsider 
excepting his minor son and an infant daughter. 
Immediately after the murder a letter written by the appellant un-
folding his decision to kill his wife and then to commit suicide was found 
G at the spot of murder by an independent witness. The appellant's son had 
deposed that when he woke up 
1he saw that his mother was lying on the 
Door with a bleeding injury on her neck and the appellant was wiping out 
the blood; he informed his grandfather who came to the room of occur-
rence and saw that appellant's wife was lying injured and the appellant 
was hanging with a rope tied around his neck, which was removed from 
H . the appellant's neck. 
80 
> 
GYANCHAND JAIN v. STATE 
81 
The Naib Tehsildar obtained the speciman writings from the appel- A 
lant and sent to the State Examiner of Questioned Documents along with 
the letter purported to have been written by the appellant who conftrmed 
that the specimen writing and admitted writing were by the same hand. 
From the evidence it also transpired that the wife consented to sufl'er the 
murderous attack of husband and therefore, she dis not raise any sound B 
while suffering the attack. The appellant's case was that he was not present 
in the room when the murderous attack was made on his wife and on 
coming back he found that she was critically injured with no chance of 
survival and therefore he became remorse and attempted to commit 
suicide. 
c 
The Trial Court convicted and santenced the appellant under Sec-
tions 302 and 309 of the IPC. On appeal the High Court came to the 
conclusio.n that the letter found at the place of murder was written by 
appeallant and rejected the appellant's contention that the specimen writ-
ing obtained from him were inadmissible in view of the bar contained in D 
Section 73 of the Indian Evidence Act. The High Court also held that the 
deposition of appellant's son to the efl'ect that he informed his grandfather 
that he found his father wiping out the blood from the neck of his mother 
completely demolishes the appellant's case that he was not present in the 
room when attack was made on his Wire and that it was only on seeing her E 
critically injured he attempted to commit suicide. Accordingly the High 
Court dismissed the appeal and affirmed the conviction and sentence 
imposed by the Trial Court. 
In appeal to this Court, it was contended on tiehalf of the appellant F 
that (i) there was no reliable and congent evidence establishing murder by 
the appellant and it was only with reference to the appellant's letter that 
complicity was found by the Courts; (ii) the specimen writing obtained 
from the appellant was inadimissible in evidence under Section 73 of the 
Evidence Act; (iii) there was no motive to murder the wife; the absence of G 
a strong motive is a relevant consideration in a case of circumstantial 
evidence like the present one; and (iv) the testimony of the appellant's son 
that he had not heard the shriek or sound of agony of his mother reveals 
that the victim had not resisted the attack but was sufl'ereing silently. 
Therefore, the defence of consent was available to the appellant and 
consequently the case is governed by Exception S of Section 300 I.P.C. 
H 
82 
SUPREME COURT REPORTS [1994) SUPP. 3 S.C.R.,. 
A 
Dismissing the appeal, this Court 
B 
H

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