WAZIR KHAN versus STATE OF UTTARAKHAND

Citation: [2023] 11 S.C.R. 39 · Decided: 02-08-2023 · Supreme Court of India · Bench: J.B. PARDIWALA, MANOJ MISRA · Disposal: Dismissed

Cited by 1 judgment(s) · cites 3 · see the full citation network in Lexace

Judgment (excerpt)

[2023] 11 S.C.R. 39 : 2023 INSC 674 
39
CASE DETAILS
WAZIR KHAN
v.
STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
(Criminal Appeal Nos. 1922-1923 of 2017)
AUGUST 02, 2023
[J. B. PARDIWALA AND MANOJ MISRA, JJ.]
HEADNOTES
Issue for consideration : In a case hinging on circumstantial evidence, 
where the appellant was put to trial u/ss. 302 and 201 IPC for murdering 
his wife, and he did not dispute his presence at the place of incident and, 
further, the explanation off ered by him as regards injuries received by his 
wife was found to be false, whether the High Court was justifi ed in reversing 
the acquittal order passed by the trial court.
Penal Code, 1860 – ss. 302 and 201 – Reversal of acquittal by 
High Court – Propriety:
Held : When attention of the appellant was drawn to the incriminating 
circumstances that inculpated him in the crime, he failed to off er appropriate 
explanation or gave a false answer – The same can be counted as providing 
a missing link for completing a chain of circumstances – Where an accused 
is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution 
succeeds in leading evidence to show, like in the present case, that shortly 
before the commission of the crime they were seen together or the off ence 
took place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it 
has been consistently held that if the accused does not dispute his presence 
at home at the relevant time and does not off er any explanation how the wife 
received injuries or off ers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a 
strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission 
of the crime –  If an off ence takes place inside four walls of a house and in 
such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and 
commit the off ence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it 
will be extremely diffi  cult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the 
40
SUPREME COURT REPORTS 
[2023] 11 S.C.R.
guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted 
upon by the Courts – On facts, appellant guilty – Reversal of his acquittal by 
High Court, upheld. [Paras 24, 25 and 29]
 Circumstantial evidence – Incriminating circumstance put to 
accused and the accused offering no explanation or offering a false 
explanation – Additional link in chain of circumstances: 
Held : In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye witness 
is available, principle followed is that when an incriminating circumstance is 
put to the accused and the said accused either off ers no explanation or off ers an 
explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional 
link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. [Para 23]
Evidence – Duty on the prosecution to lead evidence – Nature of:
Held : The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence 
of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely 
diffi  cult to be led – The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which 
it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the 
case. [Para 29]
Evidence Act, 1872 – s.106:
Held : The prosecution cannot take recourse of s.106 of the Act, 1872 
without laying any foundational facts. [Para 17]
LIST OF CITATIONS AND OTHER REFERENCES
State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and Ors. (2000) 8 SCC 
382 : [2000] 2 Suppl. SCR 712;  Dharm Das Wadhwani v. The State of Uttar 
Pradesh AIR 1975 SC 241 : [1974] 3 SCR 607; Nika Ram v. State of Himachal 
Pradesh AIR 1972 SC 2077 : [1973] 1 SCR  428; Ganesh Lal v. State of 
Rajasthan (2002) 1 SCC 73; State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 
1992 SC 2045 : [1992] 2 SCR 815 – relied on.
OTHER CASE DETAILS INCLUDING IMPUGNED 
ORDER AND APPEARANCES
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION: Criminal Appeal Nos. 
1922-1923 of 2017.
41
WAZIR KHAN v. STATE OF UTTARAKHAND
From the Judgment and Order dated 25.07.2017 and 09.08.2017 of 
the High Court of Uttarakhand at Nainital in GA No. 10 of 2011.
Appearances:
Dr. Rajesh Pandey, Sr. Adv., Chaturanan Choubey, Abhishek Pandey, 
Ms. Mridula Ray Bharadwaj, Advs. for the Appellant.
Dr. Abhishek Atrey, Ms. Rachna Gandhi, Ms. Ambika Atrey, Advs. 
for the Respondent.
JUDGMENT/ORDER OF THE SUPREME COURT
ORDER
1. These appeals are at the instance of the appellant/convict – Wazir 
Khan and is directed against the judgment(s) and order(s) dated 25.07.2017 
(conviction) and 09.08.2017 (sentence)

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