HYDERABAD: If the incidents relating to death cases are based on circumstantial evidence, the courts are of the view that a duty is cast upon the prosecution to establish that the circumstances relied upon in such cases are proved beyond reasonable doubt and lead to one and only conclusion towards the guilt of the accused. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution should form the chain of events connecting the accused with the crime. If the prosecution builds up its case creating suspicion in the mind of the courts, then the latter will set aside the conviction and sentence, if any, recorded against the accused.
The Supreme Court, in the Jagroop Singh vs State of Punjab case, had held, “When the case of prosecution is based on circumstantial evidence, conviction is permissible only when all links in the chain of events are established beyond reasonable doubt and established circumstances are consistent only with the hypothesis of guilt of accused and totally inconsistent with his innocence.”
In an appeal before a division bench of the Hyderabad High Court, the appellant-accused challenged the order of the first additional sessions judge, Vizianagaram, in convicting and sentencing him to suffer life imprisonment for the offence under IPC Sections 302.
The essence of the charge against the accused is that on April 9, 2011 at Bellanapeta village in Vizianagaram district of Andhra Pradesh, he is said to have caused the death of his wife by stabbing her with a knife on the neck and head.
The case of the prosecution is that the accused looked after his wife well till the birth of the children and thereafter disputes arose between them. The evidence of one of the prosecution witnesses, who is a brother of the deceased, shows that the accused got addicted to alcohol and was not caring the family members properly, and used to beat his wife suspecting her fidelity. About 15 days prior to the date of incident, the woman had left home and went to her brother’s house along with the children.
After a few days she received a phone call from her brother-in-law stating that her presence was required for signing a bill for payment of house tax. She then went to the house of her husband along with her minor son.
As it was a holiday for his school, the minor boy stayed in the house as his parents went together to the forest for firewood but neither of them returned home. When the paternal uncle of the boy went in search of the couple, he found the dead body of the woman lying in a streamlet (vagu) with injuries on the face and the head. Police registered a case basing on a complaint lodged by the brother of the deceased. After 10 days i.e. on April 19, the husband was produced before the police station along with an extra-judicial confession statement.
He pleaded not guilty before the trial court and claimed to be tried. After considering the entire material, including oral and documentary evidence available on record, the sessions judge convicted the accused for offences under Sections 302 and 498-A of IPC. Challenging the conviction.
The counsel appearing for the appellant-accused contended that there is absolutely no material to connect the accused with the crime and the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution do not form a chain of events so as to connect him with the crime. The FIR, which has been given on the following day of the incident, should have contained the fact that the body of the woman had been traced on the previous night.
But, the report only refers to the couple leaving the house, which throws any amount of doubt on the case. When the oral evidence shows that the body was traced the previous night, the inquest report reveals that the dead body was traced at about 9 am on April 10. Therefore, no reliance can be placed on the evidence of any of the prosecution witnesses and the alleged last seen theory, recovery of the body and the extra-judicial confession cannot be made, the counsel argued.
On the other hand, the state public prosecutor contended that the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution and, more particularly, the evidence of the minor son of the deceased can be relied upon to convict the accused and, as such, the finding given by the trial court warranted no interference.
The bench of justices C Praveen Kumar and K Vijaya Lakshmi found that there were no eyewitnesses to the incident and the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence.
The evidence of the minor boy clearly showed that five days after the death of his mother the police brought the accused to the house. “A doubt arises as to how the accused would have made an extra-judicial confession before the local sarpanch on April 19. It means that the accused was in the custody of police within five days of the incident. When the body was traced prior to lodging of the report, no reasons are forthcoming as to why it was suppressed.
Even the circumstances pertaining to the time of the registration of FIR, the visit of the investigation officer to the scene of offence, preparation of panchanama and so on creates some suspicion in the case of the prosecution,” the bench pointed out.
The bench held that the extra-judicial confession, recovery of knife and clothes and tracing of the dead body were not proved by any legal evidence. Even the evidence of the prosecution witnesses did not anywhere indicate that the accused had harassed his wife for money and property.