Jai Pal vs State of Haryana

The Trial Court convicted the accused/appellant for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the High Court by the impugned judgment has confirmed the conviction.

The case of the prosecution, in brief, is that the accused/appellant is the husband of the deceased-wife. There were frequent quarrels between the deceased and the accused/appellant since the deceased used to doubt her husband's character. The victim was beaten up and turned out of her matrimonial home after which she stayed at her parental home for one year. About 6 months prior to the incident, the deceased was persuaded to return to her matrimonial home. In the early hours of 26.04.1994, the accused/appellant allegedly killed the deceased by strangulating her with an electric wire. The dead body was found in the cattle shed of the house of the accused/appellant.

There are no eye witnesses to the incident in question. The case of the prosecution rests upon circumstantial evidence alone. The circumstances relied upon by the prosecution are as under:

Recovery of an electric wire and plier.

Motive of commission of offence, i.e., matrimonial discord.

Cause of death, i.e., strangulation.

The incident took place in the matrimonial home and there is no explanation given by the accused/appellant about the unnatural death of the deceased.

Though the prosecution has examined six witnesses in support of its case, apart from the police officials and the doctor, none of the witnesses have supported the case of the prosecution, except PW-1, the father of the deceased, and PW-6, the neighbour of the accused/appellant. The other witnesses have turned hostile.

The doctor has opined that the death was due to strangulation. So far as the recovery of the electric wire and plier is concerned, the prosecution has been unable to prove the same, inasmuch as no panch witness has been examined. The aspect of matrimonial discord on account of the questionable character of the accused/appellant is spoken to by PW-1 and PW-6. In this regard, the admissions made by PW-6 in the cross-examination are relevant. PW-6 has admitted in his cross-examination that he is related to the deceased, and he was made a witness at the instance of the police and the father of the deceased (PW-1). He also admits that the deceased and the accused/appellant had been married for 10 years prior to the incident, and he had not observed any objectionable habit in the accused/appellant, whereas it is the specific case of the prosecution that the accused/appellant was a womanizer. On the other hand, PW-6 has also deposed that he had not seen the accused/appellant molesting any woman of the village. Thus, in fact, the evidence of PW-6 takes away the effect of the evidence of PW-1, who is none other than the father of the deceased, and does not fully support the case of the prosecution as far as the allegations of bad conduct of the accused/appellant are concerned. The evidence of PWs 1 & 6, on the whole, cannot be said to prove the motive of the offence.

It is no doubt true that the accused/appellant has not explained how the incident came to take place in or around the matrimonial home. It is expected from the accused/appellant to disclose the factors which are in his personal knowledge. The accused/appellant has however disputed his presence in the matrimonial home during relevant hours. However, the motive of the offence has not been proved, and there is nothing to connect the appellant/accused with the offence, apart from the sole ground that the accused/appellant has not explained his conduct satisfactorily around the time of occurrence of the offence. As mentioned supra the accused has denied his presence in home, which defence appears to be shaky under the facts of the case. It is well settled that when the case of the prosecution rests solely upon circumstantial evidence, the circumstances relied upon by the prosecution must form a complete chain which does not leave any room for the accused to escape. As the prosecution has failed to establish such a chain, in our considered opinion, the benefit of doubt must be given to the accused/appellant. Accordingly, the appeal is allowed. The appellant is acquitted of the charges levelled against him, and shall be released forthwith, if not required in any other case.