No Cogent Explanation Given For Chain Of Incriminating Circumstances: Allahabad HC Upholds Life Sentence Of Man Who Killed Wife

Observing that no cogent explanation was given to explain the chain of incriminating circumstances by the appellant-convict, the Allahabad High Court recently upheld the life sentence awarded to a man who killed his wife in the year 2004.

The Bench of Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Sameer Jain specifically observed that nothing had come on record from the side of the convict-appellant that he resided elsewhere or worked for a gain elsewhere and was not present at the scene of the crime on the night of the incident.

The case/facts in brief 

The informant's elder sister Banso Bai (the deceased) was married to the appellant (Charan Singh), who used to suspect and taunt the deceased of being unchaste and treated her with cruelty and they often used to quarrel.

On the evening of June 27, 2004, the deceased and the accused had a fight, and the same night, at around 2 am, the neighbors of the deceased, Darshan Singh (PW-3) and Parsa Singh (PW-4) heard noises coming from the hut of the appellant-convict; upon which, both went to the spot and noticed that the appellant was strangulating the deceased.

By the time they could come to the rescue of the victim, she was dead and the appellant had escaped.

PW-3 gave this information to the brother of the deceased, PW-1 (informant/Surendra Singh), who went to the house of the deceased to confirm the news and, upon finding her sister dead, he lodged a report in the police station on June 28, 2004, under Section 302 I.P.C.

The trial was conducted and by the impugned judgment and order, the trial court in 2006 found him guilty as it concluded that from the prosecution evidence, it was established that on the night of the incident, the appellant killed his wife by strangulating her.

While writing its judgment, the trial court rejected the plea of the appellant that, because he was deaf and dumb, he could not put his defence properly before the Court. Challenging the order and judgment of the trial court, the appellant moved to the High Court.

High Court's observations and order 

At the outset, the Court observed that the trial did not vitiate for lack of appointment of a sign language interpreter for the accused-appellant as the trial court had recorded its satisfaction with regard to the ability of the accused to understand and communicate.

The Court also noted that since no application was moved before the court questioning its satisfaction or praying for services of a sign language interpreter for the accused, therefore, the Court added, an unrebutted legal presumption with regard to the regularity of the judicial act would operate against the accused-appellant.

Here it may be noted that as per illustration (e) to section 114 of the Evidence Act, 1872 there is a legal presumption that judicial and official acts have been regularly performed.

In its order, the HC categorically dealt with all the arguments put forth by the convict-appellant in his defence.

In so far as the argument regarding the absence of light to enable the witnesses to witness the incident was concerned, the court opined that the incident is of the year 2004, by then, the presence of torches in areas where there is no electric supply, as was the village concerned, is a common feature. 

Further, the Court also observed that the oral deposition in respect of the use of torch is not liable to be discarded merely because the I.O. did not question the witnesses with respect to the source of light.

In so far as non-examination of children and other family members of the deceased was concerned, the Court said that where the accused is from the family itself, the family members are reluctant to give evidence. "Moreover, children rarely go against their parents. Therefore, their non-examination, in the facts of the case, is not fatal to the prosecution case," the Court observed.

Significantly, regarding the incriminating material against the accused, the Court took into account the following points/evidence:

- The body was noticed on a cot at a place where the hut of the accused was there, which fact was proved by the oral testimony as well as the site plan

- The appellant had escaped from the spot and for several days he was absconding. In fact, a search had to be made for him and, ultimately, after recourse to coercive processes, the appellant's arrest could be secured.

Calling all these facts as highly incriminating circumstances which, by themselves, complete a chain of circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the appellant, the Court held that in the absence of cogent explanation, the same could form the basis of conviction.

"Whereas, to explain this chain of incriminating circumstances, nothing has come, either through cross-examination, or by way of explanation under section 313 CrPC, that the appellant resided elsewhere or worked for a gain elsewhere and was not present at the scene of crime in the night of the incident. Notably, accused-appellant in the written statement under section 313 CrPC has admitted that the deceased was his wife and they had cordial relationship out of which they had several issues, which, in absence of any specific statement of separation, or claim of residing elsewhere in connection with work, would give an impression that the appellant, as husband, resided with the deceased," the court opined.

Against this backdrop, the Court did not find a good reason to disbelieve the prosecution case or to discard the prosecution evidence which proves the guilt of the appellant in the murder of his wife beyond a reasonable doubt. Consequently, the Court affirmed the judgment and order of the trial court and the appeal was, accordingly, dismissed. 

Case title - Charan Singh v. State of U.P. [CRIMINAL APPEAL No. - 1171 of 2006]

Case citation: 2022 LiveLaw (All) 176

Click Here To Read/Download Order