Homicidal Nature Of Death Need Not Always Be Proved Through Direct Evidence: Orissa High Court Upholds Man's Conviction For Wife's Murder

The Orissa High Court has recently held that the homicidal nature of death need not always be proved through direct evidence. A Division Bench of Chief Justice S. Muralidhar and Justice B.P. Routray noted that a homicidal death must be inferred from the circumstances and the nature of injuries noticed on the dead body.

The observation was made in an appeal preferred by a man convicted for the murder of his wife and sentenced to life imprisonment. He had argued that in the absence of specific opinion concerning the exact time of death and nature of injuries homicidal nature of the deceased is not proved.

Noting that the instant case is about the death of a wife committed by the husband within four walls of the house., the Court noticed that the alleged murder was committed in the absence of any other adult member in the house except the deceased and Appellant. It was noted that the external features of the dead body, as seen during the inquest and post-mortem examination, speak of homicidal death. Further, the two fractures noticed on the skull over the temporoparietal bone and occipital bone support the prosecution's case about the assault on the head of the deceased by means of any blunt object.

It was held that when the assailant is the husband, and he tried his best to screen the evidence by attempting to burn the dead body after committing the offence, it is difficult to get direct evidence on the nature of the injuries. The Court concluded that the deceased died homicidal death by noting that,

"It should not be forgotten here that, the inquest and post mortem examination were conducted after a clear gap of three days of the occurrence and keeping the same in mind, the features noticed on the dead body of the deceased, external as well as internal, are found supportive with the conclusion of homicidal death of the deceased. It is thus concluded that the deceased died homicidal nature death."

On the evidence of eye-witnesses, who are the appellant's children, the Court noted that since they are child witnesses, their assault evidence could not be believed as they have admitted to having heard the same from another 12-year-old boy. However, the 12-year-old's evidence was clear, compelling, trustworthy, and corroborated by medical evidence.

The court noted that no allegation of tutoring those child witnesses is there. It remarked that the law is well settled that while appreciating the evidence of a child witness, the court must be cautious enough to examine any possibility of tutoring the child. It noted,

"Section 118 of the Evidence Act speaks that every person is a competent witness unless the court considers them incompetent due to lack of understanding to give rational answers either by tender years or for any other reason. Whether a child is competent enough to understand the questions and answer them rationally depends on the facts of each case."

Dismissing the appeal, it was held that there is direct and cogent evidence concerning the assault further substantiated by the accused's conduct, clearly establishing murder charges under Section 302/201 of the IPC against the appellant.

Case Title: Milan v. State of Odisha

Citation: 2022 LiveLaw (Ori) 80

Click Here To Download The Order

Read The Order