Judge Also Has A Public Duty To See That Guilty Man Does Not Escape : Supreme Court Upholds Conviction Of Man For Killing Wife

Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape, the Supreme Court noted while it upheld conviction of a man accused of killing his wife.

"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 difficult 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", the bench of Justices J B Pardiwala and Manoj Misra said.

Wazir Khan, the accused, had allegedly committed murder of his wife by inflicting injuries all over her body with a knife. The prosecution examined about 10 witnesses, and also led documentary evidence in support of its case. The accused in his statement recorded under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C., stated that on the date of the incident, his wife was killed by the robbers and that he too suffered injuries at the hands of the robbers. The trial court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt and accordingly acquitted the him of all the charges. Later, allowing appeal filed by the State, the Uttarakhand High Court reversed these findings and convicted the accused.

In appeal, the court, reappreciating the evidence, noted that the accused's attention was drawn to the incriminating circumstances that inculpated him in the crime, but he failed to offer appropriate explanation or gave a false answer. The same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing a chain of circumstances, the court said.

"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 offence 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 offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.", the bench added.

While upholding the High Court judgment, the bench further observed:

"If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon by the Courts. Reference could be made to a decision of this Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007 Criminal Law Journal, page 20, in which this Court observed that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. This Court proceeded to observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. 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 difficult 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."

Case details

Wazir Khan vs State of Uttarakhand | 2023 LiveLaw (SC) 601 | 2023 INSC 674 

Headnote

Criminal Trial - A Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. This Court proceeded to observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. 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 difficult 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.

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ; Section 106 -  When an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete - Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show, that shortly before the commission of the crime they were seen together or the offence 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 offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.

Criminal Trial - Circumstantial Evidence - Cases are frequently coming before the Courts where the husbands, due to strained marital relations and doubt as regards the character, have gone to the extent of killing the wife. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence - No member of the family, even if he is a witness of the crime, would come forward to depose against another family member - If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the assailants have all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence, is insisted upon by the Courts.

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment