Supreme Court Sets Aside Murder Conviction Of Man Jailed For Nine Years, Justice Oka Laments Systemic Delays

The Supreme Court today (July 25) acquitted a man convicted for the murder of his wife based on circumstantial evidence of last seen theory observing that the prosecution failed to prove that he was the last person seen with his wife when she was alive.

After dictating the order, Justice Abhay Oka highlighted that the man has been incarcerated for nine years and remarked, “This is the problem in our system. Eight years he has undergone, nine years, with no evidence.”

Justice Oka commented further, “Delay is on the part of the system, we can't hear so many matters, that's the problem. And secondly, in so many cases state is filing appeals against acquittal, that also consumes time.”

A bench of Justice Abhay Oka, Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra and Justise Augustine George-Masih set aside the judgment of the trial court as well as that of Chhattisgarh High Court which upheld the conviction under section 302 of IPC observing -

“In this case, going by evidence of PW 1, the deceased was already dead at 5 PM. And moreover, the witness stated that the appellant came home at 7 PM. Therefore, the prosecution did not discharge the burden on it to prove that the appellant was lastly seen together with the deceased wife. Therefore, there was no occasion for the accused to discharge burden on him (to rebut presumption of guilt based on last seen theory).”

The prosecution alleged that the petitioner suspected his wife of infidelity and frequently quarreled with her. The appellant's wife was found dead in her house at about 5 PM on April 29, 2006, and the prosecution claimed she was strangled by the petitioner. Both the Trial Court and the High Court convicted the petitioner based on the “last seen theory.”

Advocate Pranjal Kishore for the appellant argued that there is no eye-witness and only circumstantial evidence exists against the appellant. He argued that there is no witness regarding the alleged motive of the infidelity of the deceased. He further contended that the deceased was not last seen with the appellant. Two witnesses who gave statement to the police against the appellant regarding last seen theory turned hostile, he said.

Advocate Apoorv Shukla for State of Chhattisgarh submitted that in his statement under section 313 of the CrPC, the appellant failed to rebut the presumption of his guilt under section 106 of the Evidence Act. The appellant stated that he came home at around 4 or 5 PM, Shukla said.

Justice Oka questioned, “106 presumption will apply, firstly you have to discharge the burden to show that husband and wife were together in the same premises under the same roof. If you don't discharge that burden, where is the question of him discharging it?”

The prosecution witness, sister-in-law of the appellant, testified that at about 5 PM, she went to the house of the deceased and found her sleeping. When she tried to wake her up, there was no response. Thereafter doctor was called and the appellant's wife was declared dead. She testified that the appellant returned home at around 7 PM. This witness was turned hostile.

The court noted that the prosecution did not confront her with relevant part of statement under section 161 of CrPC. The second prosecution witness also did not depose about the presence of appellant in the proximity of the house when his wife was found dead, the court noted.

The appellant said that he came around 4 to 5 PM when the two prosecution witnesses were in the house who told him that the deceased was not talking and moving. The court opined that the appellant's statement under section 313 taken in its entirety does not support the prosecution's case.

The prosecution miserably failed to prove the only circumstances relied upon, namely, last seen together, the court concluded.

Thus, the court acquitted the appellant and directed his release, unless his detention is required in another case.

Case no. – Crl.A. No. 818/2019

Case Title – Manharan Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh

Citation : 2024 LiveLaw (SC) 531

Click here to read the judgment