Date of Judgment:
8th March 2022
Bench:
Ritu Bahri, J.
Ashok Kumar, J.
Parties:
Appellant – Vineet.
Respondents – The State of Haryana.
Subject
The Hon’ble High Court of Punjab & Haryana (hereinafter referred to as ‘Hon’ble Court’ or ‘the Court’), has held that while motive is important in determining an accused's guilt in situations of circumstantial evidence, it can be dispensed with if the chain of circumstances otherwise ties the accused to the crime, the motive was observed to be unnecessary and can be dispensed in this scenario.
Legal Provisions
Indian Penal Code,1860
- Section 302 –states that murder is punishable by death or life imprisonment and the accused shall also be liable to a fine.
- Section 498-A –states that If a woman's spouse or a relative of her husband exposed her to cruelty, he would face imprisonment for a time that may last up to three years, as well as a fine.
Indian Evidence Act, 1950
- Section 106 –states that When a person has particular knowledge of the truth, he has the duty of demonstrating that fact.
- Criminal Procedure Code, 1973
- Section 175 –states that a police officer by written order, summons two or more of the aforementioned persons for the said investigation, as well as any other person who appears to be acquainted with the facts of the case.
BRIEF FACTS
- In this instant petition where an appeal was filed against the trial Court's decision of conviction. The complainant's daughter was married to the appellant, but she was harassed and pressed for dowry. If the dowry demands were not paid, the appellant threatened the victim with death.
- In this instance, the accused/appellant and deceased wife were married as per Hindu rites and ceremonies and in respect of the solemnization of the marriage, they had given dowry articles to the appellant/accused.
- On one such day,The complainant(Smt. Rachna Devi, mother of the deceased)received a phone call from the appellant informing her that her daughter had died and that her body was in a government hospital.
- Subsequently, the complainant and her husband upon receiving this information rushed to the hospital and found their daughter dead and they observed that her body was completely covered with bruises and cuts, after further investigation and post-mortem it was ascertained that the appellant/accused has murdered her by brutally beating her subjecting her to obnoxious substances after she failed to bring more dowry from her home.
- Likewise, an FIR was registered against the accused/appellant, relying on the investigation the Trial Court prima facie charged the appellant/accused to be punished U/s 498-A and 302 of the Indian Penal Code, to which the accused/appellant pleaded not guilty and claimed trial.
- After due appreciation of the facts and evidence produced before the learned Trial court, the Additional Sessions Judge sentenced the appellant/accused to life imprisonment coupled with a fine of Rs.25,000/- only.
- Aggrieved by this decision the appellant/accused moved to the Hon’ble High Court for reconsideration.
ISSUES RAISED
- Whether the prosecution’s failure to prove the motive of the accused could be detrimental to the case of the prosecution for conviction of the accused?
- Whether the absence of an eyewitness, in this case, does not suffice to conclude that the appellant is not guilty of the offense?
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE APPELLANTS
- The Counsel appearing on behalf of the Appellant contended that the appellant is being falsely implicated in this present case to bore responsibilities for the unforeseeable death of the deceased wife, as the learned counsel claimed that there were no ey-witnesses to affirm to the testimonies of the PW-4(Rachna Devi) and PW-8(Chinki).
- Further, the Counsels for the appellant pleaded that testimony of the many witnesses called in favor of the prosecution showed that there was not a single eyewitness whose testimony could be trusted and that in the lack of credible evidence, the prosecution's version of events could not be trusted.
- Likewise, it was also submitted that there was no reason for the accused to conduct the aforementioned offense and that in the absence of such a purpose, a case under sections 302 and 498A cannot be sustained for further convictions.
ARGUMENTS ADVANCED BY THE RESPONDENTS
- The Counsel appearing on behalf of the contended that the learned Trial Court was righteous in convicting the appellant for his act meted out U/Ss. 498-A and 302 of the Penal Code respectively.
- Further stating that there was sufficient evidence on the record to demonstrate that the appellant was engaged in the commission of the offense and as many as 15 witnesses were examined by them to substantiate their case.
ANALYSIS BY THE COURT
- The Hon’ble High Courtnoted that there was no merit in the arguments advanced by the appellants, and further, the Court observed that the absence of eyewitnesses does not suffice to prove that the appellant is not guilty of the claimed crime.
- The Hon’ble Court observed that as per the oral testimonies of the witnesses and family members of the deceased it could be easily concluded that the deceased to mental as well as physical harassment by her husband/accused after one year of their marriage, and the sole motive of the appellant/accused was to draw out dowry from the deceased’s matrimonial home.
- Furthermore, the prosecution was found to have established its case beyond a reasonable doubt by the testimony of the many witnesses who had testified, likewise averring to the fact that the victim's poisoning and colored bruises had been confirmed by medical evidence, and the prosecution had proved the whole series of events.
- Additionally, the court rejected the contentions put forth by the appellant where the appellants claimed that even though there was no motive and that the evidence was simply circumstantial, the Court said that it had been well established that the murder was driven by dowry.
- The court also observed that the circumstantial evidence as produced by the prosecution prove beyond the doubt that the appellant/accused has murdered his deceased wife, and the series of testimonies by the witnesses establish a complete chain of evidence that substantiates the guilt of the appellant/accused.
- The Hon’ble relied on the judgment given by the Supreme Court in the case of Majendran Langeswaran v. State (NCT of Delhi) &Anr, where the Hon’ble Court evaluated several previous rulings after finding the information relied on by the prosecution contradictory and the weaknesses in the prosecution's case.
- It stated that all the relevant circumstantial evidence that is necessary for the conviction of the accused must lead to a similar conclusion where it shall be observed that the alleged accused is the one who had committed the crime.
- Furthermore, the Hon’ble observed that the presumption of guilt U/s. 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, was indicating towards the accused/appellant that the burden of proof lies upon him and since he could not do so.
- Thus, upholding the conviction passed by the Trial Court.
CONCLUSION
Rejecting the appeal, the Court stated that there were no illegalities or perversities in the judgment passed by the learned Trial Court given this matter, the Hon’ble Court upheld the conviction thereby disposing of all the pending applications about this instance.
Click here to download the original copy of the judgement
