Prosecution Failed To Demonstrate Husband Was Alone With Deceased: Bombay HC Acquits Husband Charged With Killing Wife
The Aurangabad Bench of the Bombay High Court while dealing with an appeal challenging the Trial Court's judgment convicting the Appellant under Section 302, Indian Penal Code (IPC), said that the Husband cannot be presumed to be guilty unless demonstrated by proper evidence and set aside the order of the Trial Court and acquitted the Appellant.
The Appellant was convicted of murdering his wife and was sentenced to life imprisonment under Section 302 IPC.
The Division Bench headed by Justice Vibha Kankanwadi and Justice Abhay S. Waghwase said that “It is true that accused being husband, by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, he can be accountable for the said death, but unless it is demonstrated that accused was the only person in the company of deceased, it cannot be said that he is responsible for the homicidal strangulation.”
The Court further added that “it was for the prosecution to prove and establish guilt beyond reasonable doubt and to stand on its own leg rather to take recourse to answers given under Section 313 of the Cr.P.C.”
Advocate Nilesh S. Ghanekar appeared for the Appellant while APP S. J. Salgare appeared for the Respondent.
In the case, Appellant and the deceased were married. There were accusations of domestic violence wherein the deceased complained about the Appellant hitting her. The deceased even went back to her own home before returning back to stay with the Appellant.
The deceased was found dead by her landlord and the Appellant was charged with murder under Section 302 and Section 498-A of the IPC. The Trial Court in its verdict sentenced the accused to life imprisonment, convicting him under Section 302 IPC. The Appellant challenged the verdict of the Trial Court.
The High Court while examining the statements of witnesses and the circumstances of the crime said that “There are infirmities and major discrepancies in the testimonies of prosecution witnesses. Several important questions have remained unanswered. Therefore, prosecution not having discharged its burden by leading full-proof case, we are inclined to interfere.”
The Court also said that “Mere failure on his part to deny such material while answering questions under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.P.C.) itself is not sufficient to infer that he has failed to give plausible explanation and hence, he is guilty.”
Accordingly, the High Court set aside the order of the Trial Court and acquitted the Appellant.
Cause Title: Kailas v. State of Maharashtra
Click here to read/download judgment