SC acquits man in wife's murder case, says circumstances do not indicate his guilt

The Supreme Court has acquitted a man, awarded life imprisonment for murdering his wife, saying that the circumstances established by the prosecution do not lead to a possible inference of his guilt.

A bench of Justices Ajay Rastogi and Abhay S Oka said that only based on the post-mortem report, the man could not have been convicted of the offense punishable under Section 302 (murder) of the Indian Penal Code and consequently for the offense punishable under Section 201 (destruction of evidence) of IPC.

''The circumstances established by the prosecution do not lead to only one possible inference regarding the guilt of the appellant-accused,'' the bench said.

The apex court said there is no explanation brought on record by the prosecution for the delay in registering the FIR.

Though the post-mortem report was available on November 18, 2011, the FIR was belatedly registered on August 25, 2012, it noted.

The apex court said that when a case rests on circumstantial evidence if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in the discharge of burden placed on him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances.

Neither the prosecution witnesses have deposed nor any other material placed on record to show that the relationship between the appellant and the deceased were strained in any manner, it said.

Moreover, the appellant was not the only person residing in the house where the incident took place and it is brought on record that the parents of the appellant were also present on the date of the incident in the house, it added.

The fact that other members of the family of the appellant were present shows that there could be another hypothesis that cannot be altogether excluded, the apex court said.

''In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, the falsity of the defense is no ground to convict the accused,'' the bench said.

The top court said that the guilt of the accused Nagendra Sah has not been established beyond a reasonable doubt and acquitted him from the charges framed against him for the offenses punishable under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.

As per the prosecution case, the appellant's wife died due to burn injuries.

According to the post-mortem report, the cause of death was 'asphyxia due to pressure around the neck by hand and blunt substance'.

The trial court in 2013 convicted the appellant for both the offenses and was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life and to pay a fine of Rs 5,000 for the offense punishable under Section 302 of IPC and rigorous imprisonment for three years and a fine of Rs 5,000 for the offense under Section 201 of IPC. In default of payment of fine, he was directed to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three months.

The Sessions Judge directed that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

A Division Bench of Patna High Court in 2019 dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the judgment of the Sessions Judge.