//
you're reading...
legal issues

Sec.302 – Murder of Wife – Circumstantial evidence – last seen theory – Accused in the last night with his wife – Sec.313 – non-explanation about his where abouts at the time of death which took place in the last night, by accused – recovery of assaulted weapon – clearly discloses the Accused is an offender – Apex court dismissed the appeal = KHIM SINGH … APPELLANT VERSUS STATE OF UTTARAKHAND … RESPONDENT = 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41755

Sec.302 – Murder of Wife – Circumstantial evidence – last seen theory –  Accused in the last night with his wife – Sec.313 – non-explanation about his where abouts at the time of death which took place in the last night, by accused – recovery of assaulted weapon – clearly discloses the Accused is an offender – Apex court dismissed the appeal =

The accused in his statement under Section 313  Cr.P.C.  in  reply  to

the question Nos. 3 and 4 stated that on 17th July, 1987 he was not  at  his

house. Such statement cannot be  believed  in  absence  of  any  explanation

given by the accused as where he was in the  night  between  17th  and  18th

July, 1987. The accused could not explain as to where he was  in  the  night

of 17th July, 1987.  The  conduct  of  the  accused  was  unnatural  in  not

disclosing the place where he remained  in  the  fateful  night,  making  it

clear that his statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C. was not believable.  From

the testimony of the real mother of the accused, Manuli Devi (PW-1) as  well

as Bachi Singh (PW-4), Pradhan of the village, it is fully established  that

the accused was very much present in the house  on  the  fateful  night  and

there was a quarrel between the accused and his wife. In the absence of  any

reason for leaving his house, it can be held that the  accused  remained  in

his house in that night.

The statements of Manuli Devi (PW-1)-mother of  accused,  Bachi  Singh

(Pw-4)- Pradhan and Khimuli Devi (PW-2)-  sister-in-law  also  suggest  that

the accused was last seen with the deceased.

26.   The above narration of chain of circumstantial  evidence  relied  upon

by the prosecution in the present  case  lead  to  the  inference  that  the

accused is guilty for the offence of  murder  of  Himuli  Devi  as  all  the

circumstances taken together lead to only hypothesis of  the  guilt  of  the

accused-appellant. The chain of circumstantial evidence relied upon  by  the

prosecution  is  complete  to  hold  the  accused  guilty  of  the   offence

punishable under Section 302 IPC. We hold that  the  accused-appellant  Khim

Singh was rightly convicted and sentenced under Section  302  IPC  for  life

imprisonment by the learned Sessions Judge as affirmed by the High Court.

27.   As a result, the appeal preferred  by  the  accused-appellant  has  no

force and the same is liable to be dismissed. The  appeal  is,  accordingly,

dismissed.

 2014 – July. Part – http://judis.nic.in/supremecourt/filename=41755

Advertisements

About advocatemmmohan

ADVOCATE

Discussion

Comments are closed.

Blog Stats

  • 1,628,337 hits

ADVOCATE MMMOHAN

archieves

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

Join 1,845 other followers

Follow advocatemmmohan on WordPress.com