Achampet

MURDER OF WIFE= In Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681, this Court held as under: “Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of crime they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime.”= inescapable conclusion that appellant had been doubting the character of his wife and therefore, had adequate motive to eliminate her. In spite of the fact that he had been in the same room, he failed to furnish any explanation as under what circumstances his wife was found dead. Particularly, in view of the fact that the courts below had excluded the theory of suicide. The same conclusion stands fully fortified by the fact that the saree of deceased was lying in the corner of the room and the version given by the appellant that he had found his wife hanging with a saree around her neck and he cut the same by knife stands fully falsified as in such a fact-situation, part of the saree should have been found hanging with the ceiling of the room. The conduct of the appellant that he had given a false information to his in-laws and while dead body was lying in his house he stayed in a Krishna Guest House; further that he had absconded from the city itself, suggest that he is guilty of the offence. 20. In view of the above, we do not find any cogent reason to interfere with the judgments and orders of the courts below. The appeal lacks merit, and is accordingly dismissed.

Page 1     REPORTABLE IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 2038 of 2011 Ravirala Laxmaiah …Appellant Versus State of A.P. …Respondent J U D G M E N T Dr. B.S. CHAUHAN, J. 1. This appeal has been preferred against the judgment and order dated 13.7.2010, passed by the … Continue reading →