Read Time: 13 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has said that unless it is demonstrated that there is some manifest illegality or perversity in the conclusions recorded by the trial court while arriving at the finding of guilt of the accused, an acquittal ordinarily should not be reversed.

Where two views are possible, it is also trite that the one taken by the trial court to acquit the accused, if found to be a plausible one, cannot be upset lightly by the appellate court. The presumption of innocence available to an accused gets further fortified by the acquittal entered by the trial court, a bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K Vinod Chandran said.

The court allowed the appeal by Jagdish Gond against the high court's order, which set aside the trial court's order acquitting him in a case related to unnatural death of his wife after having found absolutely no circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused.

"True, the young woman, who was married just two years back died, tragically, at the house of the husband. There is no evidence to show that the husband was available on the ill fated night when the death occurred," it said. 

The husband–accused had a plausible explanation that he was on duty when the death of his wife occurred. It was the husband who first intimated the police about the sudden and unnatural death of his wife. The relatives of the deceased having come to the matrimonial house of the deceased on the very same day of the death, did not raise any suspicion as to the death being homicidal. It was after five days that a complaint was registered, alleging suicide by reason of the constant complaints raised against the deceased by her husband and in-laws; which remained largely unsubstantiated, the court pointed out.  

Dealing with an appeal against reversal of the acquittal, the court said, the high court unfortunately reversed the acquittal without anything other than a finding on alibi having not been proved and the accused not having offered any explanation regarding the death of the deceased, which occurred while they were living together.

The fact of absence of the accused at the time of occurrence, having been categorically stated in the first intimation, we find the high court’s conclusion that it was his duty to establish the alibi is flawed, the bench said.

The husband filed a complaint with the police that on January 28, 2017 at around 9 O’clock, he had gone to the cement factory for labour work and on his return at 6 AM on January 29, 2017, he saw his wife lying supine on her cot. After having entered the house by breaking open the door, which was closed from the inside, he immediately informed his parents and also the Ward Panch.          

"We cannot also agree with the finding of the High Court regarding the effect of Section 106, placing reliance on the decision of this Court in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan Vs State of Maharashtra (2006)," the bench said.

The court pointed out the said decision is an authority for the principle that when an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife; if the prosecution establishes that shortly before the crime, they were seen together or the offence takes place in the dwelling home where the husband also resides, then if the accused does not offer any explanation or offers an explanation which is palpably false; that would be a strong circumstance, establishing his culpability in the crime. However, it cannot be the sole circumstance leading to the conclusion of guilt on the part of the accused husband.  

In the present case, the bench noted that the accused had also offered an explanation that he had gone for duty at the cement factory; which was also mentioned in the first intimation given by the accused. The police inquired about his presence at the factory to disprove his alibi. Even before the FIR was registered, the intimation recorded clearly indicated this fact. The explanation was not one offered as an after-thought nor can it be termed to be false or even an improbable one, court opined. 

A mere suspicion cannot lead to a finding of guilt, especially when there is not available a chain of circumstances, unequivocally pointing to the guilt of the accused in the alleged crime, as has been held in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs State of Maharashtra (1984), the bench said.

"The alibi being a possible and probable explanation, the accused cannot also be found to be in the teeth of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. We find that there was not enough material to upset the order of acquittal of the Trial Court, especially when there was also no evidence led regarding the death being a result of homicide," the bench said.

In the case, the doctor who conducted the postmortem had categorically deposed that the ligature mark was only found on the front part of the neck. Other witnesses also deposed so. There were no ante-mortem injuries noticed in the inquest report or the postmortem.     

"Hence, there was no clarity as to whether the death was homicidal. We would not venture, as far as the Trial Court did, to find the death to be a suicide. But the fact remains that it has not been established to be homicide," the bench said.

Considering the fact that there was a charge laid under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, the court looked at the depositions of the related witnesses which was only to the effect that the in-laws of the deceased used to complain that the deceased was lazy, sick and slept throughout the day. 

There is absolutely no allegation of any physical violence on the deceased. Nor are there any injuries found on the body, immediately before the incident, which could lead to such an allegation, it noted.

Thus, the bench held, "We do not find a single circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused, leave alone, a chain of circumstances fully establishing the guilt of the accused and excluding every possible hypothesis, except that of guilt".

Case Title: Jagdish Gond Vs State of Chhattisgarh