S.8 Evidence Act | From False NCR To Absconding: Allahabad High Court Weighs Man's 'Conduct' To Uphold Conviction For Wife's Murder

A bench of Justice Rajnish Kumar and Justice Babita Rani thus dismissed the jail appeal filed by the convict (Pawan Kumar), who challenged a 2016 judgment of a Hardoi Sessions Court convicting him under Sections 302 and 201 IPC.

Case in brief

According to the prosecution's case, the accused informed his father-in-law (the complainant) on May 6, 2014, that his wife (the victim) had gone away two nights earlier and was absconding. The family kept searching for her but could not find her.

To mislead the family, the accused claimed that his wife (victim) had eloped with a co-villager. Acting on his complete suspicion of their illicit relations, the accused lodged a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) on May 17, 2014.

However, on May 22, 2014, the complainant came to know that the accused had actually murdered the victim and buried her body near a local pond. When confronted by the father, the accused confessed to the murder and showed the place where he had buried the dead body,

Thereafter, he immediately fled the scene. The police later recovered a decomposed skeletonized body alongside a piece of plastic rope with a knot from the indicated ditch.

High Court's observations

Because the entire case rested on circumstantial evidence, the High Court examined the prosecution's case in view of the 'Panchsheel' principle (five golden principles) laid down by the Supreme Court in Sharad Biridhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra.

The bench observed that, in such cases, based on circumstantial evidence, the conduct of the accused prior to, at, and after the incident also plays an important role and may corroborate the prosecution's case.

The bench noted that the accused's conduct prior to, during, and after the crime formed an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to his guilt.

Referring to Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, the High Court observed that the provision makes the previous or subsequent conduct of an accused admissible if it has a "close nexus" with the fact in issue.

Relying on the Supreme Court's judgment in State (NCT of Delhi) Vs. Navjot Sandhu, the bench noted that an accused's conduct 'speaks of itself' and is a direct product of motive or preparation.

The Court specifically referred to Illustration (i) of Section 8, which explicitly provides that absconding after the commission of an alleged crime, or attempting to conceal things used in its commission, are highly relevant facts in determining guilt.

The Court highlighted several specific instances of the appellant's behaviour that fell squarely within the ambit of Section 8 of the Evidence Act, which makes the previous or subsequent conduct of an accused admissible if it influences or is influenced by a fact in issue.

The Court pointed out that the following factors were indicative of his 'relevant conduct':

• He used to quarrel with his wife and harboured a strong, unfounded suspicion on account of her alleged illicit relations
• Due to constant harassment, the victim had fled to her father's house, and the accused brought his wife back under the false assurance and compromise that he would not harm her.
• He waited two days before informing his father-in-law that Kusuma had "absconded". When a search was initiated, he attempted to mislead the investigation by claiming she had eloped with the co-villager.
• He lodged a Non-Cognizable Report (NCR) 13 days after her disappearance, wherein he accused the co-villager of abducting his wife so as to throw off suspicion.
• When his father-in-law came to know about the murder of the deceased by the accused/appellant and asked him rigorously, he confessed to having murdered her and showed the place of concealment of the dead body, and thereafter, he absconded.

Thus, the Court concluded that the conduct of the appellant showed his complicity in the murder of his wife and refers towards the guilt of the appellant only and supports the prosecution's case.

Furthermore, the bench also noted that after his arrest, the appellant led the police to his house, wherein the spade was recovered that was used to dig the grave. The Court found that pointing out the concealed weapon was admissible as 'conduct' under Section 8 Evidence Act and further strengthened the prosecution's case.

On the other hand, the accused's counsel attempted to doubt the prosecution's narrative by arguing that the recovered remains were skeletonized and claimed that a body could not decompose to a skeleton within just 3 weeks, thereby questioning the identity of the deceased.

The bench, however, dismissed this argument, as it relied on the Supreme Court's judgment in Uttarakhand Vs Darshan Singh 2019, to stress that a medical witness's opinion is only an opinion and need not be the last word on the subject.

The Court also referred to Modi's Medical Jurisprudence, noting that in a vast country like India, climatic conditions vary so much across different parts that it is impossible to give an exact time at which putrefactive processes develop in a dead body.

Thus, the bench concluded that the prosecution's case is fully established through strong circumstantial evidence and relevant conduct and the chain of circumstances was complete and conclusive. Therefore, the High Court dismissed the appeal and confirmed the life sentence.