Delhi HC Acquits Suhaib Ilyasi After Holding His Wife Committed Suicide [Read Judgment]

Did Suhaib Ilyasi murder his wife or was it a case of suicide?The Delhi High Court on Friday concluded that it was a case of suicide thereby acquitting Ilyasi, who had been held guilty of murdering his wife by a trial court in December, 2017 and sentenced to life imprisonment.“The learned Additional Sessions Judge, Shahdara District, Karkardooma Courts, Delhi in a judgment dated 16th December 2017, which is under appeal here, held that the Appellant had indeed murdered the deceased. We, however, think not,” said a bench of Justice S Muralidhar and Justice Vinod Goel.Senior Advocate Rebecca M John and Advocate Rajiv Mohan argued the appeal for IlyasiIlyasi’s wife Anju was found in a wounded condition at their house in Mayur Vihar in east Delhi. She was raced to Virmani Nursing Home and then to AIIMS where she breathed her last on the intervening night of January 10-11, 2000.Ilyasi was booked under Sections 498A and 304B of IPC in 2003 for subjected Anju to harassment, mental and physical cruelty for dowry, leading to her unnatural death within seven years of marriage.He was, however, acquitted in this case.Thereafter, an application was filed before the trial court by Rukma Singh (PW-6), the mother of the deceased, seeking the framing of an additional charge under Sections 302/468/471/201 IPC. This application was dismissed by the trial court on February 19, 2011.Pursuant to the order of the high court, the trial court framed additional charge of murder against Ilyasi on September 6, 2014.The bench meticulously examined the evidence before it and concluded that it was not a case of murder and even the report of five-member medical board do not have any specific reason to conclude it was a case of murder.The first blow to the prosecution version was that it never challenged Ilyasi’s acquittal in case of dowry harassment and then went on to prosecute him for murder on the strength of evidence already collected and without recalling any of its witnesses.Another major loophole in prosecution case was the findings of the five-member medical board which was constituted in year 2012 in light of the differing opinions of the three-member medical board and submitted its unanimous opinion in year 2014 saying the preponderance of evidence submitted in this case points towards commission of homicide.The court noted that there was no evidence to support such a finding of the five-member medical board who did not even have chance to look at the recording of the post-mortem.The bench also noted that the additional charge of murder was framed against Ilyasi on the statement of Rashmi Singh, sister of Ilyasi’s wife Anju, who could not be ruled out to be an interested witness and the appellant had alleged that she had been interested in taking away their daughter.The high court summarised its conclusion as under: The trial court held that the testimonies of PWs 6 (Anju’s mother Rukma Singh), 18 (Anju’s sister Reeta), and 20 (Anju’s sister Rashmi), to the effect that the appellant had subjected the deceased to harassment and cruelty in connection with a demand for dowry not only after the marriage but also shortly prior to her death, were not believable. The said finding which resulted in the acquittal of the appellant of the offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC has not been challenged by the State or the complainant. The report of the five-member medical board contains no specific reasons for the conclusion that the preponderance of evidence in this case points towards “commission of homicide.” The numerous factual errors in the opinion reflect non-application of mind to the relevant materials on the record. A conclusion based on faulty analysis, erroneous or absent facts and with no cogent reasons does not inspire confidence. In view of the evidence of the medical professionals who comprised the first medical board and in light of the medical literature, this court rejects the plea of the prosecution that the medical evidence unmistakably and conclusively proves that the death was homicidal. With there being no matches of the chance prints lifted from the scene of crime with any of the specimen prints of the appellant, the forensic evidence too fails to establish that the death was homicidal. Without the prosecution first proving the „commission of crime‟ the question of shifting the burden to the appellant under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to explain how the death occurred, does not arise. One of the key links in the chain of circumstances, i.e., that the death was homicidal, has not been proved by the prosecution. What has come through both in the medical and forensic evidence is only that the death resulted from stab injuries caused by the kitchen knife which was found in the house. The prosecution’s repeated attempts to read the statement of the appellant made to the SDM at the stage of inquest proceedings under Section 176 CrPC and attempt to glean therefrom an admission on his part is legally...

Delhi HC Acquits Suhaib Ilyasi After Holding His Wife Committed Suicide [Read Judgment]

akanksha jain

Tags