12 Years After Murder Conviction, Madhya Pradesh High Court Acquits Man Convicted For Wife's Alleged Murder

The division bench comprising Justices Sujoy Paul and Prakash Chandra Gupta observed that no matter how strong the suspension, it cannot be relied upon as proof.

"So far ocular evidence of Gopal Prasad (PW-1) and Shanti Bai (PW- 2) is concerned wherein they deposed that appellant fled away from the room where his wife was found dead, it is apposite to note that it is nobody's case that they were present at the time of commission of crime and they had seen the appellant fleeing away from the scene of crime. In this backdrop, the prosecution must have produce some evidence to corroborate their oral evidence. In absence thereof and in view of defective 'site map', we are unable to hold that factum of escaping from scene of crime by appellant is satisfactorily established by the prosecution. The prosecution, no doubt, could establish its case that cause of death of Sangeeta is rupture of trachea and not the burn injuries. However, unless it is established with accuracy and precision that it was appellant, who has committed the said murder. Appellant cannot be held guilty merely on the basis of suspicion. It is trite that suspicion however, strong it may be, cannot take the place of proof."

The appellant Manoj in July 2010 was convicted for murdering his wife Sangeeta. As per the prosecution story, on the date of the incident in 2008, Manoj around midnight told Sangeeta's uncle Balram that she "has set herself ablaze". Balram then reached Manoj's house where the door was found to be locked from the inside. They broke the door open and found Sangeeta dead. 

The medical report stated that the cause of death was rupture of trachea and not burn injuries. Accordingly, the FIR was registered against Manoj for offences punishable U/S 302, 304-B IPC. The trial court acquitted him from the offence U/S 304-B IPC but found him guilty U/S 302 IPC. Aggrieved, the appellant preferred an appeal before the Court against his conviction.

The Appellant submitted before the Court that the case of the Prosecution was that he murdered his wife and fled the scene. However, there was just one exit point in the room, which was locked from the inside.

Referring to the site map prepared by the Police, the Appellant argued that there was no other way to exit the room other than the said door. There were also no signs of the walls being broken from the inside. Thus, it was asserted that there was no way that the Appellant could have murdered his wife and escaped the scene by locking the door from the inside. He further pointed out the relevant portions from the testimonies given by the witnesses wherein they had admitted that the people had to break the door open to enter the premises where they found the deceased. Thus, it was prayed that there were material inconsistencies in the case of the Prosecution and therefore, his conviction be set aside.

Per contra, the State argued that the medical report had categorically stated that the deceased died due to rupture of trachea and not burn injuries. It was, thus, submitted that considering the heinous nature of crime and the evidence brought on record, no case was made out for interference in the conviction of the Appellant.

Examining the submissions of parties and trial court record, the Court found substance in the arguments put forth by the Appellant. It noted that the testimonies of witnesses made it clear that the door was locked from the inside.

"All these witnesses candidly deposed that said door was broken with the help of a sabbal and door was lying on the courtyard of the house when spot map was prepared," said the bench.

It further took note of the site map prepared by the police which indicated that there was no exit point in the room other than the door which was locked from the inside. 

"There is no iota of indication in the 'site map' that any wall of the room where deceased was found was a kachcha wall or its bricks were removed in order to make a place for fleeing. Thus, apart from oral statement of Gopal Prasad (PW-1) and Shanti Bai (PW-2) and uncle (PW-4), there is no other material to substantiate that appellant fled away from the room after murdering the deceased by removing the bricks," said the court.

With the aforesaid observations, the court held that the prosecution had not established its case beyond reasonable doubt. Accordingly, the appeal was allowed and the conviction of the Appellant was set aside.