Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of A Death Row Convict By High Court

The Supreme Court recently upheld the decision of Madhya Pradesh High Court which acquitted an accused who was awarded death sentence by the Trial Court for the alleged murder of his wife on the ground that prosecution has failed to prove the circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery, and extra judicial confession) beyond reasonable doubt.The three judge bench comprising Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul, Justice Manoj Misra and Justice Aravind Kumar raised doubts at the prosecution case and observed that there were several doubts regarding the disclosure statement, recovery and extra-judicial confession.“In light thereof, considering that the place of occurrence was an open place and the other circumstances (i.e. motive, disclosure, recovery and extra judicial confession) were not proved beyond reasonable doubt, shifting the burden on the accused to explain the circumstances in which the deceased sustained injuries, or to demonstrate that he parted company of the deceased, would not be justified in the facts of the case", the judgment authored by Justice Manoj Misra observed.FactsThe accused-respondent was unhappy that his wife (the deceased) had kept her jewellery with her sister (PW8). On February 01, 2010, at around 2 p.m., the accused came to the house of PW2, while PW8 was there, fought with PW8 and told her that he would his wife and set the house on fire.When PW2 returned from his shop at around 7 p.m., on getting the above information, he telephoned PW4, daughter of the deceased, who informed PW2 that her father had taken her mother on a bicycle towards the field while making utterances that he would kill her.On receipt of information from PW4, PW2 came to the village where the deceased resided and went to search her out with the help of a person and PW2’s brother-in-law (PW3). During the course of search, they found the deceased lying seriously injured between the railway tracks. They rushed her to Hospital but, on way, she succumbed to her injuries.An FIR was lodged by PW2 stating the above-mentioned facts on February 01, 2010 at 9:30 p.m. The Trial Court while placing reliance upon the testimony of PW4, convicted the accused and awarded him death sentence under Section 302 of IPC and 7 years of rigorous imprisonment under Section 201 of IPC. However, the Madhya Pradesh High Court at Jabalpur vide impugned judgment and order dated December 11, 2015 set aside the order of conviction and sentence including death penalty awarded to the respondent by the Trial Court and acquitted the accused-respondent. Hence, the State of Madhya Pradesh filed the Special Leave Petition (SLP) before the Supreme Court.ArgumentsThe Counsel appearing for the State submitted before the Court that the testimony of PW4 (daughter of the deceased) is straightforward and coupled with other evidences establish beyond reasonable doubt the following:that there used to be fights/quarrels between the deceased and the accused;that on the fateful day, there was a quarrel between the two; andthat soon after the quarrel the deceased was taken on a bicycle by the appellant to the field and shortly thereafter near the hut/field of the accused, on a railway track, the deceased was found in a seriously injured state suggesting that she was badly assaulted.It was further submitted that it is a case where the deceased had died at around 8 p.m. on February 01, 2010, the FIR was promptly lodged at 9:30 p.m. narrating the circumstances in which the incident occurred and those circumstances have been confirmed by the testimony of prosecution witnesses therefore, even if subsequent story of confession/recovery is discarded, the proven circumstances by itself form a chain so complete as to sustain conviction of the accused as justifiably recorded by the trial court.On the other hand, the Counsel appearing for the accused-respondent contended that the testimony of PW4, does not inspire confidence as it is found unreliable on several aspects therefore, being the sole witness of the circumstance that the deceased was taken from home by the accused, could not on its own form the basis of conviction.It was further argued that High Court is a final court of fact and the view of the High Court is not in ignorance of any evidence or by misreading any piece of evidence therefore, no interference with it is called for, particularly when the case rests on circumstantial evidence.Court’s ObservationThe Supreme Court noted that the prosecution relied upon the following circumstances:Motive Disclosure Statement and RecoveryExtra Judicial Confession Accused taking the deceased with him and soon thereafter the deceased was found in an injured state.The Court examined each of the above-mentioned circumstances as follows:a) MotiveThe Court noted:“According to the prosecution, the appellant and the deceased used to quarrel because the deceased had kept her jewellery with her sister. However, the above reason for the quarrel was not found proved because the...

Supreme Court Upholds Acquittal Of A Death Row Convict By High Court

Udit Singh

Tags