Deciding Authority: The Supreme Court of India
Name of the Judges: N. Santosh Hegde & Doraiswamy Raju
Date of Judgement: 29/01/2002
Facts: The prosecution case is that the appellant was married to one Ruksana Parveen for about 8 years and had two issues out of the said wedlock. The relationship between the husband and wife was not cordial and there used to be constant quarrels between the duo. It was also alleged by the prosecution that the appellant was a wavered person given to bad habits, therefore, his father in order to safeguard the monetary interest of the family, had purchased a house in the name of his wife, and also two cars, apart from investing money in certain FDs. for the benefit of the children which was also in the joint names of the father of the appellant and his wife, thereby excluding the appellant from handling the monetary affairs of the family. It is further stated that on 17.12.1993 there was a quarrel between the deceased and the appellant in regard to the sale of two cars registered in the name of the deceased and the purchase of a new car which was registered in the appellant’s name. Because of the said quarrel, the appellant beat the deceased with a stick earlier on that day. It is further stated that at about 7 p.m. on the fateful day, the appellant came home and called the deceased to the bathroom where he splashed petrol on her which he had kept in a mug and lit the deceased with a candle consequent to which the deceased was engulfed in flames and she ran out of the house into the street and within minutes she was charred to death. The case of the prosecution primarily rested on the evidence of Smt. Nisha, PW-4, the mother of the deceased who, according to the prosecution, was visiting the deceased and the appellant for about a month prior to the date of the ghastly incident. According to PW-4, on the date of the incident, when she and her daughter were present in the house at about 12’O clock, the appellant came to the house and gave beating to her daughter with a stick and left threatening that he will not spare her on that day and that she would be finished and that he would not get the vehicle transferred in her name. Subsequently, at about 6.30 p.m. he again came inside the house, called the deceased who was in her room, sprinkled petrol on her. At that point of time, PW-4 was stated to be on the roof of the house who on hearing the commotion, came down and saw the appellant lighting a candle with a matchstick and throwing the same on her daughter. It is stated that while she tried to help her daughter, her clothes caught fire and were partially burnt. It is also stated by her that her daughter while in flames, ran outside the house and fell down on the road in front of the house. At that time, the appellant fled from there threatening PW-4 that should she report the case to the Police, she will also be finished. It is the further case of the prosecution that on hearing the cries of PW- 4, her elder son Babban came to the spot along with his teacher and both of them went and made a telephonic call to inform the Police. In the meantime, the deceased succumbed to her injuries. Based on the evidence, the trial court came to the conclusion that the appellant was guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 and convicted him to undergo imprisonment for life. The High Court also confirmed the conviction upheld by the trial Court.
Judgement: Mr. K B Sinha, learned senior counsel appearing for the appellant, contended that the Courts below erred in erred in placing reliance on the sole testimony of PW-4 which is contradictory on material facts. Learned counsel submitted that obviously the High Court has not noticed the material improvements made by the witness which would impeach her evidence and if considered in the context of contradiction and improvements in her evidence would show that it was highly improbable that PW-4 would have been present in the house of the deceased at the time of the incident. On perusing the records, the Court is unable to sustain the conviction and sentence awarded to the appellant by the courts below, based on the fact that there was marital discord between the couple and also based on the evidence of PW-4 which, according to this Court, does not inspire confidence to base a conviction. As noticed by this Court hereinabove, PW-4 has made material improvements in her evidence to prove her presence in the house where the incident in question took place. She is a resident of State of Uttar Pradesh and, according to her, she frequently visited her daughter only because there were quarrels between the husband and wife. She had stated in her evidence that at the time of the incident, she was residing with her daughter in the house where the appellant was also residing, for about one month prior to the date of the incident. At the same time, it has come in evidence that her son Babban who was once residing with the appellant in his house, was thrown out of the house by the appellant for his interference in the dispute between the appellant and his wife. Therefore, it is highly improbable that the appellant would have permitted PW- 4 to reside in his house while he was not willing to keep PW- 4’s son in his house. It is also highly improbable that PW-4 would have stayed with the appellant and deceased for about one month when her son who was working independently was residing at a nearby place in Panchkula itself. The conclusion of this Court is further strengthened by the fact that the incident in question is supposed to have taken place at about 7 p.m. but according to evidence on record her statement was recorded only at 10 p.m. after her son had informed the police and this delay also contributes to doubt as to the presence of PW 4 at the time of incident.
Decision:
The appeal is allowed. The conviction and sentence imposed by the lower Courts are set aside.
Sudipta Bhowmick, 4th Year, B.A. LL.B., KIIT School of Law.
A COMPREHENSIVE WEBSITE FOR ALL LEGAL DEVELOPMENTS