The Supreme Court today has reserved its judgment in an appeal filed by a couple convicted and sentenced to five years for culpable homicide not amounting to murder of a man who had an affair with their married daughter
The trial court had convicted father, mother and daughter for murder with a common intention and sentenced them to life imprisonment however when appealed in the high court the order was changed.
The High Court after hearing the matter,converted conviction for murder to culpable homicide and sentenced the parents for a five years imprisonment and set aside the conviction of their daughter.
A three-judge bench led by the Chief Justice NV Ramana,Justice Krishna Murari and Justice Hima Kohli have reserved their judgment.
During the hearing today CJI NV Ramana has pointed out that even after the punishment of life imprisonment was ruled out and the high court gave five years, you still ain’t happy .You want that your story should be believed. If you go ahead, judgment will be against you.
Also Read: ONGC vs Afcons: Supreme Court hears submissions on separate fees
Petitioners counsel replied, Yes milord.
She took the court through the facts of the case. “No clear chain prosecution has established. Therefore we have to rely on scientific evidence,” she said.
Justice Krishna Murari asked that in the presence of 60-70 people in a place ,how can it be possible that someone sneaks into a house and commit a murder and leave without anyone noticing.
Counsel replied, that there were more than more than 60 people in the hose during the murder. He also said that media was there and so were many other people , so the blame cannot be foxed on me only.
CJI asked, that the statement statement under falls under 313 CrPC(Power to examine the accused) how would you explain?
Justice Hima Kohli pointed out that the body of deceased was burnt with Acid., to which the petitioner claimed of having no acid bottles recovered from him.
Justice Hima Kohli pointed out to counsel, it’s was not a case of burglary.as you knew the person so how did it happen.
Petitioner counsel relied upon first FIR and said, please see the first FIR, if there was dead body inside the house how could that dead body be missing in it (FIR).
Also Read: Supreme Court: LDCE is providing another chance for improvement to junior officers for promotion
State counsel submitted that acid has been poured on the deceased and face completely burnt.
CJI asked to State Counsel, Where the acid come from?
Petitioner counsel replied, Please check the IO statement PW11, he had not seized any acid bottle.
CJI as per PW10, the acid smell was coming from his (deceased) mouth and he might have died consuming acid.
Petitioner replied, that he does not deny presence of acid but wonders why the blame is in him, ho could he have procured acid.
Justice Hima Kohli posed a questions to PW9.
CJI posed questions as to how did he die? He clearly said that “It’s admitted case that deceased had a love affair with your daughter and he came into your house.
CJI inquired how could the Mob have killed him? There has to be a proper explanation. Why didn’t you explained it under 313CrPC. It’s rightly held under 313 CrPC that the accused has right to bring an explanation in his defence. We are unable to understand the gathering of people.
Petitioners counsel replied that if an incident has happened in closed door the burden is on prosecution to explain. (Judgment relied upon)
Also Read: Status Quo in Jahangirpuri demolition case: Supreme Court
She said, as per the Doctor’s statement death was due to asphyxia occasioned due to compression of lower part of neck which resulted in blockage of upper end of trachea and causing death.
According to doctor the deceased was assaulted by two or more people with acid and blunt objects. Death was homicidal in nature and 12 to 18 hours had lapsed from the time he had demised before the post-mortem examination clearly explained report of the deceased is Ext 3.
She further stated that it was not because of the couple as they already left for hospital and had been examined at 8:30 PM. According to Post-mortem report of the deceased he was alive when couple had their medical examination in hospital. It is the duty of prosecution to find out who has committed the murder.
“Judgment reserved,” said the bench.
High Court findings
The High Court had noted, “Ab-initio, it is discernible that the present is one of those peculiar cases where the genesis of the incident commenced inside the house of the appellant and the disclosures made by them to the landlord.
Also Read: India bound by assurance to Portugal on Abu Salem: Union Home Secretary to Supreme Court
Follow up investigation by the police surfaced that the deceased was actually throttled to death by the appellants and they are the real perpetrators of crime hence they were charge sheeted and faced trial and were convicted.
Thus the prosecution had to face a piquant problem of establishing the crime with the disclosures made by the appellants and consequently it has examined three sets of witnesses.
First reference is regarding appellants’ version about incident of the deceased being the intruder burglar who had assaulted Al and A2 who were saved by the landlord and collected people,
Second set of prosecution witnesses consisting of PWs 7 8 and 12, disclosed motive and the appellants being the real culprits who had called the deceased and annihilated him, and third set consists of formal and investigatory witnesses.”
After considering the witness statement and prosecutions case the high court had opined so far as involvement of daughter is concerned, she had no role to play in the actual incident and hence she cannot be determined to be abettor of crime nor she can be held liable with the aid of section-34 IPC of having shared the common intention with rest of the accused.
Also Read: Supreme Court cancels bail granted by Rajasthan High Court over not checking facts
The high court had further stated,
“Cogitating over the offence committed by A1 and A2, it emerges from meticulous examination of record and roving inquiry into various facets of cropped up issues, that in their respect also the impugned judgment is faulty and unsustainable. Learned Trial Court has completely ignored significant admitted facts and his entire exercise is pedantic and erroneous. Even on unassailable admitted facts these appellants could have been held guilty of murder for too many reasons and at the worst their crime will traverse ambit l and scope of culpable homicide amounting to murder punishable under section 304 (II) IPC L only Real possibility of existence of grave and sudden provocation was very imminent and was well discernible from admitted evidences itself, which seems to be the actual fact. We invigorate our opinion by pointing out that the deceased seems to have approached house of the appellants armed with Katari or Bhujali This he must have carried with him for the reason that in case need be he will safeguard himself from it or use it as weapon. It is undeniable fact that death of the deceased was preceded with a scuffle in which both A1 and A2 had sustained serious injuries by sharp edged weapon and they had genuine and real apprehension regarding safety of their persons. Hence irrefutable conclusion is that grave and sudden provocation was in existence and throttling of the deceased took place amidst such an atmosphere.”–