- (1.) We are confronted with an extraordinary case where the allegation is that the wife had murdered the husband on the intervening night of March 02 -03, 1994, while they were sleeping in a room in their house. The trial court accepted the prosecution version and convicted the respondent -wife, Malti Bai, under section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and imposed life sentence. On appeal, the High Court reversed the judgment of the trial court, against which this appeal has been preferred by the State.
(2.) THE prosecution case is as follows: Hiralal (deceased) was the husband of Malti Bai (the accused). In between the night of March 02 -03, 1994, the deceased and Malti Bai were sleeping inside the room of their house. In the morning at about 7.00 -8.00 a.m., when Chammu (PW -1), father of the deceased, came back from his field, he was informed by his elder daughter -in -law that Hiralal was not opening the door. Later, PW -1 went to nearby house to get milk where he was informed that the deceased and the respondent had not woken up. PW -1 came back and entered the room where he found the deceased lying dead with an injury on the neck and blood was oozing from the wounds. Malti Bai was not seen there, but later found in a kothi. On hearing the hue and cry, Kotwar Miththu, Mukaddam Ram Kumar and Ishwar Prasad arrived at the spot. PW -1, along with Kotwar Miththu went to lodge a report with the Police Station at Bankhedi. After completing investigation, charge was framed against the respondent -wife for the offence under Section 302 IPC, which was denied by the respondent who requested for a trial. Prosecution examined 15 witnesses and placed Exhibits P -1 to P -22 in support of its case. There was no evidence from the side of the defence. We notice that there is no eye witness to the occurrence and the entire case rests upon circumstantial evidence. The principle that has to be applied in such circumstances has been laid down in this Court in K.V. Chacko @ Kunju v. State of Kerala, (2001) 9 SCC 277, wherein this Court has held as under: "5. The law regarding basing a conviction by the courts on circumstantial evidence is well settled. When a case rests upon circumstantial evidence, such evidence must satisfy three tests: (1) the circumstances from which an inference of guilt is sought to be drawn, must be cogently and firmly established; (2) those circumstances should be of a definite tendency unerringly pointing towards the guilt of the accused; (3) the circumstances, taken cumulatively, should form a chain so complete that there is no escape from the conclusion that within all human probability the crime was committed by the accused and none else. The circumstantial evidence in order to sustain conviction must also be complete and incapable of explanation of any other hypothesis than that of the guilt of the accused. The circumstantial evidence should not only be consistent with the guilt of the accused but should be inconsistent with his innocence."
(3.) THIS Court in State of Andhra Pradesh v. I.B.S. Prasada Rao, (1969) 3 SCC 896 pointed out that it is trite law that before conviction can be based solely on circumstantial evidence, it must be proved that the circumstances were such as to be conclusive of the guilt of the accused that were incapable of explanation on any hypothesis consistent with the innocence of the accused. We notice that the trial court, while finding the respondent guilty, laid considerable reliance on the following circumstances: "(i) in in (sic) between the night of 2nd and 3rd March, 1994, the appellant slept with the deceased inside the room; (ii) a false story has been thrusted by appellant that she slept in 'varaanda'; (iii) her hands and legs were loosely tied; (iv) the defence put forth by accused that she was in her menses has not been proved by her and, therefore, she was sleeping in the 'varaanda' separately from her husband (the deceased), is not proved; (v) accused/appellant in dramatic manner presented herself that she was unconscious at the time when she was taken out from the kothi." We have to examine whether the circumstances narrated above satisfy the test laid down by this Court in the rulings noted above. PW -1, the author of the FIR (Exhibit P -20), deposed that the respondent and the deceased were sleeping together in their room and in the morning on the date of incident, his elder daughter -in -law informed that they had not woken up. Later, when he entered the room, he found the deceased dead with injuries on his neck. Initially, he was under the impression that both the deceased as well as the respondent were dead. But the respondent was later found in a portion of the kothi with her hands tied by a blouse and legs were tied by a rope. Her upper parts of the body were totally exposed and she was not wearing anything on the upper parts of the body. PW -1 has categorically stated in his evidence that the relationship between the deceased and the respondent was cordial, though in the FIR it was stated that the relationship was not good.;