Supreme Court overturns conviction in murder case: Smt. Gargi vs. State of Haryana (2019)

Date of the Judgment: 19th September 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 917
Judges: A.M. Khanwilkar, J., Dinesh Maheshwari, J.
Can a conviction for murder be upheld solely on circumstantial evidence, even when significant doubts exist about the prosecution’s case? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this critical question in a case where a wife was accused of murdering her husband. The Court examined the evidence, highlighting the shortcomings in the investigation and the unreliability of key witnesses. This judgment emphasizes the importance of a complete and unbroken chain of evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The bench comprised Justices A.M. Khanwilkar and Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justice Maheshwari authoring the judgment.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Tirloki Nath, whose body was found hanging in his house on May 1, 1997. The prosecution alleged that his wife, Smt. Gargi, the appellant, murdered him and then staged it as a suicide with the help of her brothers. The prosecution’s case rested on circumstantial evidence, claiming that the couple had a strained relationship and that Tirloki Nath had expressed fears that his wife might kill him. The appellant, however, maintained that she and her husband had a cordial relationship and that the allegations were fabricated by her husband’s brother, Brij Bhushan Kaul, who wanted to grab the property.

Timeline:

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court convicted Smt. Gargi and her brothers for murder and criminal conspiracy. On appeal, the High Court of Punjab and Haryana upheld Smt. Gargi’s conviction but acquitted her brothers, finding insufficient evidence of conspiracy. The High Court agreed that the death was a homicide and that Smt. Gargi had failed to explain the circumstances of her husband’s death, especially since they shared the same bedroom. The High Court also noted that the deceased had expressed fear of his wife and that she had a motive to kill him due to their strained relations. The matter then reached the Supreme Court.

Legal Framework

The case primarily involves Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), which defines the punishment for murder. The prosecution argued that the circumstances pointed to Smt. Gargi’s guilt under this section. The Supreme Court also considered Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with the burden of proving facts especially within one’s knowledge. The High Court had used this section to hold that the onus was on Smt. Gargi to explain her husband’s death, given that he was found dead in their shared home. Additionally, the court considered Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act, which deals with statements made by a person who is dead, particularly in cases where the cause of death is in question.

The relevant sections are quoted below:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): “Punishment for murder.—Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or [imprisonment for life], and shall also be liable to fine.”
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act: “Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.—When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”
• Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act: “Cases in which statement of relevant fact by person who is dead or cannot be found, etc., is relevant.—Statements, written or verbal, of relevant facts made by a person who is dead, or who cannot be found, or who has become incapable of giving evidence, or whose attendance cannot be procured without an amount of delay or expense, which, under the circumstances of the case, appears to the Court unreasonable, are themselves relevant facts in the following cases:—(1) when it relates to cause of death.—When the statement is made by a person as to the cause of his death, or as to any of the circumstances of the transaction which resulted in his death, in cases in which the cause of that person’s death comes into question.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• Smt. Gargi argued that she was falsely implicated by her in-laws, who wanted to grab her husband’s property.
• She stated that she had a cordial relationship with her husband and that they were living happily with their children.
• She contended that the prosecution failed to establish a motive for her to kill her husband.
• She argued that the investigation was flawed, with the police failing to record statements of key witnesses and collect crucial evidence.
• She submitted that the medical evidence did not conclusively prove strangulation, as there were no scratches, bruises, or fractures of the hyoid bone, which are usually present in cases of strangulation.
• She argued that the act of strangulation and hanging the body could not have been carried out by one person alone.
• She also argued that the alleged last statement of the deceased to his brother, Brij Bhushan Kaul, cannot be taken as a dying declaration.
• She relied on the fact that her brothers were acquitted, which broke the chain of circumstances against her.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The State argued that the death was homicidal, not suicidal, based on medical evidence and the position of the body.
• The State contended that Smt. Gargi had a motive to kill her husband due to their strained relationship and her alleged illicit relations.
• They argued that the deceased had expressed fear of being killed by his wife.
• The State submitted that Smt. Gargi was the last person seen with her husband and failed to provide an explanation for his death.
• They contended that Smt. Gargi’s conduct after the incident was suspicious.
• The State argued that the circumstances formed a complete chain, pointing to Smt. Gargi’s guilt.

The innovativeness of the arguments by the appellant was in highlighting the lapses in the investigation and the lack of concrete evidence linking her to the crime. The respondent’s arguments were based on the circumstantial evidence and the deceased’s alleged fear of his wife.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court framed the following key issues:

1. Whether the death of Tirloki Nath was homicidal or suicidal?
2. Whether the prosecution has established the circumstances to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond reasonable doubt?
3. Whether the High Court was right in upholding the conviction of the appellant while acquitting the co-accused?

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues

Authorities

The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:

Judgment

The Supreme Court overturned the High Court’s decision and acquitted Smt. Gargi. The Court found that while the death was indeed a homicide, the prosecution failed to establish a complete chain of circumstances linking Smt. Gargi to the crime beyond reasonable doubt. The Court highlighted the following:

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court reiterated the principles laid down in Chandmal and Anr. v. State of Rajasthan (1976) 1 SCC 621* and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116*, emphasizing that circumstantial evidence must form a complete chain, leaving no room for reasonable doubt.
• The Court referred to Hanumanth v. State of Madhya Pradesh AIR 1952 SC 343* and Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra (1973) 2 SCC 793* to highlight the distinction between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ in establishing guilt.
• The Court followed Ramesh v. State of Rajasthan (2011) 3 SCC 685*, stressing the need for a perfect chain of circumstances.
• The Court cited Sawal Das v. State of Bihar (1974) 4 SCC 193* to clarify that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden.
• The Court referred to SK. Yusuf v. State of West Bengal (2011) 11 SCC 754* to explain the application of the last seen theory.
• The Court referred to Pakala Narayana Swami v. The King-Emperor AIR 1939 PC 47* to discuss the admissibility of statements made by a deceased person.
• The Court referred to Modi: A textbook of Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 26th Edition to explain the medical aspects of strangulation.
• The Court considered Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code to highlight the punishment for murder.
• The Court considered Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to highlight the burden of proof.
• The Court considered Section 32(1) of the Indian Evidence Act to discuss the statements of a deceased person.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the numerous shortcomings in the prosecution’s case. The Court emphasized the lack of a clear motive, the unreliable testimony of key witnesses, and the flawed investigation. The Court also noted that the acquittal of the co-accused broke the chain of circumstances, making it difficult to conclude that Smt. Gargi was the sole perpetrator. The Court’s reasoning was driven by the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that excludes any other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused.

The Court’s reasoning was driven by the principle that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of evidence that excludes any other reasonable hypothesis except the guilt of the accused. The court also emphasized that the burden of proof always remains on the prosecution and that the accused is not obligated to prove their innocence.

The Court considered alternative interpretations, such as the possibility that someone else could have committed the murder, given the direct access to the room and the fact that the deceased was regularly on tour. The Court rejected the High Court’s view that Smt. Gargi was obligated to explain her husband’s death, emphasizing that the burden of proof always remains on the prosecution.

The majority opinion was delivered by Justice Dinesh Maheshwari, with Justice A.M. Khanwilkar concurring. There were no dissenting opinions in this case.

The Court quoted the following from the judgment:

• “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.”
• “Certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a court can convict and the mental distance between ‘may be’ and ‘must be’ is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.”
• “The last seen theory comes into play where the time gap between the point of time when the accused and the deceased were last seen alive and when the deceased is found dead is so small that possibility of any person other than the accused being the author of the crime becomes impossible.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that points towards the guilt of the accused, leaving no room for reasonable doubt.
• The burden of proof always remains on the prosecution, and the accused is not obligated to prove their innocence.
• The ‘last seen theory’ cannot be applied if the time gap between the last sighting and the discovery of the body is significant.
• Flawed investigations and unreliable witnesses can lead to the overturning of a conviction.
• The acquittal of co-accused can weaken the prosecution’s case against the remaining accused, especially when the crime requires more than one perpetrator.

This judgment sets a precedent for future cases, emphasizing the need for thorough investigations and reliable evidence in cases based on circumstantial evidence. It also highlights the importance of the prosecution meeting its burden of proof, rather than relying on the accused to explain their innocence.

Directions

The Supreme Court set aside the conviction of Smt. Gargi and ordered her release, canceling her bail bonds and discharging her sureties.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, the prosecution must establish a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances that points towards the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt. The Court also reiterated that the burden of proof always remains on the prosecution and that the accused is not obligated to prove their innocence. This case reinforces the principles established in previous judgments regarding circumstantial evidence and the last seen theory, ensuring a high standard of proof in criminal cases.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s decision to acquit Smt. Gargi underscores the importance of a robust and impartial justice system. The Court’s meticulous examination of the evidence revealed significant flaws in the prosecution’s case, leading to the conclusion that the prosecution failed to prove Smt. Gargi’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. This judgment serves as a reminder that convictions cannot be based on mere suspicion or conjecture but must be supported by concrete evidence and a complete chain of circumstances.