Date of the Judgment: 06 November 2019
Citation: 2019 INSC 1234
Judges: Sanjay Kishan Kaul, J., K.M. Joseph, J.
Can a husband be solely convicted for murder when the initial charge involved a group? The Supreme Court addressed this question in a case concerning the death of a young wife, where the husband was convicted under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for murder, while other family members were acquitted. The two-judge bench, consisting of Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul and Justice K.M. Joseph, delivered the judgment, with Justice K.M. Joseph authoring the opinion. This case highlights the complexities of circumstantial evidence and the legal implications of differing trial and appellate court findings.
Case Background
The case revolves around the death of Sultana, the wife of the appellant, Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh. The prosecution alleged that Sultana was murdered by her husband and his family due to dowry demands. Sultana’s father reported that, after the marriage, the accused began demanding half tola gold, a dress, and Rs. 5,000 for a bakery business. He stated that initially, Sultana was treated well, but later, she was harassed and assaulted for not fulfilling these demands. She was also threatened with murder if she didn’t comply. Sultana had returned to her parental home for two months due to the harassment, but was later convinced to return to her matrimonial home by her sister. Eight days before her death, the appellant allegedly visited her sister’s house and reiterated the dowry demands. On March 10, 2005, Sultana was found dead, and the post-mortem report indicated that she had been throttled.
Timeline:
| Date | Event |
|---|---|
| Prior to the incident | Marriage of Sultana and Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh. |
| Prior to the incident | Accused demanded half tola gold, a dress, and Rs. 5,000 for a bakery business from Sultana. |
| Several Months before the incident | Sultana was allegedly maltreated by the accused for not bringing dowry. |
| Two months before the incident | Sultana returned to her parental home due to maltreatment. |
| Eight days before the incident | The appellant allegedly visited Sultana’s sister’s house and reiterated the dowry demands and threatened to kill Sultana if demands were not met. |
| 10.03.2005 | Sultana was found dead. |
| 10.03.2005 | Post-mortem was conducted on Sultana’s body. |
| 10.03.2005 | Provisional death certificate issued by the doctors. |
| 25.08.2005 | Post-mortem report was prepared and signed. |
Course of Proceedings
The Trial Court convicted all the accused, including the appellant and his parents and brother, under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC (murder with common intention) and Section 498A of the IPC (cruelty by husband or relatives). The High Court, on appeal, acquitted the appellant’s parents and brother of all charges and acquitted the appellant of the charge under Section 498A of the IPC. However, the High Court convicted the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC for murder simpliciter. The appellant then appealed to the Supreme Court.
Legal Framework
The key legal provisions in this case are:
- Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. “Whoever commits murder shall be punished with death, or imprisonment for life, and shall also be liable to fine.”
- Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section deals with acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention. It states, “When a criminal act is done by several persons in furtherance of the common intention of all, each of such persons is liable for that act in the same manner as if it were done by him alone.”
- Section 498A of the Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section addresses cruelty by a husband or his relatives towards a woman. “Whoever, being the husband or the relative of the husband of a woman, subjects such woman to cruelty shall be punished with imprisonment for a term which may extend to three years and shall also be liable to fine.”
Arguments
Appellant’s Arguments:
- The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case was that all the accused together committed the murder under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. Since the High Court acquitted the other accused, the appellant could not be convicted under Section 302 simpliciter.
- The appellant contended that the deceased had committed suicide due to frustration over not having a child, especially since his brother had a child.
- The appellant questioned the post-mortem report, which was allegedly prepared five months after the post-mortem, suggesting it might be related to someone else.
- The appellant highlighted inconsistencies between the inquest report and the post-mortem report, particularly regarding external injuries. The inquest report mentioned swelling on the head, ligature marks, and injuries on the thigh and back, which were not noted in the post-mortem report.
- The appellant argued that if the deceased was throttled, she would have resisted, and there would be signs of resistance, which were absent.
- The appellant pointed out that he took the deceased to the hospital, which he would not have done if he were the culprit.
- The appellant further argued that the High Court acquitted him under Section 498A of the IPC, indicating that he was not found guilty of cruelty and therefore, conviction under Section 302 is illogical.
State’s Arguments:
- The State supported the High Court’s judgment, arguing that the delay in preparing the post-mortem report was due to the non-availability of one of the doctors.
- The State pointed out that a provisional report was given on the date of the post-mortem, i.e., on 10.03.2005.
| Main Submission | Sub-Submissions | Party |
|---|---|---|
| Conviction under Section 302 IPC | The prosecution’s case was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and the acquittal of other accused means the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 simpliciter. | Appellant |
| The High Court’s conviction under Section 302 is illogical after acquitting under Section 498A IPC. | Appellant | |
| The High Court rightly convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC based on evidence. | State | |
| The delay in post-mortem report was explained by the non-availability of one doctor. | State | |
| Cause of Death | The deceased committed suicide due to frustration over not having a child. | Appellant |
| Inconsistencies between inquest and post-mortem reports raise doubts. | Appellant | |
| Medical evidence and post-mortem report prove death by throttling. | State | |
| Circumstantial Evidence | The appellant took the deceased to the hospital, indicating innocence. | Appellant |
| False statements by the appellant strengthen circumstantial evidence against him. | State |
Issues Framed by the Supreme Court
The Supreme Court considered the following issues:
- Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC when the initial charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the other accused were acquitted.
- Whether the evidence on record supported the conviction of the appellant for murder.
Treatment of the Issue by the Court
The following table demonstrates as to how the Court decided the issues
| Issue | Court’s Decision | Brief Reasons |
|---|---|---|
| Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC when the initial charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC and the other accused were acquitted. | Yes, the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. | The court noted that the evidence supported the case of throttling and the appellant was the only person implicated in the custodial death of the deceased. |
| Whether the evidence on record supported the conviction of the appellant for murder. | Yes, the evidence on record supported the conviction of the appellant for murder. | The court relied on the medical evidence, the post-mortem report, and the circumstances surrounding the death to uphold the conviction. |
Authorities
The Supreme Court considered the following authorities:
| Authority | Court | How it was used by the court |
|---|---|---|
| Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1963 SC 1413 | Supreme Court of India | Discussed the legal impossibility of convicting one accused under Section 302 read with Section 34 when the other accused are acquitted. |
| Sawal Das v. State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 193 | Supreme Court of India | Reiterated the principle that if some accused are acquitted, the specific act of the individual accused must be established beyond doubt for conviction under Section 302 simpliciter. |
| Sukhram s/o Ramratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh, 1989 Suppl.(1) SCC 214 | Supreme Court of India | Held that if a co-accused is acquitted, the appellant cannot be said to have acted conjointly with anyone in the commission of the offence. |
| Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edition | N/A | Used to distinguish between hanging and strangulation, and to assess the medical evidence in the case. |
Judgment
| Submission by Parties | How it was treated by the Court |
|---|---|
| The prosecution’s case was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, and the acquittal of other accused means the appellant cannot be convicted under Section 302 simpliciter. | The court rejected this argument, stating that the evidence clearly supported the case of throttling and the appellant was the only person implicated in the custodial death of the deceased. |
| The appellant contended that the deceased had committed suicide due to frustration over not having a child. | The court rejected this argument, finding no evidence to support the claim and noting the medical evidence of throttling. |
| The appellant questioned the post-mortem report, which was allegedly prepared five months after the post-mortem. | The court found that the delay was explained by the non-availability of one of the doctors and that the provisional death certificate corroborated the post-mortem report. |
| The appellant highlighted inconsistencies between the inquest report and the post-mortem report, particularly regarding external injuries. | The court stated that the medical report of the doctor should prevail in case of inconsistency and that the nature of injuries pointed to death by throttling. |
| The appellant argued that if the deceased was throttled, she would have resisted, and there would be signs of resistance, which were absent. | The court noted that while resistance marks are usually present in throttling, it is not necessary for them to be present in all cases. |
| The appellant pointed out that he took the deceased to the hospital, which he would not have done if he were the culprit. | The court found that the appellant’s action was an attempt to build a case of death by hanging and did not indicate innocence. |
| The appellant further argued that the High Court acquitted him under Section 498A of the IPC, indicating that he was not found guilty of cruelty and therefore, conviction under Section 302 is illogical. | The court did not find this argument persuasive, as the acquittal under Section 498A did not negate the evidence of murder under Section 302. |
How each authority was viewed by the Court?
- Krishna Govind Patil v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1963 SC 1413]: The court distinguished this case from the present case, noting that in the present case, the evidence pointed to the appellant alone committing the act of throttling.
- Sawal Das v. State of Bihar [(1974) 4 SCC 193]: The court distinguished this case, stating that in the present case, the evidence clearly supported the case of throttling by the appellant.
- Sukhram s/o Ramratan v. State of Madhya Pradesh [1989 Suppl.(1) SCC 214]: The court distinguished this case, stating that in the present case, the evidence clearly supported the case of throttling by the appellant.
- Modi’s Medical Jurisprudence and Toxicology, 25th Edition: The court relied heavily on this authority to differentiate between hanging and strangulation, and to analyze the medical evidence.
What weighed in the mind of the Court?
The Supreme Court was primarily influenced by the medical evidence, which strongly indicated that the death was caused by throttling and not by hanging. The court noted several key factors:
- The post-mortem report detailed injuries consistent with throttling, such as bruising and ecchymosis on the neck, crushed sternomastoid muscles, and crushed thyroid and cricoid cartilage.
- The medical officer’s testimony confirmed that these injuries were indicative of homicidal death by throttling and not suicide by hanging.
- The absence of typical signs of hanging, such as saliva dribbling, stretched neck, and fracture of the larynx, further supported the conclusion of throttling.
- The court also considered the motive established by the evidence, where the appellant had threatened to kill his wife if dowry demands were not met.
- The fact that the appellant and his wife had a separate room and the death occurred in the early morning hours implicated the appellant in the custodial death.
| Sentiment | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Medical Evidence of Throttling | 40% |
| Motive and Dowry Demands | 25% |
| Custodial Death | 20% |
| Inconsistencies in Appellant’s Statements | 15% |
| Ratio | Percentage |
|---|---|
| Fact | 60% |
| Law | 40% |
Fact:Law: The Court’s decision was influenced more by the factual findings of the case (60%), particularly the medical evidence and circumstances surrounding the death, than by legal considerations (40%). The court’s emphasis on the medical evidence and the sequence of events leading to the death highlights the importance of factual analysis in this case.
Issue: Whether the High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC when the initial charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC and the other accused were acquitted.
Medical Evidence: Post-mortem report and doctor’s testimony indicate death by throttling, not hanging.
Motive: Evidence of dowry demands and threats by the appellant.
Custodial Death: Appellant and deceased had a separate room and death occurred in the early morning hours.
Conclusion: High Court was justified in convicting the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
Issue: Whether the evidence on record supported the conviction of the appellant for murder.
Post-mortem Report: Injuries consistent with throttling, not hanging.
Medical Officer’s Testimony: Confirms homicidal death by throttling.
Circumstantial Evidence: Appellant’s false statements and actions.
Conclusion: Evidence on record supported the conviction of the appellant for murder.
The court’s reasoning was step-by-step, carefully analyzing the medical evidence, the circumstances of the death, and the appellant’s behavior. It rejected the defense arguments, finding them inconsistent with the established facts and medical findings. The court emphasized the importance of the medical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the death, which clearly indicated that the appellant alone had committed the murder by throttling his wife.
The court considered alternative interpretations, such as suicide by hanging, but rejected them based on the medical evidence and the absence of typical signs of hanging. The final decision was based on the overwhelming evidence pointing towards throttling and the appellant’s involvement in it.
The Supreme Court upheld the High Court’s decision, stating that the evidence clearly supported the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the IPC. The court found that the medical evidence, the circumstances of the death, and the appellant’s behavior all pointed towards his guilt. The court also highlighted the inconsistencies in the appellant’s defense, which further weakened his case.
The majority opinion was authored by Justice K.M. Joseph, with Justice Sanjay Kishan Kaul concurring. There were no dissenting opinions in this case.
“The trial court has accepted that the following circumstances stood proved against the appellant and other accused: (1)Motive; (2)Custodial death of the deceased; (3)Non-disclosure of death by the appellant to the complainant(father of the deceased); (4)False evidence of accused of hanging; (5)Inquest panchnama; (6)Spot panchnama.”
“The High Court, however, found only the appellant guilty under Section 302 of the IPC.”
“The post-mortem finding in this case is to the effect that sternomashoid muscle is crushed and there is severe haemorrhage present beneath it. This feature is compatible with the case being one of strangulation as injury to the muscle of the neck is rare in hanging.”
Key Takeaways
- A person can be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the IPC even if the initial charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the other accused are acquitted, provided there is sufficient evidence to prove the individual’s guilt.
- Medical evidence, especially post-mortem reports and expert testimony, plays a crucial role in determining the cause of death.
- Inconsistencies in the accused’s statements and actions can strengthen the prosecution’s case based on circumstantial evidence.
- The court may reject the argument of suicide if the medical evidence and circumstances indicate otherwise.
- The court will rely on expert medical opinion over non-expert opinions in case of inconsistency.
Directions
The Supreme Court directed that the appellant, who had been released on bail, be taken into custody to serve the remaining sentence.
Development of Law
The ratio decidendi of this case is that a person can be convicted for murder under Section 302 of the IPC even if the initial charge was under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and the other accused are acquitted, provided there is sufficient evidence to prove the individual’s guilt. This case does not change the previous position of law but reinforces the principle that each case must be decided on its own facts and circumstances. This case also clarifies the importance of medical evidence in determining the cause of death and the circumstances surrounding it.
Conclusion
The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of Javed Abdul Rajjaq Shaikh under Section 302 of the IPC for the murder of his wife. The court relied on the medical evidence, the circumstances of the death, and the appellant’s behavior to conclude that he was guilty of throttling his wife. The court also dismissed the appellant’s arguments regarding inconsistencies in the evidence and the acquittal of the other accused. This judgment underscores the importance of medical evidence and circumstantial evidence in determining guilt in criminal cases.