Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Homicidal Death Case: Kalu vs. State of Madhya Pradesh (2019)

Date of the Judgment: November 7, 2019

Citation: 2019 INSC 1139

Judges: Navin Sinha, J. and B.R. Gavai, J.

Can the unexplained death of a wife in her matrimonial home lead to the conviction of the husband? The Supreme Court of India, in this case, examined the circumstances surrounding the death of a woman in her matrimonial home, where the husband was the sole occupant with her at the time of death. The court had to determine whether the death was a suicide, as argued by the husband, or a homicide, as concluded by the lower courts. The bench comprised Justices Navin Sinha and B.R. Gavai, with the judgment authored by Justice Navin Sinha.

Case Background

The deceased was married to the appellant, Kalu alias Laxminarayan, for approximately six to seven years. They lived together with their minor child. On October 14, 1994, the deceased’s family, residing 35-40 km away, received a call informing them of her death. They arrived the next morning and found her body covered with a white sheet in the middle room of their house. The First Information Report (FIR) was lodged around 7:00 AM, followed by an inquest and post-mortem examination on the same day. Initially, the police filed a charge sheet under Sections 306 (abetment of suicide) and 498A (cruelty by husband or relatives) of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). However, during the trial, the Sessions Judge added a charge under Section 302 (murder) of the IPC, concluding that the deceased had been strangled to death. The High Court, in appeal, opined that the deceased had been hanged to death. Both courts agreed that it was a homicidal death and not a suicide.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Sessions Judge added a charge under Section 302 of the IPC during the trial, based on the evidence presented, and held the appellant guilty of murder, concluding that the deceased was strangled. The High Court, upon appeal, upheld the conviction but differed on the mode of death, opining that the deceased was hanged. Both courts, however, agreed that the death was homicidal and not a suicide.

Legal Framework

The case primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following sections of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 and the Indian Evidence Act, 1872:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: This section defines the punishment for murder. The court examined whether the appellant was guilty of causing the homicidal death of his wife.
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: This section states that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The court considered whether the appellant, being the only other person present in the house, had the burden to explain the circumstances of his wife’s death. The court also considered the illustration (b) of the said section which states that, “(b) A is charged with travelling on a railway without a ticket. The burden of proving that he had a ticket is on him.”

Arguments

Appellant’s Arguments:

• The appellant argued that the deceased had committed suicide and that his conviction under Section 302 of the IPC was unjustified.
• He contended that it was impossible for him to have forcibly hanged the deceased from a height of 11 feet alone.
• He submitted that the fact that the body was found lying on the ground did not negate the possibility that he had brought her down after she committed suicide.
• He argued that if he had strangled the deceased, he would have concealed the body, and his conduct was not indicative of guilt.
• The appellant argued that the mere fact that the deceased died in unnatural circumstances inside the matrimonial home was not sufficient to shift the burden of proof onto him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.
• He relied on Shambu Nath Mehra vs. The State of Ajmer, 1956 SCR 199, Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar, (1974) 4 SCC 193 and Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors., (2016) 10 SCC 519 to argue that the prosecution must first establish a prima facie case of homicidal death, ruling out suicide.

Respondent’s Arguments:

• The respondent, the State of Madhya Pradesh, argued that all circumstances pointed towards the appellant’s guilt and that the death was homicidal.
• They contended that the oral, physical, and medical evidence completely ruled out the possibility of suicide.

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The primary issue before the Supreme Court was:

1. Whether the death of the deceased was homicidal or suicidal.
2. Whether the appellant’s failure to explain the circumstances of the death shifted the burden of proof onto him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Treatment of the Issue by the Court

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

Authorities

The Court considered the following authorities:

The Court also considered the following legal provisions:

• Section 302, Indian Penal Code, 1860: Punishment for murder.
• Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge.
• Section 114, Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Court may presume existence of certain facts.

Judgment

How each submission made by the Parties was treated by the Court?

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

• The Court distinguished the cases of Shambu Nath Mehra vs. The State of Ajmer [1956 SCR 199]*, Sawal Das vs. State of Bihar [(1974) 4 SCC 193]*, and Jose vs. The Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Ors. [(2016) 10 SCC 519]*, stating that they were not relevant in the present case once the prosecution had established a prima facie case.
• The Court followed the principles laid down in Hanumant and Ors. vs. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343]* regarding circumstantial evidence, emphasizing that the circumstances must be fully established and consistent only with the guilt of the accused.
• The Court relied on Tulshiram Sahadu Suryawanshi and Ors. vs. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 10 SCC 373]* to explain the presumption of fact under Section 114 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and its application in the present case.
• The Court also relied on State of W.B. v. Mir Mohammad Omar to emphasize that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 is designed to meet exceptional cases where facts are especially within the knowledge of the accused.
• The Court followed Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs. State of Maharashtra [2006 (10) SCC 681]*, which dealt with a similar case of homicidal death within a house, and held that when an offense occurs within the privacy of a house, the burden on the prosecution is comparatively lighter, and a corresponding burden is placed on the inmates to provide a cogent explanation.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was influenced by a combination of factual and legal considerations. The Court emphasized the following points:

• The presence of injuries on the deceased’s body, such as abrasions and scratches, indicated a struggle, ruling out suicide.
• The unusual position of the deceased’s hands and the absence of neck elongation were inconsistent with suicide by hanging.
• The height of the wooden log from which the rope was found hanging made it improbable for the deceased to have hanged herself.
• The appellant’s failure to offer any explanation for the circumstances of the death, his absence from home, and his failure to inform anyone about the incident were crucial factors.
• The Court noted the strained relationship between the appellant and the deceased, which provided a motive.
• The Court also emphasized that the facts were especially within the knowledge of the appellant, shifting the burden of proof onto him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872.

Logical Reasoning:

The Court considered the possibility of suicide but rejected it based on the physical evidence and the circumstances surrounding the death. The Court also considered the appellant’s conduct and lack of explanation, concluding that the only logical inference was that the appellant was responsible for the death.

The Court stated, “The aforesaid factors leave us satisfied that the prosecution has been able to successfully establish a case for a homicidal death inside the house where the deceased resided with the appellant alone.”

The Court also stated, “If the deceased had committed suicide, we find it strange that the appellant laid her body on the floor after bringing her down but did not bother to inform anyone living near him much less the parents of the deceased.”

Further, the Court stated, “In the circumstances, the onus clearly shifted on the appellant to explain the circumstances and the manner in which the deceased met a homicidal death in the matrimonial home as it was a fact specifically and exclusive to his knowledge.”

Key Takeaways

• In cases of unnatural death within a matrimonial home, the burden of proof may shift to the spouse if the circumstances suggest foul play and the facts are within their special knowledge.
• Physical evidence, such as injuries and the position of the body, plays a crucial role in determining whether a death was suicidal or homicidal.
• The conduct of the accused, including their actions after the incident and their failure to provide a reasonable explanation, can be significant in establishing guilt.
• The prosecution must establish a prima facie case of homicidal death, but the burden on the prosecution is comparatively lighter when the crime occurs within the confines of a house.

Directions

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and directed the appellant to surrender within two weeks to serve the remaining period of his sentence.

Development of Law

The ratio decidendi of this case is that in cases of unnatural death within the matrimonial home, where the facts are especially within the knowledge of the spouse, the burden of proof shifts to the spouse to explain the circumstances of the death, particularly when the prosecution has established a prima facie case of homicide. This ruling reinforces the principle that Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, can be invoked in such cases. This judgment does not change the previous position of law but reiterates the application of the existing legal principles in cases of circumstantial evidence.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court upheld the conviction of the appellant, Kalu alias Laxminarayan, for the murder of his wife. The Court concluded that the death was homicidal based on the physical evidence, the appellant’s suspicious conduct, and his failure to explain the circumstances of the death. The judgment emphasizes that in cases of unnatural death within a matrimonial home, the burden of proof can shift to the spouse if the facts are within their special knowledge and the prosecution establishes a prima facie case of homicide.