Supreme Court Upholds Conviction in Wife’s Murder Case: Anowar Hussain vs. State of Assam (2022)

Introduction

Date of the Judgment: 13 October 2022

Citation: 2022 INSC 537

Judges: Dinesh Maheshwari, J., Aniruddha Bose, J.

When a person dies an unnatural death within the confines of their home, what is the responsibility of those present to explain the circumstances? The Supreme Court of India recently addressed this question in a case where a man was convicted of murdering his wife. The court examined whether the circumstantial evidence and the accused’s lack of explanation were sufficient to uphold the conviction. This judgment clarifies the importance of circumstantial evidence and the burden of proof in cases of domestic homicide.

The Supreme Court bench, comprising Justices Dinesh Maheshwari and Aniruddha Bose, delivered the judgment. Justice Maheshwari authored the opinion.

Case Background

The case revolves around the death of Samina Begum, who was married to the appellant, Md. Anowar Hussain. Samina’s grandfather, Md. Akbar Ali (PW-1), reported to the Lakhipur Police Station on 22 October 2010, that Samina had been subjected to physical and mental torture by her husband. He alleged that on the same day, the appellant assaulted Samina, leading to her death. The First Information Report (FIR) was registered under Sections 498-A, 302, and 120-B of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The police conducted an inquest at the police station where they noted injuries on Samina’s body. A post-mortem examination revealed that her death was due to asphyxia caused by throttling. The appellant was arrested two days later at a different location.

The prosecution’s case was based on circumstantial evidence, as no direct witnesses to the crime were available. The prosecution argued that the appellant was responsible for his wife’s death, while the appellant claimed that his wife died in a hospital due to illness. The trial court found the appellant guilty, and the High Court upheld the conviction.

Timeline

Course of Proceedings

The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, found the appellant guilty of murder under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC). The court relied on the post-mortem report, which indicated that Samina’s death was due to asphyxia from throttling, and the fact that the appellant could not provide a satisfactory explanation for her death. The Trial Court rejected the testimony of private witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6), who claimed Samina died in a hospital due to illness, citing inconsistencies with the inquest report and lack of corroborative evidence.

The appellant appealed to the Gauhati High Court, which upheld the Trial Court’s decision. The High Court also noted the inconsistencies in the private witnesses’ testimonies and the lack of evidence supporting the claim that Samina died in a hospital. The High Court cited the Supreme Court’s decision in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681], stating that when an accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for incriminating circumstances, it becomes an additional link in the chain of evidence against them.

Legal Framework

The judgment primarily revolves around the interpretation and application of the following legal provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): This section defines the punishment for murder. It states,
  “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, 1872: This section deals with the burden of proof when a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person. It states,
  “When any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him.”

The Supreme Court analyzed how the burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act when certain facts are exclusively within their knowledge. The court also evaluated the significance of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is lacking.

Arguments

Appellant’s Submissions:

• The appellant argued that the prosecution’s case was based on suspicion and not on concrete evidence.
• The appellant questioned the date of his arrest, pointing out discrepancies in the arrest memo.
• The appellant argued that the place of incident was not proven, as the site plan was not enclosed with the charge-sheet.
• The appellant contended that all independent witnesses (PW-1 to PW-6) stated that the deceased died in a hospital due to illness, and the prosecution did not declare them hostile or cross-examine them.
• The appellant argued that the inquest report was unreliable, as there was no evidence of where the dead body was brought from.
• The appellant relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116] to argue that medical evidence is not conclusive proof.
• The appellant further argued that the non-explanation or falsity of explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act cannot be a ground for conviction.
• The appellant submitted that the prosecution failed to prove motive, and relied on Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 3 SCALE 384] and other cases to argue that motive is essential.
• The appellant contended that if two views are possible, the one favoring the accused must be accepted.

Respondent’s Submissions:

• The respondent argued that the prosecution had established the chain of circumstances beyond a reasonable doubt.
• The respondent relied on the post-mortem report and the inquest report, which showed ante-mortem injuries and that the death was due to throttling.
• The respondent argued that the appellant was absconding after the incident and was arrested two days later.
• The respondent contended that the appellant’s false explanation that his wife died in a hospital became an additional link in the chain of circumstances.
• The respondent argued that the burden was on the appellant to explain the unnatural death of his wife, especially since they were living together.
• The respondent relied on Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681] to emphasize that when an offense occurs within a home, the burden on the prosecution is lighter, and the accused must provide a cogent explanation.
• The respondent cited Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 90] and Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 12 SCC 439] to argue that the absence of motive does not exonerate the accused if the chain of circumstances is complete.
• The respondent argued that the appellant’s admission under Section 313 CrPC about his arrest negates the contention that his arrest was questionable.
• The respondent submitted that the site map was part of the record and that the Investigating Officer (PW-7) had described the place of occurrence.

Submissions Table

Issues Framed by the Supreme Court

The Supreme Court considered the following key issues:

1. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to prove the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt.
2. Whether the appellant’s failure to explain the circumstances of his wife’s death, especially considering they were living together, could be used as an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.
3. Whether the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and the High Court warranted interference by the Supreme Court.

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:

Cases:

• Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343]: Principles for proving a case based on circumstantial evidence.
• Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]: Principles for proving a case based on circumstantial evidence and the use of false explanations as an additional link.
• Deonandan Mishra v. State of Bihar [AIR 1955 SC 801]: Use of false explanation as an additional link in a chain of circumstances.
• Sarwan Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1957 SC 637]: Suspicion cannot take the place of proof.
• Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade v. State of Maharashtra [(1973) 2 SCC 793]: The accused must be, not merely may be, guilty before a court can convict.
• Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681]: Principles regarding circumstantial evidence, Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and the effect of false explanations.
• Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 90]: Absence of motive does not exonerate the accused if the chain of circumstances is complete.
• State of U.P. v. Kishanpal [(2008) 16 SCC 73]: Importance of motive in cases of circumstantial evidence.
• Pannayar v. State of T.N. [(2009) 9 SCC 152]: Absence of motive is a factor that weighs in favor of the accused.
• Babu v. State of U.P. [(2010) 9 SCC 189]: Absence of motive in a case depending on circumstantial evidence is a factor that weighs in favor of the accused.
• Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 11 SCC 685]: Conviction cannot be based solely on the post-mortem report.
• Alber Oraon v. State of Jharkhand [(2014) 12 SCC 306]: Principles of circumstantial evidence.
• Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 12 SCC 439]: Absence of motive does not exonerate the accused if the chain of circumstances is complete.
• Jose Alias Pappachan v. Sub-Inspector of Police, Koyilandy and Anr. [2016 (10) SCC 519]: If two views are possible, the view in favor of the accused must be accepted.
• Gargi v. State of Haryana [(2019) 9 SCC 738]: Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden.
• Sudru v. State of Chhattisgarh [(2019) 8 SCC 333]: Consideration of evidence of a hostile witness and the effect of failure of the accused to discharge burden.
• Anwar Ali and Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh [(2020) 10 SCC 166]: Absence of motive cannot be a ground to reject the prosecution case.
• Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 3 SCALE 384]: Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not absolve the prosecution of its primary burden; falsity of explanation can only be an additional circumstance.
• Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar [(2021) 10 SCC 725]: Conviction cannot be based only on the post-mortem report; Section 106 applies when prosecution establishes facts.
• Satye Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand [(2022) 3 SCALE 534]: Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its primary duty to prove the guilt of the appellant.
• Nandu Singh v. State of Madhya Pradesh (Now Chhattisgarh) [Criminal Appeal No. 285 of 2022, decided on 25.02.2022]: Motive having not been proved, conviction of the appellant remains unsustainable.
• Pappu v. The State of Uttar Pradesh [2022 SCC OnLine SC 176]: Scope of appeal by special leave under Article 136 of the Constitution.
• Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha [2022 SCC OnLine SC 673]: If the accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an additional link in the chain of events.

Legal Provisions:

• Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC): Punishment for murder.
• Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872: Burden of proving a fact especially within the knowledge of a person.
• Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973: Examination of the accused.

Judgment

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

How each authority was viewed by the Court?

The Court relied on Hanumant v. State of Madhya Pradesh [AIR 1952 SC 343]* and Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]* for the principles regarding circumstantial evidence. The Court also used Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra [(2006) 10 SCC 681]* to emphasize the importance of Section 106 of the Evidence Act and the effect of false explanations. While referring to Balaji Gunthu Dhule v. State of Maharashtra [(2012) 11 SCC 685]*, the court clarified that conviction cannot be solely based on the post-mortem report. The Court also considered Gargi v. State of Haryana [(2019) 9 SCC 738]*, Shivaji Chintappa Patil v. State of Maharashtra [(2021) 3 SCALE 384]*, and Satye Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand [(2022) 3 SCALE 534]* to highlight that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution of its primary burden. The court distinguished the facts of Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar [(2021) 10 SCC 725]* and found that the facts of the present case were different. The court also relied on Ujjagar Singh v. State of Punjab [(2007) 13 SCC 90]* and Vivek Kalra v. State of Rajasthan [(2014) 12 SCC 439]* to highlight that the absence of motive does not exonerate the accused if the chain of circumstances is complete. The Court also referred to Sabitri Samantaray v. State of Odisha [2022 SCC OnLine SC 673]* to state that if the accused evades response to an incriminating question or offers a response which is not true, such a response, in itself, would become an additional link in the chain of events.

What weighed in the mind of the Court?

The Supreme Court’s decision was heavily influenced by the following factors:

• The consistent medical evidence pointing to a homicidal death by throttling.
• The appellant’s failure to provide a credible explanation for his wife’s death.
• The false narrative presented by the private witnesses and endorsed by the appellant.
• The appellant’s absence from his residence at the time of the incident and his subsequent arrest at a different location.
• The inquest report and post-mortem report which showed injuries on the body of the deceased.

The Court emphasized that when a death occurs within the confines of a home, the burden shifts to the occupants to provide a reasonable explanation. The appellant’s inability to do so, coupled with the circumstantial evidence, led the Court to conclude that he was responsible for his wife’s murder.

Sentiment Analysis of Reasons Given by the Supreme Court:

Fact:Law Ratio Analysis:

Logical Reasoning:

Final Verdict

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The Court found no merit in the appellant’s arguments and concurred with the decisions of the Trial Court and the High Court.

The Court held that the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish the guilt of the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The appellant’s failure to provide a satisfactory explanation for his wife’s death, coupled with the medical and forensic evidence, led the Court to conclude that he was indeed responsible for her murder.

This judgment reinforces the principle that when a person dies an unnatural death within the confines of their home, those present have a responsibility to explain the circumstances. The court also clarified that the burden of proof can shift to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act when facts are especially within their knowledge. The judgment also emphasizes the importance of circumstantial evidence in cases where direct evidence is lacking.