Delhi HC: Passing Off is a Distinct Right, Which Resides in its Own Common Law Space  ||  Delhi HC Seeks ICICI’s Response on Plea Alleging Lack of Accessibility Standards for PWDs  ||  Bombay HC: Saying ‘I Love You’ in with No Sexual Intent Isn’t Sexual Harassment  ||  Rajasthan HC: Centre & State to Issue Directions Regarding Excessive Use of Mobile Phones by Children  ||  Allahabad HC: Undressing Woman but Failing to Commit Intercourse Amounts to ‘Attempt to Rape’  ||  MP HC: Taxpayers with Appeals that are Pending are Eligible for 50% Relief under Samadhan Scheme  ||  Del. HC: Indian Citizen Apprehending Arrest for Offence Committed Abroad Can Invoke Sec. 438 of CrPC  ||  Delhi HC: Can Grant Ad-Interim Maintenance without Filing Specific Application  ||  Delhi HC: Govt. to Take Steps for Involving Mental Health Professionals in Premature Release Process  ||  Del. HC: “Goodwill” for Purposes of Passing off, is in the Name Under Which Business Is Done    

R.Damodaran vs The State Rep. By The Inspector Of Police - (Supreme Court) (23 Feb 2021)

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the innocence

MANU/SC/0109/2021

Criminal

The accused Appellant was charged for offence under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC) for the murder of his own wife while she was at the advanced stage of her pregnancy. After facing trial, he was held guilty of charge of murder of his wife under Section 302 of IPC and was awarded life imprisonment by the learned trial Judge by judgment and confirmed by the High Court by judgment impugned.

It is true that, the prosecution had no direct evidence to offer. It rested its case upon circumstances which would indicate that in the past, he was ill-treating her and there were complaints given to the police. The statement of PW 7 Doctor and the medical evidence brought on record establish that, the injuries were caused with blunt weapon which resulted into death of the deceased. Thus, the ocular evidence of PW 2, aunt of the deceased is corroborated with the medical evidence of Doctor (PW7).

In a case based on circumstantial evidence, the settled principles of law are that, the circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully proved and circumstances should be conclusive in nature and moreover, the circumstances should be complete and there should be no gap left in the chain of events. However, the circumstances must be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with the innocence.

In view of the principles which has been laid down by this Court and the circumstances which the prosecution has established in a chain of events leave no matter of doubt that, it is none other than the Appellant who had committed the crime of murdering his own wife who was at the advanced stage of pregnancy, and taken the dead body to the hospital and made a false statement that she had got a cardiac arrest.

The present case squarely rests on circumstantial evidence where the death has been caused by homicidal violence. The accused Appellant has committed a commission of crime with intention to commit the murder of his own wife who was at the advanced stage of pregnancy. Appeal dismissed.

Tags : CONVICTION   EVIDENCE   CREDIBILITY  

Share :        

Disclaimer | Copyright 2025 - All Rights Reserved