Bombay HC: Courts Cannot Mandate Mediation under Mediation Act 2023 Without Mutual Consent  ||  Kerala HC: Embassy NOC Not Required For Indian-Foreigner Marriage under Special Marriage Act  ||  MP High Court: Penalty May Stand if Misconduct is Proven, Even if Inquiry is Vitiated  ||  Bombay High Court: Lilavati Trust FIR Against HDFC Bank CEO Driven by Personal Vendetta  ||  Supreme Court: Register Entry Not Required To Pursue Oppression/Mismanagement Claims  ||  Supreme Court: Lifting Corporate Veil May Include Group Assets in Holding Company’s CIRP  ||  Allahabad HC: MPs, Judges and Ministers May Use ‘Hon’ble’; Civil Servants are Not Entitled to it  ||  Calcutta HC: Salary Withholding and Harassment Claims are Not Defamation Without Reputational Harm  ||  Gauhati HC: Officer Resigning Without New Govt Appointment Cannot Claim Pension under Assam Service  ||  MP HC: Attachment & Auction are Quasi-Judicial Duties of Tehsildar; Action Invalid Without Mala Fide    

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 2026 - All Rights Reserved