Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State Of Maharashtra

CASE TITLE AND CITATION:

Case Name: Shivaji Chintappa Patil vs. State Of Maharashtra

Citation: AIR 2021 SC 1249

Court: Supreme Court

Nature of Case: Criminal

Appellant: Shivaji Chintappa Patil

Respondent: State Of Maharashtra

Bench: B.R.Gavai and Hrishikesh Roy

ABSTRACT:

In this case, two main questions arises namely, the nature of murder and the role of circumstantial evidence in ascribing guilt to the accused. Under Indian Penal Code, 1860, as per Section 302 Whoever commits murder shall be punished with Death Penalty or be sentenced to imprisonment for life, and shall also be sentenced to a fine. This section was in most cases considered together with the provisions of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, and the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973, for determining the responsibility of the accused for the murder of his wife by hanging. Also, the Court aimed to determine the liability in cases of suicidal hanging and homicidal hanging on part of the deceased.

FACTS:

The deceased Jayashree was the wife of the accused about 8 or 9 years prior to the date of the incident. They were blessed with two issues. Anandibai is the mother of deceased. Ramchandra Chintappa is the brother of the appellant, who had been staying in a different portion of the same house. On March 24, 2003, the accused and his wife were in the house together. According to the prosecution, the appellant was an alcoholic and domestically violent towards the deceased, whom he compelled to get money from her mother. On the night of the incident, 23 March 2003, the accused and the deceased slept at their house. On March 24, 2003, around the early hours, Ramchandra Chintappa called the appellant to go to their fields where they had sowed jawar crop. The accused came out of the door and said that he could not go to work in the fields because Jayashree had hanged herself.

Ramchandra Shankar who lives in the neighbourhood of the appellant and Ramchandra Chintappa was informed and explained by Ramchandra Chintappa about what had happened. Then Ramchandra Chintappa proceeded to village Panumbre to report the occurrence to the mother of the deceased and other relatives. Then He visited Kokrud Police Station and reported the matter regarding the death of the deceased. At the outset Ad No. 13/2003 came to be registered on the basis of the information received from Ramchandra Chinttapa. Later on registration of the crime for the offense which was punishable under Section 302 IPC came to be registered. The advance death certificate suggests that the likely cause of death is probably asphyxia due to strangulation. The charge-sheet was filed in the court of First Class Magistrate in the jurisdiction.

ISSUES:

This appeal is against the judgment and order passed by the division bench of the high court, which heard the criminal appeal number 46 of 2005, with which the appellant is aggrieved and whose conviction and sentence was confirmed by the additional sessions judge of Islampur in sessions case number 39 of 2003, with the order of the high court dismissing the appellant’s appeal as per section 302 of the Indian Penal Code.

LAWS APPLICABLE:

The laws that are applicable in the present case are as follow:

1. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872:- Section 8
2. Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860
3. Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973
4. The Indian Evidence Act, 1872:- Section 106

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY APPELLANT:

The appellant’s counsel’s primary contention was that the evidence adduced by the prosecution had not proved beyond reasonable doubt that the death in issue was homicide. They maintained that in the absence of any compelling evidence which directly connects the accused to the offense, a conviction for murder cannot rest on circumstantial evidence only.

In this regard, the appellant’s counsel made reference to the case of “Subramaniam v. State of Tamil Nadu”(13 MAY, 2009) , pointing out that under section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it is the duty of prosecution to bring forth proof of basic elements of the crime. This clause correctly states that until the prosecution has performed its part, there is no turn for the defense to perform.

The counsel also made reference to the need to prove motive in primarily circumstantial cases as seen in “Babu v. State of Kerala”(11 AUGUST, 2010). It was submitted that the prosecution did not advance any believable motive for the accused that would help to bring home the charge of murder.

Lastly, the appellant notice the doctrine ventured in “Devi Lal v. State of Rajasthan”(AIR 2019 SC 688), that is, in an event where he may be acquitted or convicted, the accused shall be deemed innocent. This principle illustrates the fundamental rule in criminal law which is the presumption of innocence until one is proved guilty.

CONTENTIONS RAISED BY RESPONDENT:

On behalf of the prosecution, set forth the position that no further interference is warranted to verify the concurrent findings of the Trial Court as well as the High Court. These courts have appropriately cited the case of “State of Rajasthan v. Kashi Ram”(AIR 2007 SC 144) in convicting the accused of murder.

The legal principle with regards to the conviction founded on circumstantial evidence is enunciated in the case of “Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra” in which the four principles were propounded by the Court:

1. Circumstances from which conviction is sought to be established should be proved to exist.
2. Such facts proved must not contradict to the assumption that the accused is guilty.
3. The circumstances must be definitive and purporting.
4. All reasonable possibilities must be eliminated except for the one which is to be proved.

There should be such circumstances that absolute evidence has to be produced to avoid an inference which is in favor of the accused.

JUDGMENT’S ANALYSIS :

The core matter that needed consideration in the present case was to draw a conclusion or inference as to whether the incident of hanging was by means of suicide i.e. committed by the deceased herself or it was of a murder which involves the appellant.

In connection with the report produced by the doctor, a post-mortem report was also submitted after the death of the individual which confirmed that the cause of death was due to ‘asphyxia due to strangulation’. Also, in conditions of both suicidal as well as homicidal hangings, and especially suicidal hangings, there are these marks above the ear.

In such scenarios mostly if the hanging was of a suicide type but involved a struggle then evidence of some form would have been presented signifying that the deceased fought back, any aggressive violent actions or tactics. Nevertheless, in the instant case under review, there was no sign of violence available to other persons contributing to the act. Thus, looking at the pieces of events as mentioned above, the Supreme Court was right in concluding that the hanging was not due to a homicide.

Then, concentrated on the applicability of Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act. Indian Evidence Act, 1872 under Section 106 states that when any particular fact is specially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon that person. But in such cases, this knowledge of the fact cannot be presumed simply because one is a husband or a wife. In the judgment by the Supreme Court in the case of “Gargi v. State of Haryana”, it was ruled that living with a deceased wife does not lead to inference that the husband will kill the wife.

Moreover, even in the context of the mentioned case of “Sawal Das v. State of Bihar”, the Court emphasized that the applicability of Sections 103 and 106 of the Indian Evidence Act does not relieve the prosecution from the onus of establishing the offence beyond reasonable doubt.

The Supreme Court stated that neither Section 103 nor Section 106 is said to operate directly against either of the spouses in case of murder of the other even though they are under the same roof or the person was the last individual seen with the deceased. Further, as the prosecution also failed to prove beyond reasonable doubt that the death was homicidal, the conviction should not sustain based on these reasons.

The third element considered by the Court was whether the appellants should be held liable for not giving a reasonable explanation by way of a statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. There is a well-established case law that any false explanation would also be considered as an incriminating circumstance, however, under the condition that, and only if the prosecution has first established that the chain of circumstances leaves no other inference, admitting the guilt of the accused.

Moreover, even in instances where circumstantial evidence is utilized to a great degree, motive is important in rounding out the picture. The aim of the evidence adduced by the prosecution in this case was to demonstrate that the appellant had an ulterior motive, as he had previously been mentally and physically abusive towards his wife in numerous ways in order to extract money from her mother. This, however, the Court determined to disregard any non-validated evidence on the ground that even before the incident, within 4 days, the appellant and the deceased were residing in the same place, which indicated friendly relations, existed. Even the District Court had not directly retrieved the evidence.

Countering the prosecution, it must be noted that no such motive was established beyond reasonable doubt thus the circumstantial evidence could not be admitted. Hence, in the given circumstances, the element of completing the chain of circumstantial evidence is totally non-existent. Also, the Supreme Court in this case sought reference to the Kashi Ram case further proving that non-explanation under Section 313 of CrPC was only regarded as a supplementary towards the conclusions arrived at and not to round off the entirety of it, while in the current case the prosecution was filling in the gaps with circumstantial evidence which was unwarranted in the circumstances.

CONCLUSION:

The supreme court in this case held that the prosecution they could not provide any conclusive evidence showing that the Suicide perpetrated by the deceased was not plainly done by the appellant. Also, they could not show any chain of events that would lead to the inference of the accused’s guilt. Consequently, in the present case, the benefit of the existing doubt was accorded to the accused as there was no affirmative linkage of the accused to the crime scene and the circumstantial evidence led to no overall determination of the accused’s guilt.

REFERENCES:

1. Indiankanoon
2. Indian Penal code, 1860
3. Indian Evidence Act,1872
4. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1974
5. Legal Service India