In cases of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance: Punjab & Haryana HC

Read Order: Abdul Wahid v. State of Haryana

Monika Rahar

Chandigarh, January 6, 2022: While dealing with an appeal pertaining to a dowry death case where the prosecution was not able to prove its case beyond a reasonable doubt, the Punjab and Haryana High Court has held that it is the general rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is always on the prosecution to bring home the guilt of the accused and Section 106 of Evidence Act is certainly not intended to relieve it of that duty and has referred to the judgment of the Apex Court in Nagendra Sah vs. State of Bihar.

The bench of Justice Ritu Bahri and Justice Karamjit Singh, while pointing towards the prosecution’s failure in establishing a motive for the incidence said, “In a case of circumstantial evidence, motive assumes great significance and importance. Absence of motive would put the Court on its guard and cause it to scrutinise each piece of evidence very closely in order to ensure that suspicion, emotion or conjecture do not take the place of proof.” 

In this case, the deceased woman’s father alleged that his daughter was murdered by her husband (accused) by strangulation and being thrown in a water tank on account of his unmet dowry demands. The accused, a CRPF constable posted in Bihar, was married to the deceased for 13 years and he allegedly took a leave from his duty on the pretext of his wife’s illness and murdered her on the intervening night of 26th- 27th October, 2011. The accused was convicted and sentenced under Sections 498-A, 302/102-B of the IPC. Hence, this appeal was filed challenging this conviction. 

Before the Trial Court, the case of the prosecution was that the accused mistreated his deceased wife and made repeated dowry demands and that while in custody, he made two disclosure statements confessing his guilt and causing the discovery of a ‘duppatta’ which he used for strangulation. One of the three doctors who conducted the post-mortem was orally examined to state strangulation and drowning as the cause of the death. 

Contrary to these submissions, the appellant’s Counsel proved before the High Court that when the deceased accidentally fell in the water tank while fetching water, the appellant was staying in a neighboring village as he got late while coming from duty on leave. He also established that no independent witnesses were examined to prove the factum of harassment and dowry demand and that even the complainant admitted that the appellant purchased a property in his wife’s name and that his daughter was never harassed by him.  

In the absence of any eye witness to the incident, the Court said that this was a case of circumstantial evidence and hence, the evidence adduced should have pointed conclusively towards the guilt of the accused person. While noting that four prosecution witnesses turned hostile in this case, the Court observed, “We deem it expedient to mention the legal position with regard to hostile witnesses. The testimony of hostile witness cannot be ipso-facto discarded in toto. It is well settled that portion of the testimony of hostile witness, which inspires confidence can be used. It is also well settled that testimony of hostile witness finding corroboration from other sources can be believed. In this context, reference be made to Pandappa Hanumappa Hanamar vs. State of Karnataka, (1997)10 SCC 197.”

The Court also observed that in the absence of a collective written opinion of the medical board as a whole and the oral testimony of one of the doctors could not be held to be the medical evidence of the fact that the deceased died due to strangulation and drowning. Thus, the Court concluded that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant’s guilt beyond a reasonable doubt. 

Further, the Court said that in the absence of examination of a witness to prove the appellant’s stay in the neighbor on the night when the incident occured, doubt/suspicion regarding appellant’s conduct was created but the liability of the appellant could not be fastened just on the ground of suspicion. Law is well settled with regard to the fact that however, strong the suspicion may be, it cannot take the place of proof. Strong suspicion, coincidence, grave doubt cannot take the place of proof, added the Bench.

Hence, the appeal was allowed.