The bench comprising of Justice Ashok Bhushan & Justice Navin Sinha passed a judgement in a case titled as Nawab v. State of Uttarakhand.
Facts of the case are that the appellant submitted three hooligans entered appellants house to abduct him at night. His wife was shot dead by the miscreants after a scuffle when she tried to prevent them from doing so. One firearm injury was found on the person of the deceased, with an entry and exit wound.
Learned counsel for the appellant, submitted that the present is a case of circumstantial evidence. Mere suspicion, no matter how strong, cannot be the basis of conviction. No incriminating circumstances were put to the appellant under Section 313 Cr.P.C.
Learned counsel appearing on behalf of a relative of the deceased stated that the motive of the appellant stands clearly established to obtain the benefit of the Life Insurance Policy (LIC) taken a few days earlier in the name of the deceased. The plea of entry by outsiders has been completely disbelieved in absence of any evidence. The mother of the deceased deposed that the appellant was greedy for money and prior to the occurrence he had demanded Rs.10,000 from the witness.
The Court observed that the appellant initially stated in the FIR that three persons entered his house at midnight to abduct him. In his evidence he stated that there were five persons. If the intruders had come to abduct the appellant and his wife had been shot dead after she tried to prevent his abduction, it would have been all the more convenient for the intruders to take the appellant away with them.
The Supreme Court held that the deceased had only one entry and exit wounds. The bullet apparently exited her body and thus the likelihood of its recovery from the place of occurrence with the round end damaged after it was fired. The pistol was recovered on the confession of the appellant from under the earth in the courtyard, the earth was freshly dug. The High Court disbelieved the recovery because the independent witness went hostile.
The Supreme Court stated that,
“The mere fact of broken bangles or a thumb injury on the deceased is not sufficient to absolve the appellant in view of the nature of the other evidence against him. We find it very difficult to accept the explanation of the appellant that despite the presence of five persons, when one of them could have easily overpowered the lady, there was any need for them to shoot her as an obstruction in the abduction of the appellant.”
The Supreme Court found no reason to interfere with the conviction of the appellant. All the links in the chain of circumstances point to the guilt of the appellant alone.
Read the Judgement:
Share this Document :Picture Source :
