The Supreme Court upholds the overturning of the Madras High Court's acquittal, convicting a man and his relatives for the murder of his wife, who had become a "stumbling block" in his purported incestuous relationship with his aunt. The Court observed that when the offence was committed in the presence of the accused in the privacy of their house, then their failure to offer explanations can be treated as an adverse circumstance against them as per Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 ('IEA').

The bench of Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma heard a criminal appeal where the appellants were convicted under sections 20B and 302 of the Indian Penal Code ('IPC') by the High Court and through this petition sought acquittal by overturning the High Court's decision. It was alleged that the appellant(s) were present in the house when the deceased died. However, the accused in their Section 313 CrPC defence statement claimed an alibi, explaining that they were at a specific location attending a function.

The case originates from a wedding between the now deceased and Accused No. 2. The adoptive father of the deceased (PW-1) disclosed that Accused No. 2. had an illicit and incestious relationship with Accused No. 1, his aunt. The prosecution submitted that the contents of the complaint reveal glaring details of the disturbing circumstances & troubles that the Deceased was being subjected to by the Appellants at the time of her marriage and the said details have been substantiated & corroborated by PW-1 in his cross-examination

The assertion that the illicit relationship between the accused that led to the murder of his wife is substantiated with medical evidence that reveals ante-mortem injuries sustained by the deceased. The postmortem report by doctor (PW-10), and Scientific Assistant (PW-11), who prepared the Viscera Report, clearly established that the Deceased had sustained external as well as internal ante-mortem injuries, which could not have been a natural consequence of consuming paint, as alleged by the appellants.

The Trial Court concluded that the case of the prosecution is not proved beyond reasonable doubt, and hence, the Appellant is entitled to an acquittal. It was observed that despite the medical evidence on record, courts can prefer to accept the eyewitness testimony(ies) in preference to the opinion of a medical expert. In the absence of any direct ocular evidence, the Trial Court did not consider it appropriate to award due to the medical evidence.

However, the High Court, in its opinion, reversed the findings of the Trial Court and convicted the Appellant(s) for, inter alia, the murder of the Deceased with the reasoning that the Postmortem Report supported the case of the Prosecution that the death of the deceased was homicidal on account of the clear motive ascribed to the Appellants.

The Supreme Court observed that the prosecution’s case relied on circumstantial evidence, testimonies of witnesses read with the reports of medical examination; however, there were no direct eyewitnesses to the incident.

The court referred to its decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984), which laid down five golden principles, which constitute the "panchsheel of proof" for a case based on circumstantial evidence. It was held that

"insofar as the facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, and the circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency; they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved; there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused. The prosecution has proved its case beyond reasonable doubt, established the complete chain of circumstances including the; (i) motive (ii) presence of the Appellants at the time of incident (iii) false explanation in the statement under Section 313 of the CrPC (iv) the conduct of the Appellants before and after the incident & most pertinently (v) the medical evidence; which in all human probability only correspond to the guilt of the Appellant."

Thus, after all the considerations, the court observed that there is enough evidence adduced by the Prosecution to hold that the Appellants had the clear motive to eliminate the Deceased and ultimately held that ''We are hence of the opinion that the Prosecution has been able to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt that the Accused Nos. 1 and 2, with the aid & support of the Accused No.3 have murdered the deceased Rajalakshmi and strangulated her to death.''

Case Title: Uma & Anr. v. The State Rep. By The Deputy Superintendent Of Police,  Criminal Appeal No.757/2015

Advocate For Appellant(s): Mr. T. R. B. Sivakumar, AOR Mr. Beno Bencigar, Adv. Mr. Kathirvelu, Sr. Adv. Mr. Vairawan A.S, AOR Mr. Jeyamohan, Adv. Mr. Sudhakaran, Adv. Mr. Alagiri Karunanidhi, Adv. Mr. Rohan Singh, Adv. Mr. P. Soma Sundaram, AOR

Advocate For Respondent(s): Mr. N.R. Elango, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sabarish Subramanian, AOR Mr. C. Kranthi Kumar, Adv. Mr. Vishnu Unnikrishnan, Adv. Mr. Naman Dwivedi, Adv. Mr. Sarathraj B, Adv. Mr. Danish Saifi, Adv. Mr. P. V. Yogeswaran, AOR