2004 (4) TMI 572 - SC - Indian Laws

Whether the cause of death of Bimlabai although is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants as in the event of there being two possible views the one supporting the accused should be upheld?

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Demand for dowry and motive for murder.
2. Nature of death (homicidal or suicidal).
3. Presence of accused at the crime scene.
4. Credibility of witnesses and evidence.
5. Plea of alibi by the accused.
6. Reasoning behind the High Court's reversal of acquittal.

Detailed Analysis:

1. Demand for Dowry and Motive for Murder:
The judgment notes that there was a demand for dowry, which was not fulfilled, leading to annoyance on the part of Narendrasingh. This provided a motive for the murder. The court stated, "there was a demand of dowry which was not fulfilled. Narendrasingh was annoyed. Thus, there was motive for murder."

2. Nature of Death (Homicidal or Suicidal):
The court acknowledged that Bimlabai met a homicidal death by throttling, followed by being set on fire to cause the disappearance of evidence. The judgment states, "Vimlabai met homicidal death by throttling and thereafter was set to fire. The setting of fire must have been with intent to cause disappearance of evidence for screening the offender."

3. Presence of Accused at the Crime Scene:
The court considered the presence of at least three individuals (Narendrasingh, Gulbadanbai, and Kusum) in the house when the body was found. It was noted that no alarm was raised by Bimlabai, suggesting that the murderer was likely a close relation, probably her husband. The judgment reads, "At least three persons, i.e., Narendrasingh, Gulbadanbai and Kusum were present in the house in the afternoon and till the body was found inside the kitchen room... the person (murderer) must have been close relation of her and in all probability the husband."

4. Credibility of Witnesses and Evidence:
The High Court's reliance on the post-mortem report was questioned due to cuttings and over-writings. The defense argued that the presence of blood in the respiratory tract could obscure carbon particles, making it difficult to definitively conclude the cause of death as asphyxia. The judgment states, "the post mortem report should not have been relied upon by the High Court having regard to the fact that the burns have been held to be ante mortem in nature although the cause of death was said to be asphyxia."

5. Plea of Alibi by the Accused:
The appellants claimed they were attending a marriage ceremony at the time of the incident. The court noted that the plea of alibi was not disproved by the prosecution. The judgment mentions, "presence of accused at the time of death cannot be said to have been proved by the prosecution as the court witnesses categorically stated about their presence at the relevant time at the house of Illias Khan."

6. Reasoning Behind the High Court's Reversal of Acquittal:
The High Court reversed the acquittal based on circumstantial evidence, but the Supreme Court found that the prosecution failed to prove a vital link in the chain of events. The judgment states, "the entire case is based on circumstantial evidence... a vital link in the chain, viz., possibility of the appellant No. 1 committing the offence, closing the door and then sneaking out of the room from one of the two places had not been proved by the prosecution."

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, setting aside the High Court's judgment. The court emphasized the principle that benefit of doubt belongs to the accused, especially in cases based on circumstantial evidence. The judgment concludes, "We, thus, having regard to the post mortem report, are of the opinion that the cause of death of Bimlabai although is shrouded in mystery but benefit thereof must go to the appellants... Accordingly, the appeal is allowed."