1975 (2) TMI 124 - SC - Indian Laws

Summary

Issues Involved:
1. Whether the husband caused the murder of his wife.
2. Reliability and corroboration of the approver's testimony.
3. Application of the principle of issue-estoppel due to the acquittal of a co-accused in a separate trial.
4. Evaluation of the High Court's interference with the Trial Court's acquittal.

Summary:

1. Whether the husband caused the murder of his wife:
The accused husband was charged u/s 302/24 I.P.C. for the murder of his wife, Bimla, who was found with acid burns and multiple injuries near a railway station and later pronounced dead. The Trial Judge acquitted the accused, but the High Court convicted him u/s 302 I.P.C., leading to this appeal.

2. Reliability and corroboration of the approver's testimony:
The approver, Jasbir Inder Singh (PW 5), a friend of the accused, provided a detailed account of the events leading to Bimla's death. His testimony was corroborated by independent witnesses and material evidence, including:
- Miss V. K. Sharma (PW 2) confirmed Bimla's statement that she was traveling with her husband.
- Raghbir Singh (PW 29), Ticket Collector, confirmed the accused's presence at Bhiwani Railway Station.
- Yudishter (PW 26) confirmed the arrival of the accused's companions at Sirsa without him.
- Shakti Parshaki Ghosh (PW 17) confirmed the booking of the accused's cycle on July 30, 1968.
- Sergeant R.N. Singh (PW 50) confirmed the accused reported acid burns on his hands on August 4, 1968.

3. Application of the principle of issue-estoppel:
The appellant argued that the acquittal of Bhanu Parkash Singh, a co-accused, in a separate trial should estop the conviction of the appellant. However, the court held that issue-estoppel requires the same parties and identical facts-in-issue in both trials. Since the parties and findings differed, issue-estoppel did not apply.

4. Evaluation of the High Court's interference with the Trial Court's acquittal:
The High Court found the Trial Court's reasons for disbelieving the approver and other evidence to be flawed. The High Court's interference was justified as the prima facie appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court was unreasonable. The High Court's conviction was upheld as the evidence, including the accused's subsequent conduct, indicated his guilt beyond reasonable doubt.

Conclusion:
The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, affirming the High Court's conviction of the accused u/s 302 I.P.C., finding the approver's testimony reliable and corroborated by independent evidence, and rejecting the application of issue-estoppel.