Read Time: 09 minutes

Synopsis

The Supreme Court has recently acquitted a man of the charges of killing his wife, holding that in a case of circumstantial evidence, one cannot be convicted only on the basis of conduct.

A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Pankaj Mithal set aside the Karnataka High Court's judgment which upheld the conviction and sentence of life term imposed on one Sharanappa for murdering his wife Meenakshi in 2004 on suspicion that she was living an adulterous life.

The appellant had married the deceased in a mass marriage programme on Basavajayanti day in the year 2003. About three-four months prior to the incident, the appellant had taken the wife to Mangalore where he worked as a coolie and started living in rented accommodation.

Arguing the prosecution's case, Karnataka's Additional Advocate General contended that the appellant had not explained a very important circumstance against him that from May 28, 2004, to May 31, 2004, he did not lodge even a missing report with the police. He submitted that only after he came to know about the recovery of body of his wife, he lodged a missing complaint.

However, the prosecution case was that on May 28, 2004, itself, the appellant informed his father-in-law that his wife was missing, though he did not file a missing complaint.

The case was based on circumstantial evidence. The first circumstance was of last seen together. The second circumstance was of the recovery of a knife allegedly used as a weapon of offence by the appellant, at his instance. The third circumstance was that filing of a missing complaint on June 1, 2004, after getting the knowledge of the fact that the dead body of appellant's wife was found on earlier day.

The appellant's counsel contended that the evidence of last seen together witness Alfred Mathai was wholly unreliable and the evidence of the alleged witnesses to the recovery memorandum of alleged recovery of the knife at the instance of the appellant had not supported the prosecution case. 

"The case is based on circumstantial evidence. Therefore, it is the duty of the prosecution to establish all the circumstances forming a part of the chain. The first and the most important circumstance relied upon by the prosecution was of last seen together," the bench noted.

However, the bench found that in the cross-examination, the witness stated that he had not stated anything before the police which was found in his statement and which was recorded under Section 161 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973.

He admitted that in the cross-examination he did not state before the police that the appellant used to come to do the work of fixing tiles in the new building of the Church; he did not state before the police when he was proceeding toward Adyapadi Church, he saw the appellant and his wife at Mariyapur Bus Stop and he did not identify the woman after he saw the dead body because the face was in bad shape.

Further, in the cross-examination he stated that only when he went to the police station he came to know who the accused was and also whose dead body it was, the court noted.

"Thus, it is crystal clear that what is stated by the PW-3 Alfred Mathai in his examination-in-chief is a complete improvement. Therefore, it is impossible to believe his testimony. Hence, the theory of the prosecution about the last seen together must fail," the bench said.

So far as the case of the prosecution regarding recovery of the weapon of the offence at the instance of the appellant was concerned, the bench said, "We find that the two witnesses who were allegedly the witnesses to the Mazhar have not supported the prosecution. One witness stated that he signed the Mazhar at the police station. Another one did not depose before the Court that the appellant, while in police custody, stated that he was aware about the place at which he had concealed the weapon of the offence". 

"Therefore, even the second circumstance pleaded by the prosecution was not at all established. Only on the basis of the third circumstance based on the conduct of the appellant, the appellant cannot be convicted," the bench said.

The court, thus, allowed the appeal and acquitted him in the case.

Case Title: Sharanappa Vs State of Karnataka