Case Name: Vijaya Singh & Anr. v. State of Uttarakhand
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 122 of 2013
Date of Judgment: November 25, 2024
Quorum: Justice Bela M. Trivedi and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma
Facts of the case
The case facts relate to the death that occurred due to unnatural reasons suffered by Devaki when she died of burn injuries on September 14, 2003 at her matrimonial home. The appellants are the husband, Vijaya Singh, and the mother-in-law, Basanti Devi, against whom the charge of murder has been framed. The Trial Court as well as the High Court of Uttarakhand convicted them based on circumstantial evidence and passed life imprisonment sentences. Appeals in the Supreme Court were preferred by the appellants.
Issues of the Case
- Whether the killing of Devaki a suicide or homicide?
- Whether or not the facts clearly brought out their guilt?
- Whether the findings of the Trial Court and High Court sustainable in law?
- Whether the delay in filing FIR raised a doubt on the prosecution’s
Argument of the Appellants
Appellants argued that FIR was registered after delayed hour of 24 hrs allowing the complainant the long time for concoction of story against them and proved a great inconsistency in the evidences of major witnesses such that the corroboration regarding the evidences put before the court by PW-1, PW-2, PW-5 and PW-6 has failed. The appellants insisted that it was one of suicide and not one of homicide as Devaki got frustrated with the fact that she could not go to Chandigarh with her husband. They also seriously questioned the credibility of statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC by PW3 and PW4 who happened to be sisters of the appellant No.1, insisting they were coerced statements, and, therefore, must not be considered as any voluntary or substantive evidence. Finally, they submit that the opinion of the experts was inconclusive and advisory only and did not categorically establish the cause of death as homicidal.
Arguments of the Respondent
The State of Uttarakhand submits that the circumstantial evidence on record in the case had provided a complete chain pointing squarely to the guilt of appellants. Thus, it was argued that all such actions pointed to the guilt of the appellants, as in not informing the victim’s family, interfering with the crime scene, and not getting medical help for the victim. The prosecution further pointed to the testimony of the medical expert in the case of homicide as it cannot happen when the suicide were the truth, and hence 100% burns. They further argued that the statements of PW-3 and PW-4 recorded under Section 164 CrPC were reliable and voluntarily made, though retracted under familial pressure. The respondent also pointed out that the appellants failed to give a plausible explanation for the fresh injuries found on their faces, which indicated a struggle.
The delay in the filing of the FIR was justified and did not diminish the strength of the case, which arose out of logistical challenges as well as immediate grief of the family.
Analysis
- Circumstantial Evidence:
The court reminds that in circumstantial evidence cases, the chain of evidence must clearly and undoubtedly prove the guilt of the accused. The principles of circumstantial evidence, as were evolved in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, were incorporated.
- Nature of death:
It followed then from evidence as noted before that since the victim could not have committed suicide considering her pregnancy status, death is not likely to be as defined. The expert testimony revealed that in the suicide case, 100% burns were not possible as the appellants claimed.
- Conduct of Appellants:
Appellants had modified the crime scene by adding water to burnt bedding plus putting grass on the body with the impression of guiltiness. The fresh apparent injuries on the appellants’ faces also indicated a fight.
- Witness Credibility:
PW-3 and PW-4 initially made incriminating statements under Section 164 CrPC but went back on them. The Court accepted the original statements of PW-3 and PW-4 and rejected allegations of coercion.
- Delay in FIR:
It found that delay was justified since there was sufficient time for digestion of shock the family had. Moreover, the local Patwari who knew everyone used not to be present at night.
Judgement
The appeal has been dismissed and the judgment of conviction and sentence given by the Trial Court and upheld by the High Court of Uttarakhand against the appellants. The court held the chain of circumstantial evidence to be complete and conclusive, pointing irresistibly towards the guilt of the appellants.
It held that the prosecution had established that the death of Devaki was homicidal and not suicidal, relying on expert testimony, corroborated witness statements, and the appellants’ incriminating conduct. The Court rejected the appellants’ arguments of delay in FIR registration, contradictions in witness testimonies, and coercion in statements recorded under Section 164 CrPC. It observed that the appellants’ explanations were inconsistent and insufficient to rebut the prosecution’s case. The Supreme Court, thus ordered the appellants to surrender within two weeks to serve their sentences.
Conclusion
The case highlights the requirement of circumstantial evidence in murder trials and the principle that the burden of proof of guilt must be satisfied beyond reasonable doubt. Judgment also demonstrates that the Court examines the credibility of the evidence and is sensitive to the context of delays at procedural stages. The appellants were convicted based on the inconsistencies in their explanations and incriminating conduct.
“PRIME LEGAL is a full-service law firm that has won a National Award and has more than 20 years of experience in an array of sectors and practice areas. Prime legal falls into the category of best law firm, best lawyer, best family lawyer, best divorce lawyer, best divorce law firm, best criminal lawyer, best criminal law firm, best consumer lawyer, best civil lawyer.”
WRITTEN BY RICHA PANDEY
