Case: Sooguru Subrahmanyam Vs. State of A.P

undented, for nothing has been put to him in the cross-examination except that he was making efforts to oblige the police. It has come in the evidence of PW-13, the Investigating Officer, that the lock was broke open in the presence of the witnesses and the dead body was found in the room. He has spoken about the seizure of Ex. P-21, the writing of the accused on a book. In the cross-examination, apart from a singular question relating to the Inquest Report, nothing has been asked.15. At this juncture, it is apt to note that PW-1, in the cross-examination, has stated that she had gone to Sai Baba Bhajan. The said aspect has not been believed by the learned trial Judge and we are inclined to think correctly. On the contrary, the circumstances have clearly established that she was in her house. The evidence on record clearly shows that there was a commotion in the morning, she had lodged the FIR, the police arrived and found the house locked from outside and it was broke open in the presence of the witnesses. It is worthwhile to note that the accused did not take the plea of alibi. On the contrary, the factum of abscondence has been proven. Under these circumstances, the cumulative effect is that the husband was present in the house when the death of the wife occurred. The suggestion of rape and murder which has been put in the form of violent sexual act has been found to be untrue on the basis of medical evidence and there is no reason to differ with the said finding. The husband has not come with any explanation where he was on the fateful night and how the door was locked. As has been stated earlier, he had absconded for long. He has not taken any step to report the unnatural death of his wife. From the aforesaid aspects, the circumstances soundly establish that the deceased was with the accused during the night, there was a locking of the door from outside which could not have been done by anyone else except him and further he absconded from the scene of the crime and did not report to the police. Thus, the irresistible and inescapable conclusion is that the accused was the culprit in committing the murder of his wife.16. Now, we may deal with the submission that the prosecution has not been able to prove any motive for the commission of the crime because the suspicion on the part of the husband has not been established. We have already recorded an affirmative finding on that score. However, we may, in this context, profitably refer to the pronouncement in Nathuni Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and another [(1998) 9 SCC 238] wherein a two-Judge Bench has laid down thus: - “17. Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Champbell struck a note of caution in R. v. Palmer [Shorthand Report at p. 308 CCC May 1856] thus:“But if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know, from experience of criminal courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives; not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressing difficulties.”Though, it is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant.” 17. In the said case, it was also observed that in some cases, it may not be difficult to establish motive through direct evidence, while in some other cases, inferences from circumstances may help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. In the case at hand, as is noticed, there is material on record which suggests that there was some ire that had swelled up in the mind of the accused to extinguish the life spark of the wife.18. It is to be borne in mind that suspicion pertaining to fidelity has immense potentiality to commit irreversible wrongs as it corrupts the mind and corrodes the sense of rational thinking and further allows liberty to the mind to pave the path of evil. In fact, it brings in baseness. It quite often impures mind, takes it to the devil’s den and leads one to do unjust acts than just deeds. In any case, it does not give licence to commit murder. Thus, the submission pertaining to the absence of motive has no substance.19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we conclude and hold that all the links in the chain of evidence are established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances are consistent with the singular hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime and it is totally inconsistent with his innocence. We have said so on the basis of the pronouncements in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622 ], Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. [AIR 1990 SC 79 ], Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1996 SC 607 ], Harischandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2007 SC 2957 ] and Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 2012 SC 2600 ].

Decision (1 = appeal accepted, 0 = rejected): 0

Explanation:
0[ds]9. On the basis of the said injuries, he has expressed the opinion that the deceased had died of asphyxia as a result of smothering and the time of death was 36 to 40 hours prior to his examination. The aforesaid injuries and the opinion has clearly revealed that the death was homicidal. In examination-in-chief, he has deposed that the external injuries mentioned by him vide Ex. P-8 are possible when a person places a pillow on the face and presses and the result is struggle. In the cross-examination, it has been suggested to him that the injuries recorded by him could be possibly by participating in violent sexual intercourse but the same has been categorically denied. Thus, there can be no iota of doubt that the death was homicidal and not suicidal and further it was not a case of rape and murder.10. Once it is held that the death was homicidal and the injuries were not the result of any violent sexual intercourse, the circumstances are to be scrutinized to see the complicity of the accused in the crime.11. First, we shall advert to the issue whether the suspicion relating to the illicit relationship by the accused-appellant has been established. True it is, the neighbours, PWs-1 to 5, who have turned hostile, have stated that the husband and wife had an amicable relationship but the version of the other witnesses project otherwise. From the testimony of PW-8, Triveni, the younger sister of the deceased, it is apparent that on 1.10.2000, the deceased had come to their house at Hindupur and had told her that the accused was harassing her on the pretext that she had developed illicit relationship with someone and was not providing her food. She has deposed that she advised the deceased that quarrels are common in family life and she should adjust herself and, accordingly, she went back to her husband. In the cross-examination, nothing has been elicited to discredit her testimony.12. PW-9, P. Gangappa, another relative of the deceased, has deposed about the deceased agonisedly describing before him the harassment meted out to her by her husband on the excuse that she had developed illicit intimacy with someone. There has been absolutely no cross-examination on this score.13. In view of the aforesaid, we are disposed to think that the accused, for whatever reason, had garnered suspicion against the attitude and character of his wife. We may hasten to add that PW-7, who in his 161 Statement had stated that the accused has told him about the anguish relating to hischaracter, though has turned hostile, yet the same would not make any difference to arrive at the conclusion on the basis of the evidence of PWs-8 and 9 that he had a suspicious mind as regards the character of his wife.14. Presently, we shall proceed to consider certain other circumstances. It has been established on the basis of the material on record that the premises had been taken on rent by the accused and Imamvalli from the landlady, PW-1. PW-1 has admitted that she had given the accused a portion of the house on rental basis. PW-5, son of Imamvalli, has admitted that the accused and his wife were residing on rent in the next portion of their house. Thus, they were close neighbours. PW-1 in her evidence has stated that she was not aware if the deceased was alive or not. The learned trial Judge has commented on her conduct which we need not further expatiate. The fact remains that she has deposed that when she got up in the morning, she found that there was some commotion in the portion which she had given on rent and it was informed to her that someone had died. It is interesting to note that she has admitted the FIR Ex. P-1. In the cross-examination, she has also admitted that the contents of Ex. P-1 were read over and explained to her before she signed it. PW-5 has deposed that Nagamani, the deceased, had died about 6.30 a.m., when PW-1, the landlady, was shouting. PW-12, N. Babu Naidu, the councillor of 26th Ward, has stated that after coming to know about the death of the deceased, he went to her house and found it locked and the same was opened after the police came and the dead body was found on the ground with a pillow on her face. His testimony has gone undented, for nothing has been put to him in the cross-examination except that he was making efforts to oblige the police. It has come in the evidence of PW-13, the Investigating Officer, that the lock was broke open in the presence of the witnesses and the dead body was found in the room. He has spoken about the seizure of Ex. P-21, the writing of the accused on a book. In the cross-examination, apart from a singular question relating to the Inquest Report, nothing has been asked.15. At this juncture, it is apt to note that PW-1, in the cross-examination, has stated that she had gone to Sai Baba Bhajan. The said aspect has not been believed by the learned trial Judge and we are inclined to think correctly. On the contrary, the circumstances have clearly established that she was in her house. The evidence on record clearly shows that there was a commotion in the morning, she had lodged the FIR, the police arrived and found the house locked from outside and it was broke open in the presence of the witnesses. It is worthwhile to note that the accused did not take the plea of alibi. On the contrary, the factum of abscondence has been proven. Under these circumstances, the cumulative effect is that the husband was present in the house when the death of the wife occurred. The suggestion of rape and murder which has been put in the form of violent sexual act has been found to be untrue on the basis of medical evidence and there is no reason to differ with the said finding. The husband has not come with any explanation where he was on the fateful night and how the door was locked. As has been stated earlier, he had absconded for long. He has not taken any step to report the unnatural death of his wife. From the aforesaid aspects, the circumstances soundly establish that the deceased was with the accused during the night, there was a locking of the door from outside which could not have been done by anyone else except him and further he absconded from the scene of the crime and did not report to the police. Thus, the irresistible and inescapable conclusion is that the accused was the culprit in committing the murder of his wife.16. Now, we may deal with the submission that the prosecution has not been able to prove any motive for the commission of the crime because the suspicion on the part of the husband has not been established. We have already recorded an affirmative finding on that score. However, we may, in this context, profitably refer to the pronouncement in Nathuni Yadav and others v. State of Bihar and another [(1998) 9 SCC 238] wherein a two-Judge Bench has laid down thus:Motive for doing a criminal act is generally a difficult area for prosecution. One cannot normally see into the mind of another. Motive is the emotion which impels a man to do a particular act. Such impelling cause need not necessarily be proportionally grave to do grave crimes. Many a murders have been committed without any known or prominent motive. It is quite possible that the aforesaid impelling factor would remain undiscoverable. Lord Chief Justice Champbell struck a note of caution in R. v. Palmer [Shorthand Report at p. 308 CCC May 1856]if there be any motive which can be assigned, I am bound to tell you that the adequacy of that motive is of little importance. We know, from experience of criminal courts that atrocious crimes of this sort have been committed from very slight motives; not merely from malice and revenge, but to gain a small pecuniary advantage, and to drive off for a time pressingit is a sound proposition that every criminal act is done with a motive, it is unsound to suggest that no such criminal act can be presumed unless motive is proved. After all, motive is a psychological phenomenon. Mere fact that prosecution failed to translate that mental disposition of the accused into evidence does not mean that no such mental condition existed in the mind of the assailant.In the said case, it was also observed that in some cases, it may not be difficult to establish motive through direct evidence, while in some other cases, inferences from circumstances may help in discerning the mental propensity of the person concerned. In the case at hand, as is noticed, there is material on record which suggests that there was some ire that had swelled up in the mind of the accused to extinguish the life spark of the wife.18. It is to be borne in mind that suspicion pertaining to fidelity has immense potentiality to commit irreversible wrongs as it corrupts the mind and corrodes the sense of rational thinking and further allows liberty to the mind to pave the path of evil. In fact, it brings in baseness. It quite often impures mind, takes it to theden and leads one to do unjust acts than just deeds. In any case, it does not give licence to commit murder. Thus, the submission pertaining to the absence of motive has no substance.19. In view of the aforesaid analysis, we conclude and hold that all the links in the chain of evidence are established beyond reasonable doubt and the established circumstances are consistent with the singular hypothesis that the accused is guilty of the crime and it is totally inconsistent with his innocence. We have said so on the basis of the pronouncements in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 1984 SC 1622 ], Padala Veera Reddy v. State of Andhra Pradesh and ors. [AIR 1990 SC 79 ], Balwinder Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 1996 SC 607 ], Harischandra Ladaku Thange v. State of Maharashtra [AIR 2007 SC 2957 ] and Jagroop Singh v. State of Punjab [AIR 2012 SC 2600 ].