G. Veerabrahmam vs State of Andhra Pradesh

The appellant, Guthula Veerabhramam, was convicted by the learned II Addl. Sessions Judge, East Godavari at Rajahmundry for committing murder of his wife Vijayalakshmi (hereinafter called "the deceased") by pouring kerosene over her body and setting fire to her in his own house at about 11.00 p.m. on 14-1-1983 and giving false information to screen himself from the legal punishment. He was sentenced to undergo imprisonment for life for the offence under S. 302, I.P.C., and to undergo rigorous imprisonment for three years for the offence under S. 201, I.P.C. with a direction that both the sentences shall run concurrently.

This is rather an unfortunate case where the marriage between the accused and his wife - the deceased Vijayalakshmi - ran into rough weather about two years, after one male child was born to them. "It is an unfortunate and disturbing phenomenon that has recently arisen in many parts of our Country that the instances of bride killing are alarmingly on the increase. If society should be ridden of this growing evil, it is imperative that whenever dastardly crimes of this nature are detected and the offence brought home to the accused, the Courts must deal with the offender most ruthlessly and impose deterrent punishment." [Vide Virbhan Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P., . The case before us is one of its kind. While, in the vast majority of such cases, the harassment and killing of the Bride is traceable to the abominable and pernicious practice of demanding and extracting dowry and the failure on the part of the Bride''s parents to adequately satisfy the greedy demands of the husband''s people, the reason for the torture and murder of innocent wife, Vijayalakshmi, in the present case, according to the prosecution, was that she was an obstacle and hindrance in continuance of the appellant''s illicit relations with one Hemalatha, the daughter of one Sathiraju, in whose house the accused and his wife were previously living as tenants. The appellant, was working as Lower Division Clerk in Godavari Barrage Project at Dowlaiswaram but his temporary services were terminated on the ground of excess staff about one month prior to the occurrence. Since, about three months prior to the date of occurrence, the accused and his wife have been residing in the house of one N. Gangaraju at Dowlaiswaram. Previous to that, he was residing in the house of the said Sathiraju in the same locality during which time he developed illicit relations with the said Hemalatha, Sathiraju''s daughter. The accused was compelled to vacate the house of the said Sathiraju at the instance of his brother-in-law (P.W. 12) to whom and her parents the deceased Vijayalakshmi had complained about illicit intimacy of her husband with the said Hemalatha. It is on account of the protests made by his wife Vijayalakshmi about the accused continuing affair with the said Hemalatha in spite of the change of the residence, he accused started harassing, ill-treating, assaulting and torturing her. By the date of the occurrence, the accused and his wife Vijayalakshmi and their two years old son alone were residing in a portion belonging to the said N. Gangaraju. As the deceased went on complaining against her husband about his affair with the said Hemalatha, the accused developed ill-feelings against her and that was the reason that he was beating and ill-treating her frequently. The father-in-law, mother-in-law and brother-in-law (P.W. 12) of the accused now and then used to admonish him whenever he picked up quarrel with his wife. P.W. 12, the brother of the deceased Vijayalakshmi and the brother-in-law of the accused went to the house of the accused on Bhogi day and requested him to go over to his parents house at Boboerlanka along with the deceased and their child for the Pongal and Kanumu festivals but the accused refused to oblige him and also refused to send his wife and the child. It is in the evidence of P.Ws. 1 and 2, who are no other than the daughter-in-law and sister-in-law respectively of the owner of the same house and who are residing in a portion adjoining to that of the accused, that the accused and his wife Vijayalakshmi were not living happily and that there were frequent quarrels between them. The accused beat his wife severely on several occasions and once drove her away to her parents house to fetch them for settlement. Accordingly, the deceased took her parents to the house of the accused and there was an altercation between the accused on the one hand and the father and brothers of the wife of the accused on the other. During that alteraction, the wife of the accused made specific allegations that the accused had illicit intimacy with the house owner''s daughter of the house in which they were previously residing and is continuing the same in spite of the change of their residence.

On the night of Sankranthi on 14-1-1983, the accused was in exclusive company of his wife and the two years old son in his portion and there was some altercation between the accused and his wife Vijayalakshmi on the question whether they should go to the parents house of the deceased Vijayalakshmi for the festival. At about 11-00 p.m. on that night, P.Ws. 1 and 2, who were the immediate neighbours of the accused, while they were preparing sweets in the back-yard of their house which adjoins the western room of the accused, heard the cries of Vijayalakshmi saying "Baboy Baboy". On hearing these cries, both P.Ws. 1 and 2 rushed to the western room of the accused and knocked the door and when the accused did not open the door, which was bolted from inside, they opened the same by forcibly pushing it. On entering into the room, they found the accused alone and none else standing without drawer on his person and his wife, Vijayalakshmi lying on the floor with face upwards in the dining room having extensive burns on the face and other parts of the body and struggling for life and saying that she was dying. The electric light was burning in the room at that time. Surprisingly they found the accused in normal disposition and unperturbed condition. They questioned the accused as well as Vijayalakshmi as to what happened. While Vijayalakshmi merely stated that she was dying, but the accused did not give any reply to the question put by P.W. 1. On seeing the deceased with extensive burns on her person, they raised alarm and in response to the alarm raised by them, the owner Gangaraju and P.W. 3 another tenant and a neighbour of the accused arrived at that place. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 and others who gathered there advised the accused to take Vijayalakshmi to the hospital which he did accordingly. Till then the accused did not open his mouth and remained silent and unperturbed. P.Ws. 1, 2 and 3 found in the dining room where the deceased Vijayalakshmi was lying, a kerosene bottle (M.O. 1) with a little quantity of Kerosene in it and M.O. 2 a match box and half burnt match stick. M.O. 3 is the burnt saree, M.O. 4 is the blouse and M.O. 5 is the langa of the deceased Vijayalakshmi which she had on her person at the time of the occurrence.

It is only at the instance of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3 and Gangaraju, the owner of the house of the accused, that the accused took his wife Vijayalakshmi with burn injuries to a private practitioner, P.W. 4, at about 11-00 p.m. on 14-1-1983 who in turn advised the accused to admit the deceased into the Government Head Quarters Hospital. Accordingly the accused admitted his wife with burn injuries in the Government Headquarters Hospital, Rajahmundry on 16-1-1983 where the deceased succumbed to the injuries on the same day at 6-15 p.m. P.W. 8 the doctor issued memo Ex. P. 2 intimating the death of the deceased to the police.

P.W. 14, the Head Constable on receipt of the intimation Ex. P. 2 from the Government Head quarters Hospital Rajahmundry at 8-15 a.m. on 15-1-1983 made an entry in the General Diary and proceeded to the Government Hospital. He found the deceased Vijayalakshmi in an unconscious state. The accused who was available in the hospital gave his statement, Ex. P. 9 as though his deceased wife died by accident. That statement deserves to be reproduced in extenso as recorded by P.W. 14, which is marked as Ex. P. 9 and which reads :

"I have been working as Clerk in Dowleswaram Barrage since about 5 years. On 14-1-1983 I was reading a novel sitting in my house. My wife Vijayalakshmi was preparing eatables (Garelu) in the Kitchen. It was then about 8-30 p.m. Then I heard the cries "Baboi Baboi" from the Kitchen where my wife was. By the time I went there, my wife''s saree was burning and her entire face was burnt and she fell down and was rolling on the ground. When I asked my wife as to how she was burnt, she told me that while she was taking water from the Binda there, the water fell in the Mukudu and fire caught her saree. On hearing my cries, the neighbours also came there and sprinkled water and put off the fire. Being unable to know what to do, I took a cloth and covered it over her. Then we took her to the Hospital of Dr. Vasantha. The doctor gave her one injection. Again, out of fear, I took her to the Govt. Hospital. It was about 1-30 in the night. As my wife was not in a position to speak by the time police arrived, I narrated what all happened as above, when I was asked. Heard when read over. It is correct."

P.W. 9 Dr. Atchutharamarao, who conducted post-mortem examination on the dead body of the deceased Vijayalakshmi found Extensive III Degree burns present over face, scalp, neck front of the chest, both the shoulders, thighs and over the pubic region. On an internal examination he found the heart, lungs, liver spleen and kidney normal. He found 1 ozs. of liquid in Stomach. He opined that the death of (Sic) the deceased would appear to have died of extensive burns and shock within 24 hours prior to post-mortem examination. Ex. P. 4 is the post-mortem Certificate. He further opined that the burn injuries present on the body of the deceased would be sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in ordinary course of nature. According to him it could be caused by pouring Kerosene on the person and fire is set to the body.

P.W. 15, the Asst. Sub-Inspector of Police, Dowlaiswaram on receipt of the death intimation Ex. P. 2 registered Exs.P. 1, P. 9 and P. 2 as Crime No. 7 of 1983 under S. 174 Cr.P.C. He reached the scene of offence in the house of the accused along with mediators including P.W. 11 and having observed the scene of occurrence in the presence of mediators got the scene of occurrence in the room adjoining the bed room photographed. He found Kerosene bottle, Match box, burnt saree, burnt blouse, burnt langa and burnt heir M.Os. 1 to 6 respectively at the scene of occurrence and seized them under Ex. P. 5. He also prepared rough sketch of the scene of offence, Ex. P. 11. He examined P.Ws. 1 and 2 and others during the inquest. He sent the lead body of the deceased to the Doctor P.W. 9 for autopsy. P.W. 16 after the examination of other witnesses altered the section of the crime from one under S. 174 Cr.P.C. to one under S. 302 I.P.C. against the accused. The Inspectors after completing the investigation laid the charge-sheet against the accused for the offences under sections 302 and 201, I.P.C.

The learned Sessions Judge found that he circumstantial evidence available on record would definitely lead to the conclusion that in all human probability, the deceased was murdered by the accused. He further held that the prosecution has established beyond reasonable doubt the guilt of the accused under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. The learned Sessions Judge relied on (1) Motive (2) Place and time of the murder of the deceased (3) Conduct of the accused in keeping quiet in the presence of the witnesses who immediately arrived at he scene of occurrence and (4) giving false information to the Police in Ex. P. 9 and (5) the nature of injuries found on the deceased.

In this appeal, Sri C. Obulapathi Chowdary, the learned counsel for the appellant contended that the circumstancial evidence did not conclusively establish the appellant''s guilt beyond reasonable doubt because it did not exclude reasonable possibility of his innocence and the case being of suicide and not homicidal in nature.

This is a case of circumstantial evidence. There is no direct evidence in the sense of eye-witness account to connect the accused with the crime in question. The law is well settled that the conviction of an accused solely on circumstantial evidence can only be based, if all the circumstances are proved, and the chain of circumstances so proved is of conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to exclude every hypothesis, but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, there must be a chain of evidence so far complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for a conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused. It is not necessary that every one of the proved circumstances by itself must be decisive of the complicity of the accused in the crime. It may be that a particular circumstance relied upon by the prosecution may not be so, yet that circumstance along with other facts, which have also been proved, may tend to strengthen the conclusion of the guilt. Thus, the Court has to judge the total cumulative effect of all the proved circumstances, each of which reinforces the conclusion of the guilt of the accused and if the combined effect of such circumstances is taken to be conclusive in establishing the guilt of the accused, the conviction would be justified.

The Supreme Court while laying down the principles governing cases based purely on circumstantial evidence observed as follows :-

"The law on the subject is well settled for the last 6-7 decades and there have been so many decisions on this point that the principles laid down by Courts have become more or less axiomatic."

The Supreme Court further observed that the following conditions must be fulfilled before a case against an accused can be said to be fully established :

"(1) The circumstances from which the conclusion of guilt is to be drawn should be fully established.

"It may be noted here that this Court indicated that the circumstances concerned ''must or should'' and not ''may be'' established. There is not only a grammatical but a legal distinction between ''may be proved'' and ''must be or should be proved'' as was held by this Court in Shivaji Sahabrao Bobade and Another Vs. State of Maharashtra, where the following observations were made :

"certainly, it is a primary principle that the accused must be and not merely may be guilty before a Court can convict and the mental distance between ''may be'' and ''must be'' is long and divides vague conjectures from sure conclusions.

The facts so established should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused, that is to say, they should not be explainable on any other hypothesis except that the accused is guilty.

The circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency.

they should exclude every possible hypothesis except the one to be proved, and

there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused and must show that in all human probability the act must have been done by the accused."

"These five golden principles, if we may say so, constitute the panchsheel of the proof of a case based on circumstantial evidence.

In Udaipal Singh Vs. The State of U.P., at P. 10) which is also a bride killing case the facts reveal that the appellant, who was married to Savitri Devi, was staying with his wife under the same roof with his parents. Savitri Devi died an unnatural death in her bedroom on the night of 18-19th April, 1964. The information regarding the death was lodged with the Police by her Father-in-law. There was no direct evidence because in the very nature of things apart from the inmates of the house there could be no eye witness of the occurrence and the prosecution had, therefore, necessarily to rely on circumstantial evidence only.

The Supreme Court while dealing with the circumstantial evidence observed (Para 11) :

"In case where only circumstantial evidence is available at the outset one normally starts looking for the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. If the evidence shows that the accused having a strong enough motive had the opportunity of committing the crime and the established circumstances on the record considered along with the explanation, if any, of the accused, exclude the reasonable possibility of anyone else being the real culprit then the chain of evidence can be considered to be so complete as to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused. He may, in that event, safely be held guilty on such circumstantial evidence".

That was also a case of husband murdering his wife and the case also rested on circumstantial evidence, the trial court in that case relied on

Motive

Place and time of the murder of the deceased

Presence of the three accused persons near the house at the time of the occurrence;

Conduct of the three accused in keeping quiet throughout the night and the conduct of the father-in-law giving wrong information to the Police.

Nature of the injuries found upon the persons of the deceased.

On appeal, the High Court held the appellant guilty of the murder of his wife for the following reasons :

He had very strong motive to get ride of his wife with whom his relations were very much strained for the four years preceding the murder.

He was present in the village and must have been in his own house when the occurrence took place. He had, therefore, the opportunity to commit the murder.

The place of occurrence was his own room.

His conduct after the occurrence had taken place and false explanation furnished by him. It was his duty to have given proper explanation as to how and in what circumstances the deceased met her death. However, he came forward with a false explanation and false plea of alibi.

In the very first report which the father-in-law made to the police an attempt was made to create an alibi for the appellant. That also clearly indicated that the appellant was the murderer and had to be saved. He was accordingly held guilty under S. 302, I.P.C., or in the alternative under S. 302, read with S. 34, I.P.C. The other two accused persons, namely, his parents were held not to have as strong a motive as the present appellant has in getting rid of the deceased. Though in the opinion of the High Court there were grave suspicions against the parents as well they were given benefit of doubt and acquitted of the charge of murder. The father-in-law was held guilty of an offence under S. 201, I.P.C. and sentenced to rigorous imprisonment for three years, the mother-in-law was given benefit of doubt for this offence as well.

On appeal by special leave to the Supreme Court it was held that (Para 11) :

"From the very nature of things apart from the inmates of the house, there could be no eye-witness of the occurrence of this case and the prosecution had, therefore, necessarily to rely on circumstantial evidence only. In cases where only circumstantial evidence is available at the outset one normally starts looking for the motive and the opportunity to commit the crime. If the evidence shows that the accused having a strong enough motive had the opportunity of committing the crime and the established circumstances on the record considered along with the explanation if any of the accused, exclude the reasonable possibility of any one else also being the real culprit then the chain of evidence can be considered to be so complete as to show that within all human probability the crime must have been committed by the accused. He may, in that event, safely be held guilty on such circumstantial evidence. On behalf of the appellant this proposition was not disputed. According to him the letters written by the deceased to her father alone distinguish the appellant''s case from that of his parents and if those letters are excluded from consideration being inadmissible in evidence, then, he would also be entitled to acquittal like his parents. But even excluding the letters written by the deceased to her father, there is ample evidence showing the strong motive on the part of the appellant to get rid of his wife. The letter written by the appellant to his mistress quite clearly brings out the feeling of disgust which he cherished towards the deceased. The admissibility of this letter has not been questioned on behalf of the appellant. When confronted with this letter, the appellant came out with the explanation that he had written it in order merely to tease his wife. This explanation had only to be stated to be rejected. This letter indicated that the appellant wanted to get rid of his wife. The circumstances which induced the High Court to uphold the appellant''s conviction are inconsistent with the innocence of the appellant and incapable of any other hypothesis than that of the appellant''s guilt. The appellant''s culpability on the facts and circumstances of this case is unaffected by the acquittal of his parents."

In Virbhan Singh and Another Vs. State of U.P., , a similar case of Bride killing, their Lordships of Supreme Court considered the question whether the death of the Bride was a murder committed by the husband or a suicide by the Bride. The trial Judge in that case found that the death of the deceased Bride was caused as a result of injuries inflicted on her by her husband, father-in-law and mother-in-law. In the appeal filed by the three accused, the High Court confirmed the finding that the case was not one of suicide but one of calculated murder, the hanging by rope being part of the process of the deceased being put to death by her assailants. The High Court, however, has taken the view that the presence of the father-in-law at the time of the commission of the offence was not established beyond doubt and hence the High Court acquitted him giving the benefit of doubt. The conviction of the accused and his mother under S. 302 I.P.C. was confirmed by the High Court. In the appeal filed by the husband of the Bride and the mother-in-law of the Bride, the Supreme Court observed thus :

"We find no merit at all in the appeal. Since we are in complete agreement with the findings entered by the Session Judge and the High Court regarding the cause of the death of the deceased and the manner in which she was done to death, it is unnecessary for us to burden this judgment with a repetition of the details of the evidence. The case, no doubt, turns purely on circumstantial evidence. But the circumstances are so telling that the only conclusion reasonably possible is the one arrived at by the courts below that the deceased did not commit suicide by hanging herself but was done to death by being brutally assaulted and thereafter hung by the neck with a rope. The medical evidence clearly goes to prove that it would not have been possible for the deceased, who had sustained severe injuries of the type and nature described in the post-mortem report in the stomach and liver, to hang herself. The husband, Virbhan Singh and his mother, Smt. Gyani Devi, were throughout present in the house and no outsider had come to the house at the relevant time. According to the opinion of the doctor, the latest point of time at which the death of the deceased could have taken place was 5-30 a.m. on 14-8-1968 but even on the evening of that day when P.W. 1 Shrimati Ram Kumari, sister of the deceased, went to their house and enquired for the deceased she was told by Virbhan Singh and his mother that the deceased has gone out with the father-in-law for getting some medicine. On the next day (15th August 1968) rumours spread in the village that the deceased had been done to death and it was only when P.W. 1 accompanied by her brother-in-law, P.W. 4 went to the house of the accused and insisted on being shown the body that she was finally allowed to see the dead body of her sister which, by then, was already in a state of decomposition. Significantly, it is only subsequent thereto that Sileti Singh went to the Police Station and lodged the report stating that the deceased had committed suicide by hanging. The conduct of the appellants is consistent only with their active involvement in the commission of the crime. It has come out in the evidence that on the evening of the 14th August 1968 at about 7-30 or 8-00 p.m. Sileti Singh had made attempts to remove clandestinely the dead body from the locality for which purpose he had met Brahmanand (P.W. 3) a truck owner, and unsuccessfully tried to hire his truck to transport the dead body.

"On a scrutiny of the evidence, we are fully satisfied that the conclusion recorded by the learned Sessions Jugge and by the High Court, that the appellants are guilty of the murder of the deceased in a most brutal and heinous fashion, is perfectly correct and sound. We may observe that the reasons stated by the High Court in acquitting Sileti Singh, by giving him the benefit of doubt, have not appealed to us as sound and convincing but since the State has not preferred an appeal, his acquittal will stand."

The Supreme Court happened to consider a case similar, to the one on hand in Dr. V.K. Saxena Vs. State of Uttar Pradesh, . The question in that case was whether it was a case of murder or suicide by hanging. The case of the prosecution in that case was that the husband one Dr. Saxena and his Nurse with whom the Doctor had illicit relationship, were responsible for the death of the deceased. The Supreme Court took into consideration the conduct of the husband Dr. Saxena in buying a box, packing dead body of his wife (Sudha) into that box and throwing it from running train, leaving no doubt that he committed her murder. The story of suicide by hanging by wife when her husband and two years'' old child were present in the home was found incredible particularly when no rope was found in the house and medical evidence also not showing that deceased hanged herself. The Court also took into consideration the proof of motive of murder in view of illicit relationship of the accused Dr. Saxena with his nurse Bhagwati Singh. The Court held both the husband and nurse guilty of murder and awarded death sentence. In the appeal when two Judges of the High Court differed on the point of guilt, reference was made to a third Judge who upheld the conviction of the accused under sections 302 and 201 I.P.C. but reduced the death sentence to life imprisonment. In the special appeal filed by the husband Dr. Saxena, the Supreme Court observed thus (Para 4) :

"We have heard Shri R. K. Garg for over an hour but we are unable to see even the semblance of a point in favour of his client. With respect, we are somewhat surprised that having held that Dr. Saxena had thrown the box containing the body of his deceased wife from a running train, Hari Swarup, J., should have persuaded himself to take the view that Sudha may have committed suicide by hanging herself. It is plain logic that if she had committed suicide, there was no reason for her husband to pack her dead body in a box and throw that box from a running train into river. Dr. Saxena travelled with the box from Hardoi to Lucknow by the Sialdah Express, took another train from Lucknow to Kanpur and threw the box on the way. It is also impossible to understand how when Dr. Saxena was himself present in the house, Sudha could hang herself by a rope in that very house, with a two year old child near her. No rope was found in the house and the medical evidence does not show that Sudha hanged herself. The conduct of Dr. Saxena in buying a box, packing the dead body of his wife into that box and throwing it from a running train leaves no doubt that he committed her murder. There is the clearest evidence of motive on the record of the case. Dr. Saxena had an illicit affair with the nurse due to which he used to harass, pressurise, threaten and assault Sudha. Not only did he tell Sudha''s father and his own father falsely that Sudha had run away but he lodged false and misleading reports that she had run away. Little did he realise that the Ganges had refused to accept the box, which contained tell-tale evidence of the dastardly murder of a defenceless woman."

In the Special Appeal filed by the nurse Bhagwati Singh with whom Doctor had illicit relationship, the Supreme Court observed thus (Para 6) :

"There is not the slightest doubt that Bhagwati Singh is the root cause of the murder Sudha, wife of her paramour Dr. Saxena. We have also no doubt that Sudha''s murder was a consummation which Bhagwati Singh must have devoutly wished for. But there is neither evidence of conspiracy between her and Dr. Saxena to commit the murder of Sudha nor any evidence that she was present at or out the time of Sudha''s murder. We, therefore, dismiss the SLP though not without expressing our severe resentment against the overall conduct of Bhagwati Singh. She, like Dr. Saxena, has disgraced a noble profession. Together, they are responsible for the murder of an innocent woman-one morally and the other legally."

In Prabhakar Jasappa Kanguni Vs. State of Maharashtra, , the Supreme Court while dealing with the similar case of the husband murdering his wife resting upon only circumstantial evidence has taken into consideration the following circumstantial evidence. The accused-husband was addicted to heavy drinking. Relations of the husband with his ceased wife were not happy. On the date of occurrence, the wife attempted to commit suicide by taking Baygon poison but she did not die of poisoning because of saline emetic given to her. Doctor examining her found her right at 9-45 a.m. After an hour or so the wife died. At the time of the death of the wife, there was no other person in the house except the husband (accused.). Doctor conducting post-mortem examination opined that the death of the wife was due to asphyxia as a result of throttling. This medical opinion was found to be entirely trustworthy. The wife''s death was found to be not due to poisoning. The Supreme Court held that in all human probability, it was the accused (husband) and none else, who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death. In that case the Supreme Court referred to various circumstantial pieces of evidence mentioned as (a) to (h).

"The conviction of the appellant for murder of his wife, rests on an inference drawn from these facts and circumstances :

(a) Malti met a homicidal death. She was throttled to death, and did not die of poisoning.

(b) The accused was addicted to heavy drinking and he did not leave this habit in spite of the repeated protests of his wife and the reprimands and advice of his father. As a result, the relations of the accused with his wife were not happy and on the morning of 7th September, 1969, she attempted to commit suicide by taking Baygon poison, but she did not die of poisoning because of the saline emetic first given to her by the accused and later by Dr. Kulkarni.

(c) During his first visit which lasted for about one hour. Dr. Kulkarni found Malti lying on the cot. He found her quite conscious. her pulse and blood pressure and chest were normal. He gave her injections. Malti at that time sat up in the bed and took tea. She asked for a towel and wiped her face. Dr. Kulkarni had examined her throat and finding Malti all right left the house around 9 or 9-45 a.m.

(d) At about 10-45 a.m. when Dr. Kulkarni visited the house of the accused second time and tried to enter the room in which Malti was, the accused came in the doorway and turned back Dr. Kulkarni with the representation that Malti was all right and he himself would manage.

(e) At about 11-15 or 11-30 a.m. when Dr. Kulkarni, Dr. Mali and Prof. Chandake were on their way to the house of the accused, gardener Market (P.W. 4) told them that Malti had expired.

(f) On going into Malti''s room at about 11.30 a.m. or 12 noon Dr. Kulkarni found her lying dead on the floor, without any saree or blouse over her body, while during his first visit Malti was on the cot with the clothes on her person and was practically all right.

(g) (Inferentially) Malti died some time between 9 a.m. and 11 a.m. Probably, she had already died a homicidal death when Dr. Kulkarni, on his second visit at 10-30 a.m. tried to enter Malti''s room but was prevented by the accused on the false representation that she was feeling better and he would himself manage.

(h) At the time of Malti''s death, no other person excepting the accused was in the house. In fact, Surekha was sent away by the accused to Mrs. Rajadhye''s house. In morning of the day of occurrence, when the maid-servant, Akkatai came to work in the house, the accused sent her back saying that there was no work of cleansing pots in his house."

Their Lordships of the Supreme Court dealt in detail the statement made by the accused under S. 313, Cr.P.C. with reference to (a) to (h) circumstances. With regard to the circumstance No. (a) the accused first tried to set up the defence that his wife Malti committed suicide by taking Baygon poison. But later he changed his defence, The accused did not seriously dispute the existence of facts (b), (c), (e), (f) and (h). But he strenuously controverted fact (a). He also disputed the correctness of (d) and Dr. Kulkarni''s evidence to that effect. He has tried to explain (f) and also last limb of (h) as to why he had sent Akkatai away. The accused has admitted that his wife was utterly dissatisfied and was unhappy because he was addicted to drink but stated that he had endeavoured to control his vice. The accused further admitted that he and his wife Malti were the only inmates of the house when Surekha had gone to the bathroom and Malti has raised the out-cry. Taking into consideration the facts and circumstances of the case, the Supreme Court held that it was the accused who was in exclusive company of his deceased wife and none else would have murdered his wife by strangulating her to death. The court further held that this circumstance will inescapably lead to the conclusion that in all human probability, it was the accused-appellant and none else, who had murdered the deceased by strangulating her to death.

We may lastly refer to a recent decision of the Supreme Court in Rama Nand and Others Vs. State of Himachal Pradesh, . That was also a case of a husband killing his wife while they were living under the same roof. The body was disposed of and was found subsequently in a legless and armless condition, the flesh having been eaten away by dogs. A part of the skull was found intact, while the remaining part of the skeleton was lying at some distance. The body was in a highly decomposed state and was reduced to a skeleton. There was, however, some flesh on the buttock portion with a burn mark on the basis whereof witnesses identified it to be that of the deceased. A few components of the skeleton including the mandible, were sent to the Dental Surgeon and Radiologist for examination and opinion. The Doctors, however, opined that the mandible belonged to a child of not more than ten years of age. The components of the skeleton were also sent to the Professor of Anatomy in the Medical College, Simla, but his opinion about the age of the deceased was similar. The sex of the skeleton could not be determined. The Supreme Court, however, came to the conclusion on the circumstances established and set out in para 12 of the judgment that the corpse found was of the deceased Savitri. It came to the conclusion that the bones which were sent for examination and opinion to the Dental Surgeon as well as the Professor of Anatomy were substituted. Considerable reliance was placed on the find of paranda (cotton head-tail) which contained a bunch of hair which matched with the hair of the deceased. On an assumption that the corpus delicti, that is, the dead body of the victim was not found, the Supreme Court observed that the question whether the other circumstances established on record were sufficient to lead to the conclusion that within all human probability Savitri was murdered by the appellant remained to be considered. After referring to the observations of Sir Mathew Hale : ''I would never convict, a person of murder or manslaughter unless the facts were proved to be done, or at least the body was found dead. Their Lordships observed that this was merely a rule of caution, and not of law. Their Lordships then made the following observations (Para 27) :

"But in those times when execution was the only punishment for murder, the need for adhering to this cautionary rule was greater. Discovery of the dead body of the victim bearing physical evidence of violence, has never been considered as the only mode of proving the corpus delicti in murder. Indeed, very many cases are of such a nature where the discovery of the dead body is impossible. A blind adherence to this old ''body'' doctrine would open the door wide open for many a heinous murderer to escape with impunity simply because they were cunning and clever enough to destroy the body of their victim. In the context of our law, Sri Hale''s enunciation has to be interpreted no more than emphasising that where the dead body of the victim in a murder case is not found, other cogent and satisfactory proof of the homicidal death of the victim must be adduced by the prosecution. Such proof may be by the direct ocular account of an eye-witness, or by circumstantial evidence, or by both. But where the fact of corpus delicti. i.e., ''homicidal death'' is sought to be established by circumstantial evidence also, the circumstances must be of a clinching and definitive character unerringly leading to the inference that the victim concerned has met a homicidal death. Even so, this principle of caution cannot be pushed too far as requiring absolute proof. Perfect proof is seldom to be had in this imperfect world, and absolute certainty is a myth. That is why u/s 3 Evidence Act, a fact is said to be ''proved'', if the Court considering the matters before it, considers its existence so probable that a prudent man ought, under the circumstances of the particular case, to act upon the supposition that it exists. The corpus delicti or the fact of homicidal death, therefore, can be proved by telling and inculpating circumstances which definitely lead to the conclusion that within all human probability, the victim has been murdered by the accused concerned."

Therefore, it seems to be well settled that where the inference of guilt of an accused person is to be drawn from circumstantial evidence alone, those circumstances must be established beyond reasonable doubt and they should point towards the guilt of the accused, meaning thereby that the totality of the circumstances must unerringly lead to the conclusion that within all human probability the accused and none else had committed the crime in question.

We now come to the nature and character of the circumstantial evidence relied upon by the prosecution in this case. The circumstantial evidence on which the case rested consists of the following items :

The accused had very strong motive to get rid of his wife (the deceased) with whom relations were very much strained on account of his illicit relations with one Hemlatha, the daughter of the previous landlord N. Sathiraju.

The accused was in exclusive company of his wife in his own house and no one else was present when the occurrence took place and he had therefore the opportunity to commit the murder.

Place of occurrence was his own room.

P.Ws. 1 and 2 heard the cries of the deceased and rushed to the scene of occurrence and knocked the door of the house of the accused but the accused did not open the door and they had to enter into the house by forcibly pushing the door.

When P.Ws. 1 and 2 entered the house of the accused, they saw the accused and non else standing by the side of his wife, who was lying on the floor and struggling for life with burnt clothes on her body, and the accused did not open his mouth and kept quiet in spite of P.Ws. 1 and 2 questioning him as to what happened to his wife Vijayalakshmi.

At that time no other person except the accused and his two years old son sleeping in the bed room was in exclusive company of the deceased.

At the scene of occurrence, there were found a Kerosene bottle with some kerosene (M.O. 1), Match box and one used Match stick (M.O. 2).

The conduct of the accused at the time of the occurrence and immediately thereafter was indicative of his guilt.

The accused gave false statement to the Police that the death of the deceased was by accident but later changed his version as though it was suicide.

Nature of the injuries found upon the person of the deceased and Medical evidence as to the cause of the death of the deceased.

The conviction of the appellant by the learned Sessions Judge for the murder of his wife (the deceased) rested on inferences and conclusions drawn from the abovementioned facts and circumstances.

In his examination under S. 313 Cr.P.C. the accused has tried to set up the defence that he gave his earliest version in Ex. P. 9 to the Head Constable to the effect that his wife died due to accidental burning of her clothes while cooking with the hope that she will survive. Ex. P. 9 is the statement of the accused in the nature of a report to the Police which was treated First Information Report and the Case was registered under S. 174 Cr.P.C. Even the time of occurrence in Ex. P. 9 is falsely given as 8-30 p.m. when in fact the occurrence took place at 11-00 p.m. The version given by the accused in Ex. P. 9 to the Head Constable P.W. 14 was that while he was reading a novel at about 8-30 p.m. sitting in his own house, his wife Vijayalakshmi was preparing eatables (Garelu) in the kitchen, he heard her cries ''Baboi'' ''Baboi'' from the kitchen and when he rushed to the kitchen he found his wife''s saree and her face burning and then falling down and rolling on the ground. When he enquired his wife as to what happened, she told him that while preparing Garely she tried to take water from a vessel and that in that process water fell in the Mukudu (Frying pan) and that her saree caught fire and that on hearing her cries the neighbours came there and poured water and put off fire and that they took the deceased to the Doctor, P.W. 4 and then to the Govt. Hospital at about 1-30 a.m. during the night and that his wife was not in a position to speak by the time police came and hence he narrated all the facts as contained in Ex. P. 9.

When he was questioned by the court under S. 313, Cr.P.C. the accused changed his version altogether and came forward with an explanation that he narrated all the facts as contained in Ex. P. 9 as he had by then hope that his wife would survive. But he admitted in his examination under S. 313, Cr.P.C. almost the entire case of the prosecution except pleading that he was not responsible for the burns on his wife. He admitted that occurrence took place sometime between 9.30 to 11-00 p.m. He further admitted that P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 entered into the dining room immediately after the occurrence by forcibly opening the western door where his wife was lying on the floor when he did not open the door on their knocking and so also the arrival of P.W. 3 at the scene immediately thereafter. But he changed version in his 313, Cr.P.C. statement which is that while he was sleeping on one cot and his child on another cot he heard the cries of his wife from the kitchen room, that just when he entered into the dining room from his bed to go to kitchen room he saw his wife and her clothes burning in the dining room and that he himself poured water contained in a vessel on her and himself put off fire. He further stated that when P.Ws. 1 and 2 came and enquired her as to what happened she stated that she must die.

The accused does not dispute the existence of facts and circumstances enumerated in circumstances Nos. 2 to 7 but he gives explanation as regards the circumstances Nos. 1, 8, 9 and 10. The circumstances Nos. 2 to 6 have been established by the testimony of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 whereas the circumstance No. 7 has been established by the testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 3, the Investigating Officers P.W. 15 and P.W. 16 and the Panch witness P.W. 11. The accused also does not dispute the fact that at the scene of occurrence, there were found a kerosene bottle with little kerosene in it (M.O. 1), match box and one used match stick (M.O. 2) along with the burnt saree, blouse and langa of the deceased. Hence, the circumstances Nos. 2 to 7 can safely be accepted as established.

As regards circumstances Nos. 8 and 9, the evidence of P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 shows that while the deceased Vijayalakshmi was crying with burn injuries lying on the floor of the dining room, the accused who was in exclusive company of his wife was just standing at the head of Vijayalakshmi with only a drawer on his person and no other clothing. They found him in a normal and unperturbed condition without any feeling for his suffering and dying wife and also making no effort to raise alarm or call for the neighbours for help. He also did not make any effort to call for the Doctor for immediate medical aid, to his wife nor did he make any attempt to take his injured wife to the local Doctor or to the Government Hospital. It is only when P.W. 1, P.W. 2 and P.W. 3 persuaded him to take his wife to the hospital, the accused took his injured wife to the Nursing Home of P.W. 4, who referred the case to the Government Hospital and accordingly he got her admitted into the Government Hospital as late as at about 1-50 a.m. in the night. When he gave the report Ex. P. 9 to the Head Constable at the hospital, he opened his mouth for the first time after breaking his long silence from the time of the occurrence till the Head Constable recorded his statement and made a false statement saying that while his wife was preparing eatables (Garelu) she happened to pull a vessel containing water and in that process the water fell on the ''Mukudu'' (Frying Pan) and got burnt. Thus, at the first instance the accused concocted a story of the deceased catching fire by accident and sustaining burn injuries in the kitchen room while preparing eatables (Garelu) and that in response to the cries raised by the deceased, P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 arrived at the scene and themselves poured water on her and later all of them took the deceased to the Doctor and to the hospital. Thus, the accused attempted to give a false version of burning of his wife by accident while cooking in the kitchen room. Thereafter, in his 313, Cr.P.C. statement the accused advanced altogether a different version as to the scene of occurrence and the cause of burn injuries to his wife. His defence was that while he was lying down on a cot in the bed room he heard the cries of his wife from the kitchen and when he wanted to rush to the kitchen in that process when he just entered into the dining room he found the deceased with her clothes and body burning and that he himself put off the fire by pouring water from a vessel and at that juncture P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 entered into the dining room on hearing the cries of his wife and that they questioned the deceased to what happened and she told them that she should die.

Thus, the circumstances Nos. 8 and 9 have been established by the evidence of the prosecution as referred to above and also divergent statements of the accused at different stages of the case.

There is credible evidence in support of Ist and 10th circumstances. As regards the 10th circumstance we have the testimony of the post mortem Doctor P.W. 9 who held autopsy on the dead body of the deceased. On examination he found that there were extensive III degrees burns over face, scalp, neck, front of the chest, both the shoulders, thigh and over the pubic region. He opined that the deceased would appear to have died of extensive burns and shock within 24 hours prior to post mortem examination and that the burn injuries present on the body of the deceased would be sufficient to cause the death of the deceased in the ordinary course of nature. He further opined that these injuries can be caused by someone pouring kerosene on the person of the deceased and setting fire to the body. Of course, in his cross-examination he admitted that the burn injuries could be suicidal also.

Now the question that has to be determined in this appeal is whether the burn injuries leading to the death of the deceased were suicidal or homicidal and whether the accused had motive to do away with this (sic). The learned Sessions Judge found on a careful and analytical consideration of the evidence that the death of the deceased was not one of suicide and it is one of calculated murder and that the accused had motive to do away with the deceased.

On a scrutiny of the evidence of the prosecution, we are in complete agreement with the finding entered by the learned Sessions Judge that the appellant is guilty of the murder of the deceased in a calculated manner and his finding is perfectly correct and sound. There is not the slightest doubt that the accused had illicit intimacy with one Hemalatha, the daughter of previous owner of the house Sathiraju, and she was the root cause of the murder of his wife the deceased Vijayalakshmi. There is clearest evidence of motive on me record of the case. The accused had illicit intimacy with the daughter of Sathiraju due to which he used to harass, ill-treat, threaten and assault his wife Vijayalakshmi. The deceased expressed in clear and categorical terms with P.W. 6, who happened to meet her about 9 days prior to the occurrence when the deceased started weeping on seeing her and she questioned the deceased the reason for her weeping. The deceased told her that her husband, who had illicit relations with the daughter of the previous landlord Sathiraju, administered threatening to her to the effect that he would kill her and marry the daughter of Sathiraju as she was an obstacle for him. That the accused had motive to cause the death of his wife on account of his illicit intimacy with the daughter of Sathiraju is established by the testimony of P.W. 1, P.W. 2, P.W. 6, P.W. 7 and P.W. 12. Their evidence shows that there were frequent quarrels between the accused and the deceased since some months prior to the date of the occurrence which took place on the night of 14-1-1983. On that day the deceased wanted that the accused should go along with her to her parents'' house on the occasion of Sankranti and Kanumu festivals but the accused refused to accept her request. He was also unwilling to permit her to go to her parents'' house along with her child. It is borne out from the very statement of the accused under S. 313, Cr.P.C. that there were serious quarrels between them from 8-00 p.m. onwards on the date of occurrence which was Sankranthi day. P.W. 1 and P.W. 2 testified to those facts and the accused has also admitted them. Matters came to a head at about 11-00 p.m. on that day when the deceased made a last attempt just before the occurrence to persuade the accused to go over to her parents'' house for the festival of Kanumu, which fell on the next day or alternatively permit her to go to her parents'' house with her child. To either courses, the accused was unwilling. According to the accused''s statement, the deceased threatened him when he expressed his unwillingness to go over to her parents'' house saying that she will get her people from her village and get him thrashed once again as was done earlier and further threatened him to see his end. If what the accused stated is correct and true, there is a clear indication of the fact that the deceased was in a revolting mood against the accused on account of he not allowing her to go to her parents'' house on the festival day and had gone to the extent of threatening her husband to get him thrashed and also used strong words like seeing his end. In the circumstances, the person to be aggrieved would be the accused and not the deceased. Such a bold woman who dared to use threatening words against her husband would not have thought of committing suicide. On the contrary, the probabilities are otherwise. The accused described his wife as an arrogant, stubborn and fighting type of lady and always quarrelling with him on suspicion about his character. It is established from the evidence of the prosecution that it was on account of her protest against her husband continuing illicit relation with the daughter of Sathiraju, her brother P.W. 12 and her father managed with Sathiraju to see that the accused vacated the portion of Sathiraju''s house so as to prevent the accused from having any further illicit relations with the daughter of Sathiraju but unfortunately the accused continued his affair with the daughter of Sathiraju even after he vacated the portion of Sathiraju as he shifted to the portion of Gangiraju, the father-in-law of P.W. 1 which was in the same locality. In the manner the accused used to ill-treat, harass and torture his wife on account of her protest against his affair with the daughter of Sathiraju, it was very much clear that the accused considered his wife as an obstacle in the peaceful way of his affair with the daughter of Sathiraju. Evidently, the matter came to a head when during the serious quarrel between the accused and deceased on his refusal to go over to her parents'' house, the deceased administered a threat to the accused and the accused decided to do away with her which he did accordingly. The fact that she was found with burns on the entire body and her clothes about 15 minutes after the quarrel clearly goes to show that the accused was responsible for setting fire to the deceased after pouring kerosene on her person. The presence of kerosene bottle with some kerosene in it, a match box and a used match stick in the very dining room adjoining the bed room where he was allegedly reading a novel after, administering threatening clearly goes to establish that in all human probability the accused and the accused alone was responsible for the act. Otherwise the deceased could not have committed suicide without his knowledge in his own presence in the dining room by the side of his bed after a heated quarrel and exchange of words that took place between them on that night. At that time no third person was present in the house and the accused alone was present and was in exclusive company of the deceased. The conduct of the accused is consistent with his active involvement in the commission of the crime. There is nothing to show that the accused did anything to save his wife from further burning. As already observed above, the version advanced at the earliest in Ex. P. 9 was a false and concocted one giving a colour as though the deceased died by sheer accident and later pleading in his statement under S. 313, Cr.P.C. that she must have committed suicide in the kitchen room when, in fact, nothing incriminating was found in the kitchen room and the incriminating articles viz., kerosene bottle with some kerosene it is, match box and used match stick were found in the dining room very much near the place where the accused allegedly was lying in his bed or reading a novel. It is plain logic that a woman who was a fighter and dare devil and who could go to the extent of threatening her husband to saying that she will see his end or getting him thrashed by her father and brother, could not think of committing suicide. The kitchen room where the accused alleges that the burning of the deceased took place was far away from the bed room and dining room and it is separated by open passage from the living room. If the burning took place in the kitchen room the deceased would not have been found in the dining room adjoining the bed room immediately after the cries were heard. Evidently, the burning took place in the dining room itself where the deceased was perhaps lying down for sleep. The presence of incriminating articles viz., kerosene bottle with some kerosene in it, match box and used match stick in the dining room clearly goes to establish that the occurrence took place in the dining room itself and not in the kitchen room and that the accused had concocted the story of cries from the kitchen to save his own skin. It is also highly impossible to understand how it could happen. There was no effort on the part of the accused to save his wife from burning and suffering or make any effort to call the neighbours for help or call the Doctor for immediate medical aid. Coupled with these circumstances his conduct in giving a false statement in Ex. P. 9 to the Head Constable P.W. 14 to the effect that the deceased died on account of catching fire by accident while cooking shows that he advanced such a false and conconcted version in order to screen himself.

The learned Sessions Judge held that the total evidence in the case unerringly points to the commission of the crime charged and every reasonable hypothesis compatible to the innocence of the accused has been successfully repelled by the prosecution. Of course, the criminal trial is not an enquiry into the conduct of the accused for any purpose other than to determine whether he is guilty of the offence charged. In this connection, that piece of conduct can be held to be incriminatory which has no reasonable explanation except on the hypothesis that he is guilty. Conduct which destroys the presumption of innocence can alone be considered as material (Vide Anant Chintaman Lagu Vs. The State of Bombay, .

Thus on a reappraisal of the evidence of the prosecution coupled with the statement of the accused, we are fully satisfied that the conclusion recorded by the learned Sessions Judge that the accused is guilty of the murder of deceased, is perfectly justified taking into consideration various circumstantial links which establish nexus between the accused and the crime in question.

In the result, the appeal is dismissed. Accordingly, the convictions and sentences passed against the accused-appellant by the learned Sessions Judge are confirmed.

Appeal dismissed.