Blog

Case Title – Anees Vs. The State Government of NCT 2024 INSC 368

Case Number – Criminal Appeal No. 437 of 2015

Dated on – 3^rd of May, 2024

Quorum – Justice J.B. Pardiwala

FACTS OF THE CASE

In the case of Anees Vs. The State Government of NCT 2024 INSC 368, Saira, the deceased in the present case, was married to the Appellant of this present case in the year 1982 as per the Muslim rites. They had a daughter from the wedlock, named Shaheena, who was five years old during the incident in 1995. On the 29^th of December, 1995, at around 04:00 AM, a wireless operator of the Delhi Police notified a lady constable on duty in a PCR (Police Control Room) concerning a woman being stabbed in the House No. 220, Gali No. 3, Mustafabad. The information was communicated to the duty officer at P.S. Gokulpuri, who sent S.I. Mohkam Singh for inquiry. SI Mohkam Singh, upon reaching the location, found Saira lying in a pool of blood with multiple wounds of stabbings on her body. The Appellant was also present on the scene, having superficial injuries. Saira was declared deceased upon arrival at the hospital, whereas the Appellant was discharged after being preliminarily treated. The fact that the Appellant and the deceased had a strained relationship, often resulting a quarrel due to the habit of the deceased to leave the house without informing and returning late at night was unveiled during the investigations. It was alleged that on the night of the incident, a quarrel occurred between the Appellant and the deceased, leading to the Appellant stabbing the deceased with a knife. The only eye-witness in this case was the daughter of the Appellant and the deceased, Shaheena. An FIR was registered against the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 based on a report prepared by the Investigating Officer. The post-mortem of the deceased revealed that she had sustained multiple stab injuries, indicating a violent attack. Shaheena, the daughter, initially claimed to witness the incident as her father, the Appellant, inflicting injuries on her mother but during the trial, she turned hostile. The knife used to stab the deceased was discovered at the instance of the Appellant. The Trial Court, after taking into consideration, all the evidences and witness, convicted the Appellant under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, sentencing him to life imprisonment and a fine. The High Court upheld the judgment of the Trial Court, stressing on the inconsistencies in the statements of the Appellant and his conduct, rejecting the explanations of the defense. The Appellant instituted an Appeal in the Supreme Court of India.

ISSUES

The main issue of the case whirled around whether the Appellant, accused of murdering his wife Saira, is guilty of the crime beyond a reasonable doubt?

Whether the testimonies of the witnesses, inclusive of the daughter Shaheena, is reliable and consistent?

Whether the post-mortem report and the forensic analysis of the evidence provide conclusive proof of the guilt of the Appellant?

Whether the inconsistent statement of the Appellant and his conduct, including his initial silence and subsequent explanation, contribute to establishing his culpability?

Whether the Appellant is entitled to the benefit of Exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860?

Whether the judgment of the Trial Court and the High Court of the conviction of the Appellant based on the evidence furnished during the trial justifiable?

LEGAL PROVISIONS

Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Motive, Preparation and Previous or Subsequent Conduct

Section 27 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes that How much of information received from accused may be proved

Section 101 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Burden of Proof

Section 105 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Burden of Proving that case of accused comes within exception

Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes that the Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge

Section 145 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 prescribes the Cross Examination as to previous statements in writing

Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Definition of Murder

Section 300 Exception 4 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes that If the person committing the act knows that it is so imminently dangerous that it must, in all probability, cause death, or such bodily injury as is likely to cause death, and commits such act without any excuse for incurring the risk of causing death or such injury as aforesaid.

Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 prescribes the Punishment for Murder

Section 161 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes the Examination of Witnesses by police

Section 162 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes that the Statements to police not to be signed

Section 311 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes the Power to summon material witness, or examine person present

Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973 prescribes the Power to examine the accused

CONTENTIONS OF THE APPELLANTS

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the case of the Respondents is entirely based on the circumstantial evidences and that Respondents failed to establish foundational facts for invoking the Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The Appellants cited the case of Sharad Birdhichand Sarda Vs. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116 and stated that it was accentuated that for a conviction based on the circumstantial evidences, the circumstances must be consistent only with the guilt of the accused and inconsistent with innocence.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the sole eyewitness, Shaheena (PW-3) did not support the case of the Respondent and that her testimony suggested that the strangers entered the house, causing injuries to both the Appellant and the deceased.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that Sayed Ali (PW-9), the witness for the discovery of the knife, turned hostile and failed to prove the contents of the discovery panchnama.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that SI Mohkam Singh (PW-17) admitted that he questioned Shaheena before forwarding the written report to the police station, but this fact was not included in the written report and that this inconsistency raises doubts regarding the credibility of the testimony of the Investigating Officer.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that the Respondents failed to establish any motive for the Appellant to commit the crime and that no witness was examined to support the assumption that an altercation had arisen due to the deceased arriving home late at night.

The Appellants, through their counsel, in the said case contented that even if the case of the Respondent is accepted as true, it falls within the exception 4 to Section 300 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 that the alleged crime occurred in a sudden fight upon a sudden quarrel without any criminal intent.

 CONTENTIONS OF THE RESPONDENTS

The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that there was no error on the part of the High Court, specifically errors of law, in dismissing the appeal of the Appellant and upholding the conviction issued by the Trial Court.

The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented the following incriminating circumstances as foundational facts in support of the invocation of the Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act –

The incident occurred inside the house of residence of the Appellant and the deceased, where the deceased was found severely injured.

The Appellant was present at the scene when the Investigating Officer arrived, indicating his proximity to the crime.

The Appellant did not disclose immediately to the Investigating officer that unidentified individuals entered the house and assaulted the deceased.

The Appellant’s story about unidentified individuals entered the house and assaulted the deceased, was contradictory to the other circumstances.

The false explanation of the Appellant recorded under the Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code, 1973, was another incriminating circumstance.

The clothes worn by the Appellant at the time of the incident had blood stains matching the blood group of the deceased.

Even though the discovery of the weapon may not have been established, the conduct of the Appellant, leading the Investigating Officer and witnesses to a nearby drain where the knife was claimed to have been found reflects negatively on him, according to the Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872

The Respondents, through their counsel, in the said case contented that there is no merit in the appeal of the Appellant and that its dismissal is requested.

COURT ANALYSIS AND JUDGMENT

The court in the case of Anees Vs. The State Government of NCT 2024 INSC 368, considered the decision of the court in the State of W.B. Vs. Mir Mohammad Omar & Ors, (2000)8 SCC 382, and stated that the court should apply section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 in Criminal cases with care and caution and that it cannot be said that it has no application to criminal cases. The court stated that to infer the guilt of the accused from the absence of the reasonable explanation in a case where the other circumstances are not by themselves enough to call for his explanation is to relieve the prosecution of its legitimate burden. So, until a prima facie case is established by such evidence, the onus does not shift to be accused. The court stated that although the conduct of an accused may be a relevant fact under the Section 8 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, it still cannot be a ground to convict the accused for a serious offense like murder and that the court cannot Suo moto make use of statements to police not proved and ask questions with reference to them which are inconsistent with the testimony of the witness in the court. The court observed that the cross examination of the Respondent of hostile witnesses were insufficient. The court stressed on the duty of the Respondent to thoroughly cross examine the witnesses to uncover the truth, especially in cases where witnesses turn hostile. Further, the court criticized the passive role of the judge of the Trial Court, particularly considering the sensitive nature of the case involving a child witness. The Court rejected the argument of killing occurring due to the heat of the moment, stating that the Appellant failed to meet the criteria outlined in Exception 4. The court acknowledged the lengthy incarceration of the Appellant and granted him liberty to submit a representation to the State Government seeking remission of sentence. The State Government was directed to consider the representation within four weeks and communicate its decision to the Appellant.
The court dismissed the appeal, affirming the conviction decision of the Trial Court for murder. The court disposed off any pending applications. The judgment accentuated the importance of effective prosecution, judicial oversight, and adherence to legal principles in ensuring fair trials and dispensation of justice.

“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 fall into a 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.”

Judgement Reviewed by – Sruti Sikha Maharana

Click Here to View Judgment