LAW FOR ALL

When the accused is acquitted under sec.498 A and when the co accused is acquitted totally, the husband can not be convicted for murder of his wife , basing on circumstantial evidence - entitled for Benefit of Doubt = On the other hand, a plain perusal of the letters Ex. D4 and Ex.D4A written by the deceased to the appellant while he was abroad, do not reveal anguished outbursts of a wife otherwise expected in such a situation or any fervent insistence for early return. Instead the contents thereof reveal narration of mundane happenings of day to day life, emphasis on the need for his required stay thereat for enhanced savings together with somewhat intimate feelings expected of a married couple physically estranged by compulsion of circumstances. The letters for the least, do not suggest any bitterness, disappointment, frustration and seething indignation of the deceased for the appellant being away at Jeddah/Saudi Arabia and allegedly with the lady, Darly. Instead there are traces of cheer for his expected return in near future. The authenticity of these letters and also of the records relied upon by the defence to demonstrate that the appellant while abroad used to remit money for the sustenance of the family, has not been impeached.= the evidence available on record, it would be, in our view, wholly unsafe to hold the appellant guilty of the charge of murder of his wife by strangulating her with the nylon rope as seized and then hanging her from the roof with the saree to complete the act. The circumstantial evidence adduced by the prosecution in our assessment falls short of the requirement in law to return a finding of guilt against the appellant without any element of doubt whatsoever. The fact that both the accused persons had been exonerated of the charge of cruelty under Section 498A IPC and that the co-accused, who allegedly had assisted the appellant in the perpetration of the crime had been fully acquitted by the courts below of all the charges also takes away the wind from the sails of the prosecution.= It is a trite proposition of law, that suspicion however grave, it cannot take the place of proof and that the prosecution in order to succeed on a criminal charge cannot afford to lodge its case in the realm of “may be true” but has to essentially elevate it to the grade of “must be true”. In a criminal prosecution, the court has a duty to ensure that mere conjectures or suspicion do not take the place of legal proof and in a situation where a reasonable doubt is entertained in the backdrop of the evidence available, to prevent miscarriage of justice, benefit of doubt is to be extended to the accused. Such a doubt essentially has to be reasonable and not imaginary, fanciful, intangible or non-existent but as entertainable by an impartial, prudent and analytical mind, judged on the touch stone of reason and common sense. It is also a primary postulation in criminal jurisprudence that if two views are possible on the evidence available, one pointing to the guilt of the accused and the other to his innocence, the one favourable to the accused ought to be adopted. “The Law of Evidence” fifth edition by Ian Dennis at page 483: “Where the case against the accused depends wholly or partly on inferences from circumstantial evidence, factfinders cannot logically convict unless they are sure that inferences of guilt are the only ones that can reasonably be drawn. If they think that there are possible innocent explanations for circumstantial evidence that are not “merely fanciful”, it must follow that there is a reasonable doubt about guilt. There is no rule, however, that judges must direct juries in terms not to convict unless they are sure that the evidence bears no other explanation than guilt. It is sufficient to direct simply that the burden on the prosecution is to satisfy the jury beyond reasonable doubt, or so that they are sure. The very high standard of proof required in criminal cases minimises the risk of a wrongful conviction. It means that someone whom, on the evidence, the factfinder believes is “probably” guilty, or “likely” to be guilty will be acquitted, since these judgements of probability necessarily admit that the factfinder is not “sure”. It is generally accepted that some at least of these acquittals will be of persons who are in fact guilty of the offences charged, and who would be convicted if the standard of proof were the lower civil standard of the balance of probabilities. Such acquittals are the price paid for the safeguard provided by the “beyond reasonable doubt” standard against wrongful conviction.” The circumstances brought forth by the prosecution do not rule out in absolute terms the hypothesis of the innocence of the appellant. We thus consider it to be wholly unsafe to maintain his conviction as recorded by the courts below. We are therefore inclined to extend benefit of doubt to him. The conclusions drawn by the courts below are not tenable on the basis of the evidence available. The appeal is thus allowed and the conviction and sentence recorded by the courts below is hereby set aside.