A plea of alibi must demonstrate that accused was far from crime scene that their participation was impossible

Citation of the Case:

Court: Supreme Court of India
Case Title: Ashok Verma v. The State of Chhattisgarh
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 815 of 2022
Date of Judgment: December 19, 2024
Judges: Justice C.T. Ravikumar and Justice Prashant Kumar Mishra

Facts of the Case:

Ashok Verma, the appellant, was convicted for the offenses under Sections 302, 201, and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) in connection with the death of his wife, Smt. Pushpa, on January 26, 2012. The couple resided in their matrimonial home, situated 50 meters from the house of Pushpa’s parents. The appellant, allegedly addicted to gambling, subjected Pushpa to physical and mental abuse, which included mortgaging her jewelry. On the fateful evening, the appellant informed Pushpa’s family that she had hanged herself. Pushpa was found kneeling on the bed with a dupatta around her neck tied to a wooden beam. Despite opposition, the appellant cut the dupatta and took her to a hospital, where she was declared dead. Initially registered under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (CrPC), the case later escalated to murder and cruelty charges following further investigation.

Contentions of the Appellant:

The appellant argued that the trial court and High Court erred in concluding that the death was homicidal rather than suicidal. He claimed that the evidence against him was circumstantial and insufficient to prove his guilt. The appellant also contended that the plea of alibi was disregarded despite the testimony of DW-1, which placed him away from the scene of the crime during the relevant period.

Contentions of the Respondent:

The State argued that the evidence, particularly the testimony of PW-8 (the deceased’s sister) and forensic findings, strongly indicated a homicidal death. The respondent emphasized that the appellant failed to provide a credible explanation for the incident, despite being bound by Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to clarify what occurred within his residence. The prosecution asserted that the circumstantial evidence established a clear chain pointing to the appellant’s culpability.

Issues:

1. Whether the death of Smt. Pushpa was homicidal or suicidal.
2. Whether the appellant’s plea of alibi was tenable in light of the evidence.
3. Whether the circumstantial evidence presented by the prosecution was sufficient to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.

Observations/Findings by the Supreme Court:

The Court upheld the concurrent findings of the trial court and the High Court that the death of Pushpa was homicidal. It noted that no self-inflicted injuries were found on the deceased, and the appellant’s conduct—such as waiting to involve witnesses before cutting the noose—was inconsistent with a genuine attempt to save her life. The Court rejected the plea of alibi, highlighting that the alleged location of the appellant was proximate to the crime scene and thus did not make his involvement improbable. Additionally, the Court found that the appellant failed to explain the events leading to Pushpa’s death, a fact exclusively within his knowledge as per Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

Principles Laid Down:

1. The burden of proof shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act when the incident occurs in their exclusive domain, such as a shared residence.
2. A plea of alibi must demonstrate that the accused was so far from the crime scene that their participation was impossible.
3. Circumstantial evidence, when forming an unbroken chain pointing exclusively to the guilt of the accused, is sufficient for conviction.
4. The absence of self-inflicted injuries and the suspicious conduct of the accused can reinforce the conclusion of a homicidal death.

Final Order:

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal, holding that the concurrent findings of the lower courts were based on sound reasoning and substantial evidence. The Court affirmed the conviction and sentences under Sections 302, 201, and 498A of the IPC.

Importance of This Judgment to Society:

This judgment underscores the significance of circumstantial evidence in ensuring justice in cases where direct evidence is unavailable. It reinforces the legal principle that an accused must provide explanations for occurrences within their exclusive knowledge, particularly in cases of domestic violence and intimate partner crimes. The ruling also emphasizes the judiciary’s role in addressing and deterring spousal abuse, offering a framework for evaluating evidence and interpreting the conduct of the accused.