Husband Convicted for Wife’s Murder: Supreme Court Upholds Life Sentence

The case of Nawab vs. State of Uttarakhand revolves around the conviction of the appellant for the murder of his wife. The Supreme Court was asked to examine whether the prosecution had sufficiently established the guilt of the accused beyond reasonable doubt, based on circumstantial evidence.

Background of the Case

The incident took place on the night of March 24-25, 2002, at approximately 1:30 AM. The appellant, Nawab, initially filed a report with the police, claiming that three armed intruders had entered his house and attempted to abduct him. During the scuffle, his wife was shot dead by the assailants. The post-mortem examination revealed a single firearm entry and exit wound on the deceased.

The police investigation, however, led to the arrest of Nawab, who was later convicted under Section 302 IPC for murder and under Section 25 of the Arms Act for illegal possession of a firearm. The Trial Court sentenced him to life imprisonment. The High Court of Uttarakhand upheld the conviction.

Arguments by the Appellant

Nawab’s counsel challenged his conviction on the following grounds:

• The case was entirely based on circumstantial evidence, which did not conclusively establish his guilt.
• The prosecution failed to prove a complete chain of events leading to his guilt, as required in cases based on circumstantial evidence.
• The High Court had disbelieved the recovery of the country-made pistol allegedly used in the crime.
• The investigation was flawed, and the prosecution merely relied on strong suspicion rather than hard evidence.
• Under Section 313 Cr.P.C., crucial incriminating circumstances were not put to him for his response.

Arguments by the State

The prosecution strongly opposed the appeal, presenting the following points:

• The motive was clearly established—Nawab had taken a life insurance policy in his wife’s name just days before her murder, showing a financial incentive for the crime.
• The claim of intruders was fabricated, as there was no evidence of forced entry or struggle.
• The appellant was alone with his wife at home, and under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, he had the duty to explain how she was killed.
• Witness testimonies from the deceased’s relatives indicated that Nawab was financially motivated and had prior disputes over money.

Supreme Court’s Observations

The Supreme Court examined the prosecution’s case and found that:

“The accused had taken an LIC policy in the name of his wife on 23.03.2002, just days before the murder. This financial motive, coupled with the absence of forced entry or any external threat, shifts the burden onto the accused to explain how his wife was killed.”

The Court further noted inconsistencies in Nawab’s statements:

• He initially claimed three intruders entered his house but later mentioned five.
• He failed to provide any details about the intruders, such as their height, build, or physical features, despite claiming to have seen them.
• The house’s mud and cement wall showed no signs of being climbed or disturbed, contradicting his claim of forced entry.

Application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act

The Supreme Court emphasized the importance of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which states that when a fact is especially within the knowledge of a person, the burden of proving that fact lies upon him. Given that Nawab’s wife was murdered in their home while they were alone, he had the responsibility to provide a credible explanation, which he failed to do.

Final Judgment

The Supreme Court ruled:

• The appeal was dismissed, and Nawab’s life imprisonment sentence was upheld.
• All links in the chain of circumstantial evidence pointed only to Nawab’s guilt.
• His defense was fabricated and lacked credibility.

Implications of the Judgment

This case reinforces key principles of criminal law:

• In cases of murder within a household, the accused must provide a plausible explanation if there are no external suspects.
• Financial motive (such as life insurance) is a strong factor in proving premeditation.
• The prosecution does not need direct evidence if a complete chain of circumstantial evidence points to the accused.

Conclusion

The Supreme Court’s judgment serves as a precedent for cases relying on circumstantial evidence and the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act. It highlights how courts can convict based on motive, inconsistencies in statements, and the accused’s failure to provide an alternate explanation.

Petitioner Name: Nawab.
Respondent Name: State of Uttarakhand.
Judgment By: Justice Ashok Bhushan, Justice Navin Sinha.
Place Of Incident: Uttarakhand.
Judgment Date: 22-01-2020.

Don’t miss out on the full details! Download the complete judgment in PDF format below and gain valuable insights instantly!

Download Judgment: Nawab vs State of Uttarakhand Supreme Court of India Judgment Dated 22-01-2020.pdf

Direct Downlaod Judgment: Direct downlaod this Judgment

See all petitions in Murder Cases
See all petitions in Attempt to Murder Cases
See all petitions in Bail and Anticipatory Bail
See all petitions in Judgment by Ashok Bhushan
See all petitions in Judgment by Navin Sinha
See all petitions in dismissed
See all petitions in supreme court of India judgments January 2020
See all petitions in 2020 judgments

See all posts in Criminal Cases Category
See all allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all Dismissed petitions in Criminal Cases Category
See all partially allowed petitions in Criminal Cases Category