Research › Search › Judgment

Gujarat High Court · body

2014 DIGILAW 247 (GUJ)

VIJAYBHAI RAIJIBHAI PATELIA v. STATE OF GUJARAT

2014-02-14

BHASKAR BHATTACHARYA, J.B.PARDIWALA

body2014
Judgment J.B. Pardiwala, J. This Appeal is at the instance of a convict – accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and is directed against an order of conviction and sentence dated 30th April 2008 passed by the learned Sessions Judge, Kheda at Nadiad in Sessions Case No.124 of 2007. By the aforesaid order, the learned Sessions Judge found the appellant guilty of the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and consequently, sentenced him to suffer life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000=00. In default of payment of fine, the appellant was directed to undergo further simple imprisonment for two months. I. Case of the Prosecution : According to the case of the prosecution, the accused, harbouring doubt on the character of his wife i.e. the deceased, inflicted several injuries on her head with an axe on 5th August 2007 at around 16:30 hours inside their hut. It appears that the son of the accused named Rohit had witnessed the assault on her mother with an axe and he, in turn, immediately informed his uncle PW2 Ishwarbhai Patelia who happens to be the younger brother of the accused. On learning about the incident, the PW2 Ishwarbhai Patelia, in turn, informed his other brother named Rajesh and asked him to reach at the place of occurrence with a Jeep. The deceased was taken to the KMG General Hospital at Balasinor for treatment by the two brothers of the accused and few others. The Medical Officer on duty at the KMG General Hospital, Balasinor, noted that the injured had sustained incised looking wounds over her head and considering the nature of the injuries sustained, referred her to the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital for further treatment. Before the doctor at the KMG General Hospital, Balasinor, the deceased, while narrating the history of assault, stated that at 4:15 in the evening there was a 'maramari' (fight) and in such a fight she had sustained the injuries. Thereafter, the deceased was admitted at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. On the same day i.e. on 5th August 2007, the PW2 Ishwarbhai lodged a First Information Report at Balasinor Police Station Exh.18, stating that at around 4:30 in the evening his nephew named Rohit, the son of the accused, came at his shop and informed him that his mother had been assaulted by his father. On the same day i.e. on 5th August 2007, the PW2 Ishwarbhai lodged a First Information Report at Balasinor Police Station Exh.18, stating that at around 4:30 in the evening his nephew named Rohit, the son of the accused, came at his shop and informed him that his mother had been assaulted by his father. Ishwarbhai immediately reached at the place of the incident and found that his sister-in-law, the deceased, was lying inside the hut in a pool of blood having sustained injuries on her head. He further stated that she had sustained three injuries on her head. He also stated that his brother, the accused, was not present at the house but his nephew Rohit told him that his father had inflicted injuries on his mother with an axe. He further stated that the motive behind the commission of the crime was that the accused had doubts on the character of the deceased, as a result the accused committed the murder of his wife. It appears from the materials on record that the deceased succumbed to the injuries on 13th August 2007 at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. On the strength of the FIR being Exh.18 lodged by the younger brother of the accused, the investigation commenced. The inquest panchnama being Exh.8 was drawn in presence of the two panch witnesses. Thereafter, the dead body of the deceased was sent for the purpose of postmortem. The postmortem examination revealed that there were injuries on the head of the deceased. On 6th August 2007, the accused surrendered himself at the police station with the weapon of offence i.e. the axe, and accordingly, an arrest panchnama was drawn Exh.23. The muddamal articles collected during the course of investigation were sent to the Forensic Science Laboratory for chemical analysis. The serological report Exh.44 revealed that the axe was stained with blood of “O” Group matching with the blood group of the deceased. Statements of various witnesses were recorded. On conclusion of the investigation, the Investigating Officer filed charge-sheet in the Court of the learned Judicial Magistrate, First Class, Balasinor. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the JMFC, Balasinor, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court framed charge against the accused being Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded. As the case was exclusively triable by the Sessions Court, the JMFC, Balasinor, committed the case to the Sessions Court under Section 209 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. The Sessions Court framed charge against the accused being Exh.5 and the statement of the accused was recorded. The accused did not admit the charge and claimed to be tried. II. The prosecution adduced the following oral evidence in support of its case : Sr. No. Name of the Witness Prosecution Witness Exh. No. Remarks, if any. 1 Dr.Chirag Chandrakantbhai Darji PW1 15 Medical Officer 2 Ishwarbhai Raijibhai Pateliya PW2 17 Complainant 3 Vinubhai Udesingh Solanki PW3 19 Panch witness of the scene of the incident 4 Shanabhai Punabhai Parmar PW4 21 Panch witness of the scene of the incident 5 Bipinbhai Kalabhai Parmar PW5 22 Panch witness of the recovery of muddamal an axe 6 Arvindbhai Raijibhai Thakor PW6 24 Panch witness of the recovery of muddamal an axe 7 Dr.Manishbhai Bachubhai Ghelani PW7 25 Medical Officer, Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad 8 Chhatrasinh Raijibhai PW8 28 Witness 9 Salamsing Raysing Pateliya PW9 29 Witness 10 Rajesbhai Somabhai Thakor PW10 33 Witness 11 Jashubhai Arjunbhai Thakor PW11 34 Witness 12 Lilaben Sukhabhai Pateliya PW12 35 Witness 13 Narvatbhai Shivabhai Kishori PW13 36 P.S.O. Balasinor 14 Jitendrabhai Kesarisinh Gohil PW14 39 Investigating Officer 15 Dahyabhai Shankerbhai Patel PW15 40 Investigating Officer III. The following pieces of documentary evidence were adduced by the prosecution : Sr. No. Description of the documents Date Exh. No. 1 Complaint 05/08/07 18 2 Panchnama of the scene of the incident 06/08/07 20 3 Inquest Panchnama 12/08/07 8 4 Discovery Panchnama of the muddamal axe, clothes and other articles on the instance of the accused person. The following pieces of documentary evidence were adduced by the prosecution : Sr. No. Description of the documents Date Exh. No. 1 Complaint 05/08/07 18 2 Panchnama of the scene of the incident 06/08/07 20 3 Inquest Panchnama 12/08/07 8 4 Discovery Panchnama of the muddamal axe, clothes and other articles on the instance of the accused person. 06/08/07 23 5 Panchnama of recovery of the clothes from the dead body of the deceased Ushaben 13/08/07 9 6 Police Report for P.M. 12/08/07 10 7 Medical certificate issued by K.M.G. General Hospital, Balasinor 14/08/07 16 8 Cause of death certificate 13/08/07 27 9 Postmortem report 13/08/07 26 10 Receipts issued by the Police Personnel Civil O.P.D. Shahibaug, Ahmedabad 11 11 Forwarding Letter 12 12 Acknowledgement slips of muddamal issued by F.S.L. 19/09/07 41 13 F.S.L. Letter 31/12/07 42 14 F.S.L. Report 27/12/07 43 15 Serological Report 03/11/07 44 16 Map of the scene of the incident 46 17 A copy of the Station Diary 37,38 After completion of the oral as well as the documentary evidence of the prosecution, the statement of the accused under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure was recorded, in which the accused stated that the complaint was a false one and he was innocent. At the conclusion of the trial, the learned trial Judge convicted the accused for the offence punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code and sentenced him as stated herein before. Being dissatisfied, the accused-appellant has come up with the preset Appeal. IV. Submissions on behalf of the Accused-Appellant : Mr. Harnish Darji, the learned advocate appearing for the accused-appellant, vehemently submitted that the trial Court committed a serious error in holding the accused guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. According to Mr. Darji, the entire case of the prosecution hinges on circumstantial evidence. Mr. Darji submitted that in a case resting on circumstantial evidence, the circumstances put forward must be satisfactorily proved and those circumstances should be consistent only with the hypothesis of the guilt of the accused. Again, those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to include every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, according to Mr. Again, those circumstances should be of a conclusive nature and tendency, and they should be such as to include every hypothesis but the one proposed to be proved. In other words, according to Mr. Darji, 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, and it must be such as to show that within all given probabilities the act must have been done by the accused. Mr. Darji submitted that although the prosecution made an attempt to establish that the son of the accused was an eye-witness to the incident, yet the prosecution could not examine him during the course of the trial as the trial Court did not find him to be a competent witness to depose before the Court. An order to this effect was also passed by the trial Court on the application Exh.30 filed by the Public Prosecutor under Section 311 of the Code of Criminal Procedure. Mr. Darji submitted that even the first informant, PW2 Ishwarbhai, the brother of the accused, failed to support the case of the prosecution and was declared as a hostile witness. Mr. Darji submitted that as the first informant, the PW2 Ishwarbhai, was declared as a hostile witness, the circumstance of Rohit, the son of the accused, informing the PW2 Ishwarbhai that his mother had been assaulted by his father would also lose its evidentiary value. Mr. Darji submitted that there is not a single incriminating circumstance on record to even remotely suggest that it was the accused and none else who had committed the crime. In such circumstances referred to above, Mr. Darji would submit that there being merit in this Appeal, the same may be allowed and the order of conviction and sentence be set-aside. V. Submissions made on behalf of the State : Ms. Chetana M. Shah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, vehemently submitted that the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and no interference is warranted at the end of this Court in the present Appeal. Ms. Chetana M. Shah, the learned Additional Public Prosecutor appearing for the State, vehemently submitted that the trial Court rightly convicted the accused for the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, and no interference is warranted at the end of this Court in the present Appeal. Ms. Shah vehemently submitted that if an offence takes place inside the house, then under such circumstances it would be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted upon by the Courts. According to Ms. Shah, it was for the accused to explain as to why he was not available at the house and where was he upto 6th August 2007, i.e. the date on which he surrendered himself before the police with the weapon of offence. Ms. Shah submitted that when incriminating circumstances were put to the accused while recording his statement under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, the accused offered no explanation. Ms. Shah submitted that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the accused either offers no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue or false, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. Ms. Shah, therefore, urged that there being no merit in this Appeal, the same may be dismissed. Having heard the learned counsel appearing for the parties and having gone through the materials on record, the only question that falls for our determination in this Appeal is, whether the learned trial Judge committed any error in holding the accused-appellant guilty of the offence of murder punishable under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The picture that emerges on cumulative assessment of the materials on record is that the accused and his wife, the deceased, were residing along with their son named Rohit in a hut. According to the First Information Report, the son of the accused named Rohit witnessed his father, the accused, inflicting injuries on his mother, the deceased, with an axe. Rohit, in turn, ran at the shop of his uncle, the PW2 Ishwarbhai, and informed him about the incident. According to the First Information Report, the son of the accused named Rohit witnessed his father, the accused, inflicting injuries on his mother, the deceased, with an axe. Rohit, in turn, ran at the shop of his uncle, the PW2 Ishwarbhai, and informed him about the incident. The PW2 Ishwarbhai who happens to be the younger brother of the accused, rushed at the hut of the accused and found that his sister-in-law (‘bhabhi’), the deceased, was lying inside the hut in a pool of blood having sustained serious injuries on her head. The PW2 Ishwarbhai, in turn, informed his another brother named Rajesh and asked him to reach at the place of occurrence with a Jeep. The deceased was carried to the KMG General Hospital at Balasinor for treatment in a Jeep and thereafter she was admitted at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad. The deceased succumbed to the injuries on 13th August 2007. On the date of the incident, the PW2 Ishwarbhai lodged an FIR Exh.18, wherein he stated that while he was at his shop, his nephew named Rohit came running and informed him that his mother had been assaulted by his father with an axe. The PW2 Ishwarbhai, in his deposition Exh.17, although deposed that he was informed by his nephew Rohit that his mother had been assaulted by his father with an axe, at a later stage, for some reason, resiled from his first information report and was accordingly declared as a hostile witness. It is possible that the accused being his elder brother, he may have thought to resile from the complaint lodged by him. However, the medical evidence on record fully supports the case of the prosecution that the injuries sustained by the deceased were possible by a weapon like an axe. The prosecution examined Dr. Manish Ghelani Exh.25 as the Prosecution Witness No.7 to prove the postmortem report. The PW7 Dr. Ghelani, in his evidence, has deposed that on 13th August 2007 while on duty as a Medical Officer at the Civil Hospital, Ahmedabad, a dead body of a lady named Ushaben Patelia was brought for postmortem examination. He deposed that while performing the postmortem, he noticed the following external injuries as stated in Column No.17 of the postmortem report Exh.26 : “(1) Stitch wound 5 cms. transverse at left temporal region 1 cm. above left ear. (2) Stitch wound 6 cms. He deposed that while performing the postmortem, he noticed the following external injuries as stated in Column No.17 of the postmortem report Exh.26 : “(1) Stitch wound 5 cms. transverse at left temporal region 1 cm. above left ear. (2) Stitch wound 6 cms. transverse left fronto-temporal region 1 cm. above and anterior of injury no.1. (3) Stitch wound 7 cms. transverse left temporal region 1 cm. behind injury no.2. (4) Stitch wound 5 cms. transverse left temporal region 8 cms. above injury no.1. (5) Stitch wound 4 cms. transverse left parietal region (anteriorly) 1 cm. above and anterior of injury no.4. (6) Stitch wound 4.5 cms. transverse left parietal region (posteriorly) 2 cms. behind injury no.5. (7) Surgical stitch wound of 1 cm. transverse joining injury nos.2 and 3. (8) Tracheostomy surgical wound in front of neck at mid line. (9) Bedsore 5x4x0.5 cms. at coccygeal region. (10) I.V. prick mark at medial of right ankle above medial malleolus and right inguinal region for I.V. fluid line.” He further deposed that he had noticed the following internal injuries as noted in Column No.19 of the postmortem report : “under skin contusion 3 x 2.5 cm right frontal region and 15 x 13 cm left fronto-parieto-temporal region, craniectomy oval shaped, transverse 9 cm x 4.5 cm Left fronto-parieto-temporal bone region, duroplasty is 13 cm., brain and meninges congested and edematous subdural hemorrhage (SDH) over entire cerebrum more marked on left side and right occipital region with thickness of 0.7 cm to 0.9 cm, subarachnoid haemorrhage (SAH) over entire cerebrum.” He further deposed that the cause of death of the deceased was cardio respiratory failure due to head injuries and complications. Thus, from the evidence of the PW7 Dr. Ghelani, the prosecution has been able to prove that the deceased had sustained serious head injuries which could have been caused by a weapon like an axe and the cause of death was cardio respiratory failure due to such injuries. We have also noticed that an arrest panchnama of the accused Exh.23 was drawn in the presence of the two panch witnesses at Balasinor Police Station on 6th August 2007 at 17:00 hours. The prosecution examined the two panch witnesses, viz. PW5 Bipinbhai Kalabhai Parmar and PW6 Arvindbhai Raijibhai Thakor to prove the arrest panchnama. We have also noticed that an arrest panchnama of the accused Exh.23 was drawn in the presence of the two panch witnesses at Balasinor Police Station on 6th August 2007 at 17:00 hours. The prosecution examined the two panch witnesses, viz. PW5 Bipinbhai Kalabhai Parmar and PW6 Arvindbhai Raijibhai Thakor to prove the arrest panchnama. However, both the panch witnesses failed to prove the contents of the panchnama and were accordingly declared as hostile witnesses. However, the Investigating Officer, the PW14 Jitendrasinh Keshrisinh Gohel, in his evidence Exh.39, has deposed that the arrest panchnama of the accused was drawn on 6th August 2007 and at the time of drawing the panchnama, the accused had handed over the weapon of offence i.e. the axe. The axe was, thereafter, sent for chemical analysis to the Forensic Science Laboratory and the serological test report reveals that blood was found on the axe of 'O' Group which was the blood group of the deceased. Although the two panch witnesses may not have thought fit to support the case of the prosecution so far as the arrest of the accused is concerned, but still the Investigating Officer, in his evidence, has clearly deposed about the drawing of such arrest panchnama Exh.23 in presence of the two panch witnesses and the accused handing over the muddamal article axe used in the commission of the crime. This, in our opinion, is also one of the incriminating circumstances pointing towards the guilt of the accused as the conduct of the accused relevant under Section 8 of the Evidence Act. We are examining this Appeal, taking into consideration the fact that the deceased was the wife of the accused and they were residing in a hut along with their minor son named Rohit. It emerges from the evidence on record that immediately after the incident the accused was not found to be at his house and such a fact is established by the evidence of the PW2 Ishwarbhai, the younger brother of the accused. The accused made himself available only on the next day of the incident when he surrendered before the police with the weapon of offence. The accused made himself available only on the next day of the incident when he surrendered before the police with the weapon of offence. Although the PW2 Ishwarbhai was declared as a hostile witness, it is a settled law that yet his entire evidence may not be rejected if spoken in favour of the prosecution or the accused but required to be subjected to close scrutiny and that portion of the evidence which is consistent with the case of the prosecution or defence can be relied upon. Cases are frequently coming before the courts where the husband, due to strained marital relations and doubts as regards the character, has gone to the extent of killing the wife. These crimes are generally committed in complete secrecy inside the house and it becomes very difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence. In the present case, although it appears that the minor son of the accused Rohit witnessed his mother being assaulted by his father with an axe, yet he could not depose as a prosecution witness since the trial Court did not find him competent enough to depose. If an offence takes place inside the four walls of a house and in such circumstances where the assailant has all the opportunity to plan and commit the offence at the time and in the circumstances of their choice, it will be extremely difficult for the prosecution to lead evidence to establish the guilt of the accused, if the strict principle of circumstantial evidence is insisted upon by the courts. Reference could be made to a decision of the Supreme Court in the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, reported in 2007 Cri.L.J. 20, wherein the Supreme Court observed that a Judge does not preside over a criminal trial merely to see that no innocent man is punished. The Supreme Court proceeded to observe that a Judge also presides to see that a guilty man does not escape. Both are public duties. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. The law does not enjoin a duty on the prosecution to lead evidence of such character, which is almost impossible to be led, or at any rate, extremely difficult to be led. The duty on the prosecution is to lead such evidence, which it is capable of leading, having regard to the facts and circumstances of the case. So far as the present case is concerned, we need to keep in mind Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which says that when any fact is especially within the knowledge of any person, the burden of proving that fact is upon him. The question of burden of proof, where some facts are within the personal knowledge of the accused, was examined by the Supreme Court in the case of State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar and ors., reported in (2000) 8 SCC 382 . In the State of West Bengal (supra), the assailants forcibly dragged the deceased Mahesh from the house where he was taking shelter on account of the fear of the accused, and took him away at about 2:30 in the night. The next day in the morning, his mangled body was found lying in the hospital. The trial Court convicted the accused under Section 364, read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and sentenced them to ten years rigorous imprisonment. The accused preferred an appeal against their conviction before the High Court and the State also filed an appeal challenging the acquittal of the accused for the charge of murder. The accused had not given any explanation as to what happened to Mahesh after he was abducted by them. The learned Sessions Judge, after referring to the law on circumstantial evidence, had observed that there is a missing link in the chain of evidence after the deceased was last seen together with the accused persons, and the discovery of the dead body in the hospital, and concluded that the prosecution had failed to establish the charge of murder against the accused persons beyond any reasonable doubt. The Supreme Court took note of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and laid down the following principle in paragraphs 31 to 34 of the reports. "31. The Supreme Court took note of the provisions of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, and laid down the following principle in paragraphs 31 to 34 of the reports. "31. The pristine rule that the burden of proof is on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused should not be taken as a fossilised doctrine as though it admits no process of intelligent reasoning. The doctrine of presumption is not alien to the above rule, nor would it impair the temper of the rule. On the other hand, if the traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution is allowed to be wrapped in pedantic coverage, the offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries and the society would be the casualty. 32. In this case, when the prosecution succeeded in establishing the afore-narrated circumstances, the court has to presume the existence of certain facts. Presumption is a course recognised by the law for the court to rely on in conditions such as this. 33. Presumption of fact is an inference as to the existence of one fact from the existence of some other facts, unless the truth of such inference is disproved. Presumption of fact is a rule in law of evidence that a fact otherwise doubtful may be inferred from certain other proved facts. When inferring the existence of a fact from other set of proved facts, the court exercises a process of reasoning and reaches a logical conclusion as the most probable position. The above principle has gained legislative recognition in India when Section 114 is incorporated in the Evidence Act. It empowers the court to presume the existence of any fact which it thinks likely to have happened. In that process the court shall have regard to the common course of natural events, human conduct etc. in relation to the facts of the case. 34. When it is proved to the satisfaction of the court that Mahesh was abducted by the accused and they took him out of that area, the accused alone knew what happened to him until he was with them. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. If he was found murdered within a short time after the abduction the permitted reasoning process would enable the court to draw the presumption that the accused have murdered him. Such inference can be disrupted if the accused would tell the court what else happened to Mahesh at least until he was in their custody." Applying the aforesaid principle, the Supreme Court while maintaining the conviction under Section 364 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, reversed the order of acquittal under Section 302 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, and convicted the accused under the said provision and sentenced them to imprisonment for life. In a case based on circumstantial evidence where no eye witness is available, there is another principle of law which must be kept in mind. The principle is that when an incriminating circumstance is put to the accused and the said accused either explains no explanation or offers an explanation which is found to be untrue, then the same becomes an additional link in the chain of circumstances to make it complete. This view has been taken in a catena of decisions of the Supreme Court, namely, Nika Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1972 SC 2077 , Ganesh Lal v. State of Rajasthan, (2002) 1 SCC 73, and State of U.P. v. Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, AIR 1992 SC 2045 . When the attention of the accused was drawn to the said circumstances that inculpated him in the crime, he failed to offer appropriate explanation or gave a false answer. The same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing a chain of circumstances. In the case at hand, though a number of circumstances were put to the accused, yet he has made a bald denial and did not offer any explanation whatsoever. Thus, it is also a circumstance that goes against him. The same can be counted as providing a missing link for completing a chain of circumstances. In the case at hand, though a number of circumstances were put to the accused, yet he has made a bald denial and did not offer any explanation whatsoever. Thus, it is also a circumstance that goes against him. Where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show, like in the present case, that shortly before the commission of the crime they were seen together or the offence took place in the dwelling home where the husband also normally resided, it has been consistently held that if the accused does not offer any explanation how the wife received injuries or offers an explanation which is found to be false, it is a strong circumstance which indicates that he is responsible for commission of the crime. In the case of Nika Ram (supra), it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with 'khokhri' and the fact that the relations of the accused with her were strained would, in the absence of any cogent explanation by him, point to his guilt. In the case of Ganesh Lal (supra), the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was observed that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explanation for the cause of her death in his statement under Section 313 of the Criminal Procedure Code. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation were held to be inconsistent with the innocence of the accused, but consistent with the hypothesis that the appellant is a prime accused in the commission of murder of his wife. In the case of Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (supra), the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. In the case of Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal (supra), the medical evidence disclosed that the wife died of strangulation during late night hours or early morning and her body was set on fire after sprinkling kerosene. The defence of the husband was that wife had committed suicide by burning herself and that he was not at home at that time. The letters written by the wife to her relatives showed that the husband ill-treated her and their relations were strained and further the evidence showed that both of them were in one room in the night. It was held that the chain of circumstances was complete and it was the husband who committed the murder of his wife by strangulation and accordingly this Court reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code. The evidence of handing over of the weapon of offence by the accused at the police station at the time of drawing of the arrest panchnama Exh.23 would be admissible as conduct under Section 8 of the Evidence Act, if such conduct influences or is influenced by any fact in issue or relevant fact. A great deal of argument was canvassed on behalf of the accused on the point of proof beyond reasonable doubt. According to the learned advocate appearing for the accused, the case at hand is one which could not be said to have been proved by the prosecution beyond reasonable doubt and, therefore, the accused is entitled to the benefit of doubt. In this context, we may profitably quote the following observations made by the Supreme Court in para 13 in the case of Dharm Das Wadhwani v. The State of Uttar Pradesh, AIR 1975 SC 241 : “13. The question then is whether the cumulative effect of the guilt pointing circumstances in the present case is such that the court can conclude, not that the accused may be guilty but that he must be guilty. We must here utter a word of caution about this mental sense of 'must' lest it should be confused with exclusion of every contrary possibility. We have in S.S. Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 , explained that proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be distorted into a doctrine of acquittal when any delicate or remote doubt flits past a feeble mind. We have in S.S. Bobade v. State of Maharashtra, AIR 1973 SC 2622 , explained that proof beyond reasonable doubt cannot be distorted into a doctrine of acquittal when any delicate or remote doubt flits past a feeble mind. These observations are warranted by frequent acquittals on flimsy possibilities which are not infrequently set aside by the High Courts weakening the credibility of the judicature. The rule of benefit of reasonable doubt does not imply a frail willow bending to every whiff of hesitancy. Judges are made of sterner stuff and must take a practical view of legitimate inferences flowing from evidence, circumstantial or direct. At the same time, it may be affirmed, as pointed out by this Court in Kali Ram v. State of Himachal Pradesh, AIR 1973 SC 2773 , that if a reasonable doubt arises regarding the guilt of the accused, the benefit of that cannot be withheld from him.” For the reasons aforestated, we see no reason to interfere with the judgment of the trial Court. There being no merit in the Appeal, the same is accordingly dismissed. The order of conviction and sentence imposed by the trial Court is hereby confirmed.