SC upholds acquittal of doctor charged with murdering wife

A bench of justices B Sudershan Reddy and S S Nijjar rejected CBI's plea that Mahender Singh Dahiya had killed and chopped his wife Namita's body with a butter knife as he suspected her fidelity.

CBI's case is that Dahiya murdered his wife Namita, a British national of Indian origin, on the intervening night of May 27 and 28, 1979 -- the very first night of their honeymoon -- in Room No 415, Hotel Arenberg, Brussels, Belgium.

The prosecution claimed that her body, which was cut into several pieces with a butter knife, was found in the trash of Belgium city which was identified by the family.

Dhaiya, however, insisted that Namita left him on her own as she wanted to lead her own independent life as their marriage was performed against her wishes.

As the offence took place in a third country, initially the Belgium authorities investigated the crime.

Thereafter, the Scotland Yard in London also participated in the investigation as Namita was a British citizen and Dhaiya was keen on settling there with her help. Namita was working as accounts trainee with the BBC, London.

Subsequently, the case was taken up by the CBI which claimed to have arrested the doctor allegedly practising in UP under a pseudo name of Dr M Singh in Lalitpur village.
Ultimately, the trial court convicted Dhaiya on March 1, 1999, 20 years after the alleged crime.

But the Delhi High Court acquitted him of charges after holding the CBI of "falsely implicating" him at the behest of the girl's parents. Aggrieved, the CBI had appealed in the apex court.

Dismissing the appeal, the apex court said the CBI was not able to conclusively establish that remnants of a dismembered body actually belonged to Namita.

"We are of the considered opinion that there is no reliable evidence to indicate that the blood that was recovered from the bathroom of room no 415 definitely belonged to Namita. It must be remembered that the only drop of blood that was found was at the base of the bidet, in the bathroom.

"The bathroom would be used successively by different tourists occupying the room. This apart, the very recovery of the blood stains from the bidet seems highly doubtful," the bench said pointing out that it was recovered on June 12, 1979, several days after the killing.

The apex court rejected the CBI's claim that it had recovered certain articles and clothes of Namita from Dhaiya's possession.

"The High Court has reached the appropriate conclusion that the possibility of the garments and articles having been planted by the police by obtaining the same from the house of Namita with the object of fixing the identity of the body parts belonging to Namita by means of the clothes cannot be ruled out," the bench said.

The apex court said: "Merely because the respondent objected to the behaviour of Namita towards her male friends at the birthday party of her sister Shiela would not be sufficient to hold that the appellant had the necessary motive to kill her.

"It is inconceivable that the respondent would have married Namita only for the purpose of committing her murder, that too on the very first night of their honeymoon.

"Both the trial court and the High Court, in our opinion, have correctly recorded the conclusion that it was in fact in the interest of the respondent that Namita had remained alive. The success of his very objective to remain permanently in England was dependent on the continuance of his marriage for at least another year," Justice Nijjar observed in his judgement.

Noting that the deceased wanted to call off the marriage after Dhaiya objected to her behaviour at a party in London, the bench said: "Given the previous attitude of Namita, it is quite possible that she had walked out on her husband.

According to the apex court in this case, the subsequent conduct of the appellant is not consistent with the expected conduct of a guilty person.
"If the respondent (doctor) had any intention of absconding, he could have done so initially after the alleged murder of his wife.

"He had no need to come back to England. Having come back he need not have gone directly to the house of his in-laws. Not only did he come back to England, he carried with him the red suitcase containing some of Namita's clothes.

"It is inconceivable that a person having a guilty mind would have been carrying such an incriminating article back to the house of his in-laws," the bench said disbelieving the CBI's theory.

Referring to the CBI's claim that Dhaiya went into hiding and settled in India, the apex court said it was perhaps on account of threat to his life from certain persons about which he had also written letters to the then Prime Minister and Home Minister.

The bench observed referring to the prosecution's claim: "The respondent had been petitioning the police authorities as well as the Home Minister and the Prime Minister of India seeking protection. Evading arrest would certainly be an illegal act but it does not lead to the only conclusion that the respondent was hiding due to a guilty conscience.

"We are also unable to accept that such severance of the body parts could possibly be achieved by use of a simple butter knife. It is simply too far-fetched a notion to be taken seriously," it said.

The apex court said undoubtedly, the case demonstrates the actions of a depraved soul.
"The manner in which the crime has been committed in this case, demonstrates the depths to which the human spirit/soul can sink. But no matter how diabolical the crime, the burden remains on the prosecution to prove the guilt of the accused.

"Given the tendency of human beings to become emotional and subjective when faced with crimes of depravity, the courts have to be extra cautious not to be swayed by strong sentiments of repulsion and disgust," the bench said while acquitting the doctor.