'Retraction of 164 CrPC statement not to be permitted on flimsy grounds': Supreme Court upholds conviction of husband, mother-in-law in murder of pregnant wife

New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the conviction of a man and his mother for killing his pregnant wife in 2003, rejecting retraction of his sisters from versions recorded by a judicial magistrate, observing that Section 164 CrPC statement cannot be discarded at the drop of a hat.

A bench of Justices Bela M Trivedi and Satish Chandra Sharma, in its November 25 judgment, confirmed the concurrent findings recorded by a sessions court in Garhwal and Uttarakhand High Court, dismissing the appeal filed by Vijaya Singh and his mother in the case where the victim had died due to 100 per cent burn injuries.

The court said the circumstantial evidence available on record appeared to be consistent and did not leave much scope for the innocence of the appellants.

Among other grounds, the main accused cited retraction made by his sisters with regard to a quarrel that took place just before the incident on the fateful date on September 14, 2003, citing threat and presence of the investigating officer at the time of recording statements before the judicial magistrate.

The bench, however, said, "To permit retraction by a witness from a signed statement recorded before the magistrate on flimsy grounds or on mere assertions would effectively negate the difference between a statement recorded by the police officer and the one by the judicial magistrate."

The bench said the statement under Section 164 CrPC must always be considered on a better footing.

"However, relevancy, admissibility and reliability are distinct concepts in the realm of the law of evidence. Thus, the weight to be attached to such a statement (reliability thereof) is to be determined by the court on a case-to-case basis and the same would depend to some extent upon whether the witness has remained true to the statement or has resiled from it, but it would not be a conclusive factor," the bench said.

In the case, the court noted the sisters' statements were recorded by the judicial magistrate 25 days after the incident showing there was sufficient time and cooling period. "In fact, the retraction appears to be a result of tutoring and manipulation as the said witnesses could have easily been won over by their family members during the intervening period," it said.

In their submission, the appellants also tried to project the incident as a result of suicide due to the victim's frustration over her inability to accompany her husband to Chandigarh, where he used to work.

"The reason does not inspire confidence at all. For, there is no proportionality with the drastic act of suicide and even otherwise, on the date of incident, the deceased and appellant no 1 had left for Chandigarh and had to return due to non-availability of bus. Thus, the deceased had no reason to be frustrated about it as things were finally moving as per her desire," the bench said.

The court also pointed out, furthermore, the deceased was pregnant at the time of incident and she could not have taken a drastic step of suicide with a womb in her stomach.

The bench also said it is difficult to believe that the deceased managed to procure two cans of kerosene for taking own life within a time frame of two hours.

"It is equally difficult to believe that the deceased poured almost 9 litres of kerosene on herself, put herself on fire and kept on burning till her body suffered 100% burns, without the appellants getting a whisper about the same despite being present in the same house. If it was indeed a case of self-immolation, the appellants must have done something to save her and her body would not have suffered 100% burns. This fact assumes greater gravity when it is seen that the room was not bolted from inside and was open for access," the bench said.

The court also noted the conduct of the appellants pointed in an incriminating direction as they also could not explain fresh injury and abrasion marks on their face at the time of arrest, leading to inference of physical resistance of the deceased at the time of being set ablaze.

The bench pointed out the high court and the trial court had correctly appreciated statement of the doctor who also stated that it was not possible for the body to sustain 100 per cent burns in the case of suicide or self-immolation, which found support from other evidence on record.