Tanya Gupta
Published on: March 14, 2022, at 14:10 IST
In the case of Vineet Vs State of Haryana, the Punjab and Haryana High Court held that in cases of Circumstantial Evidences Failure to Prove Motive does not Necessarily trump the Prosecution’s Case if the Chain of Circumstances is well established.
Justices Ashok Kumar Verma and Ritu Bahri in this Bench observed,
“The failure to Discover the Motive of an Offence does not signify its Non-Existence. The Failure to prove Motive is not Fatal as a Matter of Law. Motive s never an indispensable for Conviction. Absence of Proof of Motive does not Break the Link in the Chain of Circumstances connecting the Accused with the Crime, nor Militates against the Prosecution Case.”
An Appeal was filed by the Husband, Convicted for Murder in relation to the Demand of Dowry Under Section 302 and 498A of the Indian Penal Code (IPC).
The Appellant submitted that Prosecution was made out merely on the Basis of Circumstantial Evidence. There were Material Contradictions and Discrepancies in Testimony of Witnesses.
It was further contended that there was no Establishment of Motive behind the Murder.
Findings
The Bench Dismissed the Argument of the Appellant noting that merely Absence of Eyewitness, in this case, is not enough to Conclude that Appellant is Innocent.
The Bench view was that the case of Prosecution has been established Beyond Reasonable Doubt.
It is well proved that the Appellant/Accused under the Greed of Dowry Mentally and Physically Harassed the Deceased and ultimately Murdered her by Giving poison which Fact is corroborated by the Medical Evidence. The Appellant has totally failed to falsify the Depositions of PW4 and PW-8…The Prosecution has led Cogent Prove its case Beyond Reasonable Doubt. In fact, the Complete Chain of Link Eevidence stands established from the Testimonies of various Witnesses produced by the Prosecution.
The Bench referring to Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act stated,
“It was the Bounden Duty of the Appellant/Accused to explain how the Death of his Wife Preeti occurred, as she was Residing with him in her Matrimonial Home…No Reasonable Explanation has been given by the Appellant/Accused that under which Circumstances, his wife Preeti had Consumed Poison or why he should not be Responsible for her Murder in peculiar facts of the Case.”
Hence, the Appeal was Dismissed.
Also read:
Recent Amendments on Offences against Women
What is the difference between Revision and Appeal?