Wife Killing Case | Case Reference

Wife Killing Case

At the time of occurrence only the victim and the accused-respondent were inside the room wherefrom the victim came out exclaiming and holding her cheek with profuse bleeding from the injuries she sustained on different parts of her body. Thus duty cast upon the accused-respondent to explain as to how the victim, his wife, sustains such bleeding injuries which resulted in her death. In the case of Ilias Hussain vs State, 54 DLR (AD) 78 it has been held:

"It is well settled that when a wife met with unnatural death while in custody of the husband and also while in his house the husband is to explain under what circumstances she met with her death." [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 148]

The plea of unsoundness of mind of the accused-respondent falls within the general exceptions of the Penal Code and the burden to prove such fact lies completely on the defence under section 105 of the Evidence Act, 1872 which provides:

"When a person is accused of any offence, the burden of proving the existence of circumstances bringing the case within any of the general exceptions in the Penal Code or within any special exception or proviso contained in any other part of the same Code, or in any law defining the offence, is upon him and the court shall presume the absence of such circumstances". [73 DLR (AD) (2021) 149]

In the case of Dipok Kumar Sarker vs The State, 40 DLR (AD) 139, it has been held by this Division that the deceased was admittedly living with the appellant at the relevant time and thus he was obliged to give an explanation as to how his wife had met with her death although normally an accused is under no obligation to account for the death for which he is on trial. The consideration is bound to be different in a case like this. [73 DLR (AD) 243]

In the case of The State, represented by the Solicitor to the Government of the People's Republic of Bangladesh vs Md Shafiqul Islam alias Rafique and another, 43 DLR (AD) 92, it has been held that in a wife killing case from its very nature, there could be no eye-witness of the occurrence, apart from the inmates of the house who may refuse to tell the truth and the neighbours may not also come forward to depose and the prosecution is, therefore, necessarily to rely on circumstantial evidence. In the said case, it has also been held that where it is proved that the wife died of assault in the house of her husband, there would be strong suspicion against the husband that at his hands the wife died and to make the husband liable, the minimum fact that must be brought on record, either by direct or circumstantial evidence, is that he was in the house at the relevant time. [73 DLR (AD) 243]

In the case of Trimukh Maroti Kirkan vs State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681, it has been held that where an accused is alleged to have committed the murder of his wife and the prosecution succeeds in leading evidence to show that shortly before the commission of 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.[73 DLR (AD) 243]

In the case of Nika Ram vs State of Himachal Pradesh, (1972) 2 SCC 80, it was observed that the fact that the accused alone was with his wife in the house when she was murdered there with "Khukhri" 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. [73 DLR (AD) 244]

In the case of Ganeshlal vs State of Maharashtra, (1992) 3 SCC 106 the appellant was prosecuted for the murder of his wife which took place inside his house. It was held that when the death had occurred in his custody, the appellant is under an obligation to give a plausible explana tion for the cause of her death in his statement under section 313 of CrPC. The mere denial of the prosecution case coupled with absence of any explanation was 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. [73 DLR (AD) 244]

In the case of State of UP vs Dr. Ravindra Prakash Mittal, (1992) 3 SCC 300 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 the 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 the Supreme Court of India reversed the judgment of the High Court acquitting the accused and convicted him under section 302 IPC. [73 DLR (AD) 244]

In the case of State of Tamil Nadu vs Rejendran, (1999) 8 SCC 679, the wife was found dead in a hut which had caught fire. The evidence showed that the accused and his wife were seen together in the hut at about 9-00 pm and the accused came out in the morning through the roof when the hut had caught fire. His explanation was that it was a case of accidental fire which resulted in the death of his wife and a daughter. The medical evidence showed that the wife died due to asphyxia as a result of strangulation and not on account of burn injuries. It was held that there cannot be any hesitation to come to the conclusion that it was the accused (husband) who was the perpetrator of the crime. [73 DLR (AD) 244]

Penal Code (XLV of 1860) 

Section 304 Part II

Where the relationship between the informant and the husband was good and there was love and affection between the convict and the victim as transpires in the evidence, we find no intention on the part of the condemned- prisoner to cause death of the victim for constituting the offence defined as 'murder. The offence committed by him thus comes within the meaning of culpable homicide not amounting to murder. The offence committed is  punishable under section 304 Part II of the Code. [73 DLR 198]

Evidence Act (1 of 1872) 

Section 106

When wife dies within the custody of her husband, the husband is to explain the cause of her death. The deceased was admittedly living with the condemned-appellant at the relevant time and thus the condemned-appellant was obliged to give an explanation as to how his wife had met with her death although normally an accused is under no obligation to account for the death for which he is on trial.

Though FIR is not a substantive evidence, it can be gathered from the statements made therein that the relationship between the husband and the wife was bitter because of demand of dowry by the husband. It is alleged in the FIR that Taka 30,000 was paid to the condemned- appellant at the time of marriage. ..(18 & 20) [74 DLR (AD) (2022) 36]

Evidence Act (I of 1872) 

Section 106

When wife dies within the custody of her husband, the husband is to explain the cause of her death. The deceased was admittedly living with the condemned-appellant at the relevant time and thus the condemned-appellant was obliged to give an explanation as to how his wife had met with her death although normally an accused is under no obligation to account for the death for which he is on trial. [74 DLR (AD) (2022) 36]

In cases where allegations that a husband had murdered his wife and then absconded, the husband in such a situation had a duty to explain how his wife was murdered and by whom she was murdered. In case of non- explanation by the husband or his silence in the matter or the having absconded immediately after the murder, would be considered to be a good ground for a findings that the husband is guilty of murder of his wife if, how- ever, there is no suggestion or circumstances to show to the contrary that other inmates of the house also used to beat her and killing her in the process-Penal Code S.302. The State Vs NurulHuq, 13 BLD (HCD) 99

Ref: 172 LC.374, 39 Cr.L.J. 123; A.LR. 1977(SC)1116, 126 I.C.689, 62 IC 545, PLD 1964 (SC) 813, 31 DLR 312; 16 DLR (Dacca) 598: A.1.R.1973(SC)2474 Cited

Wife killing case-In a wife's killing case the husband is under an obligation to explain how his wife met with her death. But to make the husband liable for the death of his wife, the minimum fact that must be brought on record that the husband was present at home at the relevant time. State vs Md Golam Sarwar @ Ripon, 67 DLR 407

Wife Killing Case- There is no eye- witness of the occurrence but undisputedly the deceased was the wife of the condemned-prisoner and she was living in the house of her parents with her husband the condemned-prisoner as husband and wile. It is also in the evidence as testified by the prosecution witnesses that the condemned-prisoner took away the deceased on 8-6-2006 from the house of her parents on the plea of treatment from a doctor and subsiequent to that the dead body of the deceased was found in the water of a canal. State vs Md Sukur Ali, 68 DLR 155

Wife Killing Case-Injuries in the PM Report-The injuries, external and internal found by the doctors are consistent with their opinion that death was due to cerebral failure resulted from the head injuries, which were ante-mortem and homici-dal in nature. The injuries present on the dead body of the deceased were not consistent with suicidal death due to hanging. The ligature mark on the neck was post-mortem. No symptom of suicidal hanging was present. State vs Azam Reza 62 DLR 399.

Murder of wife-explanation of the accused ordinarily an accused has no obligation to account for the death for which he is placed on trial. The murder having taken place while the condemned prisoner was living with his wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. In the absence of any explanation coming from his side it seems none other than the husband was responsible for causing death in question. State vs Kalu Bepari 43 DLR 249.

As the wife was murdered while in custody of her husband the natural presumption is that he is responsible for her death. Ordinarily, an accused has no obligation to account for the death for which he is placed on trial. But the murder having taken place while this appellant was living with his deceased wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death and in the present case the appellant tried to explain that she committed suicide which was found to be a travesty of truth. In the absence of any satisfactory explanation and the explanation given found to be false we are of the view that none other than this appellant is responsible. Shamsuddin vs State 45 DLR 587

The only fact that the girl was found lying dead while in custody of her husband, in absence of some other incriminating conduct of the appellant, is not sufficient to convict him. Emdadul Hoque vs State 57 DLR 21.

The murder having taken place while the appellant was living with his deceased wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. Shahjahan Mizi vs State 57 DLR 224.

Death of wife-Special onus upon husband-In the case of death of wife in the house of the husband when the husband had been with wife the husband is under an obligation to account for the cause of death of his wife and special onus lies upon the husband. Kazi Mahbubuddin Ahmed alias Mahbub vs State, represented by the DC, Dhaka 57 DLR 513.

When a wife met with an unnatural death while in custody of the husband and also while in his house the husband is to explain under what cir- cumstance the wife met with her death. Ilias Hussain vs State 54 DLR (AD) 78.

The murder having taken place where the accused person was living with his wife in the same house he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. In the absence of any explanation coming from his side it seems none other than the husband was responsible for causing death in question. Dulal Mia vs State 56 DLR 65.

Conduct- The accused husband was not a docile person but a very arrogant and assertive person. This part of his character and conduct is relevant to be considered as to who is capable of doing what. The husband of the victim girl had complete dominion and control over the wife. This fact of having an unfettered opportunity in causing an occurrence by the accused only, would also be a corroborative and relevant fact under the law (Ref: AIR 1977 (SC) 1116) and also the fact that after the commi- ssion of the alleged crime, the accused had abs- conded without any explanation or reasonable cause (Ref: 126 IC 689, 62 IC 545) All these are relevant corroborative facts leading to the infe- rence of guilt of the accused. 172 IC 374 and. 39 CrLJ 129 relied. State vs Nurul Hoque 45 DLR 306.

No motive of causing death of the deceased by the accused husband was attributed and proved through in a case based on circumstantial evidence proof of motive is of great importance. There is no evidence that the relation- ship between the appellant and his deceased wife was strained and on any occasion before the occurrence the appellant beat his deceased wife. Abu Taher vs State 58 DLR 34.

When the wife is killed in the house of the husband, the irresistible conclusion which flows is that it is the husband who is responsible for her death. State vs Md Delwar Hossain Faraji 57 DLR 264.

স্ত্রী হত্যা মামলা-এরূপ মামলায় বাড়ির ঘনিষ্ট লোকজন ছাড়া কোন চাক্ষুস সাক্ষী থাকে না এবং বাড়ির লোকজন সত্য বলতে অস্বীকার করে। প্রতিবেশীরাও সাক্ষ্য দিতে এগিয়ে আসে না। অতএব, বাদীপক্ষকে অপরিহার্য্যভাবে অবস্থাগত সাক্ষ্যের উপর নির্ভর করতে হয়। [রাষ্ট্র বনাম মোঃ শফিকুল ইসলাম, ৪৩ ডিএলআর (এডি) ৯২]

স্বামীর হেফাজতে স্ত্রীর মৃত্যু-যখন স্বামীর বাড়িতে তার হেফাজতে থাকাকালীন সময়ে স্ত্রীর অস্বাভাবিক মৃত্যু হয় তখন স্বামীকে স্ত্রীর মৃত্যুর কারণ ব্যাখ্যা করতে হয়। [ইলিয়াস হোসেন (মোঃ) বনাম রাষ্ট্র ৫৪ ডিএলআর (এডি) ৭৮]

Ordinarily an accused has no obligation to account for the death for which he was placed on trial, but the murder having taken place while the accused was living with his deceased wife in the same house, he was under an obligation to explain how his wife had met with her death. Abul Kalam Mollah vs State 51 DLR 544.