The Gujarat High Court (Ahmedabad Bench) has upheld the conviction under Sections 302, 201 and 203 IPC, relying on the appellant’s established presence, the evidence of homicidal death and his failure to satisfactorily explain the alleged hanging. Emphasising that missing CCTV footage and the daughter’s non-examination were not fatal on the proved facts, the forensic finding that the ceiling fan had not been used for hanging, coupled with medical evidence of head injury and airway blockage by external pressure, led the Court to reject suicide and find homicidal strangulation.
The Court accepted the forensic finding that the ceiling fan had not been used for hanging and the medical opinion establishing death through external pressure on the airway. It found homicidal strangulation consistent with the prosecution case. The Court considered the appellant’s selective answers under Section 313 CrPC and his failure to explain how he allegedly brought the deceased down from the fan. It reiterated that Section 106 of the Evidence Act does not displace the prosecution’s burden to prove guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
The Court also held that the daughter’s non-examination was not a missing link because her presence at the relevant time was not established. Non-production of CCTV footage was also not decisive given the witness evidence and the appellant’s established presence at the house. The Court declined to read the call-detail records in evidence for want of a Section 65B(4) certificate. It nevertheless relied on witness testimony and the appellant’s admitted role in transporting the deceased to establish his presence.
Briefly, Shahinahmed Fakirmohammad Pathan appealed against his conviction for murder, causing disappearance of evidence and giving false information under Sections 302, 201 and 203 IPC. The case concerned the death of Kulwinder Kaur on 9 January 2018. Her husband returned home after receiving an urgent call from the appellant and found her lying on a bed, with the appellant present. They took her to hospital, where she was declared dead. The appellant told the husband that he had found her hanging from the ceiling fan and had brought her down. The death was initially reported as an accidental death; a murder complaint followed after the postmortem findings.
The Division Bench comprising Justice Gita Gopi and Justice L. S. Pirzada found that the appellant’s presence at the deceased’s house was established by the witness testimony and his admitted participation in taking her to hospital. It accepted the forensic inspection indicating that the ceiling fan had not been used for hanging and the medical opinion attributing death to head injury and blockage of the upper airway by external pressure. It therefore rejected the defence of suicidal hanging. The Court also declined to accept the allegation of subsequent additions to the postmortem findings, noting that the relevant allegation had not been put to the doctor in cross-examination.
The Court held that the difference between the inquest and postmortem records over which side of the forehead was injured was not a major discrepancy. It found that the daughter’s non-examination did not constitute a missing link because her presence at the relevant time had not been established. It also held that the absence of CCTV footage was not decisive in view of the other evidence establishing the appellant’s presence. However, it expressly excluded the call-detail records from consideration because the certificate required under Section 65B(4) of the Evidence Act was absent.
