New Delhi: The Supreme Court has upheld the life imprisonment of a man for killing his wife in Uttarakhand in 2002, a few days after he had taken a life insurance policy in her name. A bench of justices Ashok Bhushan and Navin Sinha held that "all the links in the chain of circumstances pointed to the guilt of the appellant alone".
The man had alleged that five persons had entered his house in the intervening night of March 24 and 25, 2002 to abduct him and that his wife was shot dead by them when she resisted their attempt.
Read: SC asks J'khand govt if it wants to withdraw sedition charges against accused in Pathalgarhi case
But he had failed to mention any reason for his "attempted abduction" or name any person who tried to abduct him, the apex court noted.
"If the intruders had come to abduct him and his wife had been shot dead after she tried to prevent his abduction, it would have been all the more convenient for the intruders to take him away with them. No explanation has been furnished by him in this regard," the bench said.
The man was convicted by the trial court and the order was upheld by the high court. Thereafter, the convict had approached the Supreme Court. The apex court further noted that the convict also could not provide any description of the intruders' physical features. It said there were inconsistencies in the statements made by the convict before the police and the trial court.
"The appellant failed to furnish any plausible defence," the bench said, noting that he tried to give false evidence by first raising alleged "extra-marital affairs" of his wife and later stating that five intruders had broken into his house to abduct him.
It said there was no evidence to prove that people had barged into the convict's house as there were no footprints in the muddy courtyard. The court further noted that the convict did not mention any reason for his attempted abduction or name any person on the suspicion of enmity or otherwise.
It also took into consideration the statements of his in-laws, who said the convict was very greedy, had demanded money from them and had also taken a LIC policy in his wife's name days before the incident.
