In Brief
A man was convicted of murdering his wife in their home in 1995. The sole eyewitness was their five-year-old daughter, who later turned hostile in court. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence: the victim was found stabbed twelve times inside their house; blood-stained clothes matched the victim's blood type; and the accused pointed out where a knife was hidden. The Supreme Court upheld the conviction, holding that Section 106 of the Evidence Act allows the court to draw adverse inferences when an accused offers false explanations for facts within his knowledge after the prosecution establishes foundational facts. The court rejected the defence of sudden quarrel, finding the multiple stab wounds demonstrated undue advantage and cruelty. The judgment addresses the public prosecutor's duty to meaningfully cross-examine hostile witnesses and the judge's active role in eliciting truth, especially from child witnesses.
The lawyer headnote and full judgment text are available to registered users.