Death due to strangulation in the bedroom is murder, not suicide
The Supreme Court in Mulakh raj v Satish Kumar AIR 1992 set aside the acquittal by Punjab and Haryana High Court and restored the verdict of trial court of the conviction of the accused where it was established from the given evidence that the deceased and the husband were living upstairs alone. Although there have been several attempt to distort the evidence and make change in the given circumstances but the story construed from the chain of circumstantial evidence established the truth and confirmed the fact that there have been attempt made by the husband to destroy the evidence of murder by burning of the dead body and immediately after occurrence the false plea of suicide was plotted.
Though the division Bench of Punjab acquitted the accused Satish kumar but the state filed an appeal in the Supreme Court against the order of the acquittal.
The crucial question in this case is whether the medical evidence of the doctor is reliable and acceptable and whether the death was due to suicide.
The Supreme Court in this case held that;
“In case of circumstantial evidence, motive bears an important significance. Motive is always locked up in the mind of the accused and sometimes it is difficult to unlock. People do not act according to motive. 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. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Absence of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime nor militates against the prosecution case.”
The judgment of Punjab and Haryana High Court was set aside and the order of trial court was established in the wake of justice. Thus, it was established that death due to strangulation in the bedroom is murder u/s 300 and not suicide.