A Murder, A Mistake, and a Murdered Man: The Supreme Court Overturns a Conviction.


08-August-2025 Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law  

A recent appeal has brought to light a significant case of a woman, convicted along with her husband for the murder of a man, being granted the benefit of the doubt and acquitted by the highest court. The case of Shyam Kali Dubey v/s State of Madhya Pradesh, which originated in the Trial Court and was upheld by the High Court, was built on a series of events stemming from a seemingly petty altercation over cattle grazing. However, a meticulous re-examination of the evidence and witness testimonies has revealed glaring inconsistencies that led to the overturning of the conviction.

The prosecution's case was based on a simple narrative: an altercation between the appellant and the deceased took place in the afternoon when she tried to graze her cattle in his field. The deceased objected, leading to a scuffle where he pushed her, and she retaliated by hitting him with a stick. The woman was then taken away by her son and mother-in-law, but not before she threatened to return with her husband. The prosecution alleged that she made good on this threat, returning with her husband later that evening to beat the deceased with sticks, resulting in his death.


 

 

The post-mortem report confirmed that the death was homicidal, caused by multiple injuries from a hard, blunt object. However, this is where the first major inconsistency emerged. The doctor who performed the autopsy stated that the death occurred between 10 p.m. and midnight, while the alleged attack with eyewitnesses was said to have taken place at 7 p.m. This three-to-five-hour discrepancy in the time of death cast serious doubt on the prosecution's timeline.

Furthermore, the eyewitness testimonies, while consistent in placing the accused at the scene, were problematic. The court noted that witnesses were related to the deceased and also lived in the same neighborhood. While this relationship doesn't automatically discredit their testimony, it takes on significance when juxtaposed with other evidence. The father of the deceased, the primary eyewitness to the alleged frontal assault, had admitted to having a strained relationship with his son, who had threatened him and his other children.

Perhaps the most puzzling elements of the case were the unexplained circumstances surrounding the deceased and his family. The body of the deceased was found not at the temple, where the attack allegedly occurred, but in the courtyard of his own house. There was no explanation as to why the injured man was taken home instead of to a hospital, especially given the significant time gap between the alleged assault and the confirmed time of death.

Even more disturbing were the injuries found on the parents of the deceased. A doctor had examined them on the same day and found incised wounds caused by a sharp-edged weapon. While the doctor opined that these could have been self-inflicted, the prosecution offered no explanation for them. This, combined with the admitted family dispute over property partition, raised a reasonable doubt about the actual circumstances of the man's death.

The court observed that the "dying declaration" mentioned by some witnesses, where the victim allegedly named his assailants, was not even considered by the lower courts, presumably due to its improbability. The recovery of sticks from the accused was also questioned, as the stick allegedly recovered from the woman was never sent for forensic examination to confirm the presence of blood or to determine if it could have caused the fatal injuries.

In light of these contradictions and the prosecution's failure to provide a coherent and plausible account of events, the conviction was ultimately overturned. The court concluded that the eyewitness testimony, while not entirely discounted, could not stand on its own in the face of so many other unexplained circumstances and inconsistencies. The appellant was granted the benefit of the doubt, her conviction was set aside, and she was ordered to be released.


Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860