Benefit of Doubt: High Court Acquits Man in Wife's Murder Case Citing Weak Circumstantial Evidence.


07 April 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Criminal Appeals & Suspension of Sentence >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

In Dattu Datta Bhika Tongare, Presently Lodged at Nashik Central Prison, Nashik v/s The State of Maharashtra, the Bombay High Court overturned a trial court's conviction and acquitted a man accused of murdering his wife. The High Court, in its order found that the prosecution had failed to establish the chain of circumstantial evidence beyond a reasonable doubt to implicate the appellant in the crime.

The appellant had been convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Niphad, under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC) and sentenced to life imprisonment along with a fine. The prosecution's case rested on the premise that the appellant was in a relationship with the deceased, whom he had introduced as his wife to a witness (PW1). The prosecution alleged that the couple, along with the deceased's two children from a previous marriage, had come to PW1's house for employment. One day prior to the incident, the appellant reportedly took ?2,000 from PW1 to go to the market with his wife and children. The following morning, PW1 discovered the deceased's body with signs of blood, leading to the lodging of an FIR. The appellant was subsequently arrested.

The prosecution presented eight witnesses to support its case. Key pieces of evidence relied upon by the trial court included the "last seen" testimony of PW1, a Chemical Analysis (C.A.) report indicating the presence of the deceased's blood group on the appellant's clothes, and the appellant's alleged failure to provide a plausible explanation for his wife's death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.

 

 

However, the High Court, after a thorough examination of the evidence, expressed significant doubts about the prosecution's case. Regarding the "last seen" evidence, the court noted that while PW1 testified to seeing the appellant leave for the market with his wife and children the day before, he explicitly stated in his examination-in-chief that he did not know when they returned. Finding the deceased's body the next morning did not conclusively establish the appellant's presence with her at the time of the murder. The court deemed this "last seen" evidence as "shaky and doubtful," making it unreliable for conviction.

The High Court also addressed the trial court's reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act, which deals with the burden of proving facts especially within one's knowledge. Citing the Supreme Court's ruling in Nagendra Sah v/s State of Bihar, the High Court clarified that Section 106 applies only when the prosecution has already established a foundation of facts from which a reasonable inference of guilt can be drawn. The failure of the accused to explain circumstances cannot substitute for the prosecution's primary burden of proving its case beyond a reasonable doubt. Since the "last seen" evidence was found to be weak, the burden under Section 106 did not automatically lead to a conviction.

Furthermore, the High Court scrutinized the other evidence presented. The deceased's young daughter (PW3), who was about four years old at the time of the incident, offered no incriminating evidence against the appellant during her brief testimony before she started weeping. The other child, aged below four, was not examined at all. The deceased's mother (PW4) provided no information regarding a potential motive for the appellant to commit the crime.

Regarding the C.A. report, which indicated the deceased's blood group on the appellant's clothes, the High Court pointed out a critical lack of evidence regarding the collection and handling of the deceased's blood samples. Given that the appellant's blood group was reportedly different, the absence of clarity on the sample collection process cast doubt on the reliability of the C.A. report as conclusive evidence against the appellant.

In its final analysis, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the circumstances against the appellant beyond a reasonable doubt. The chain of circumstantial evidence was deemed incomplete and did not unequivocally point to the appellant's guilt. The court reiterated the well-established principle that a false explanation or defence cannot replace the prosecution's fundamental duty to prove its case with legal, cogent, and admissible evidence.

Consequently, the High Court allowed the appeal, quashed the trial court's judgment and order of conviction and sentence, and acquitted the appellant of the murder charge. The appellant was ordered to be released forthwith if not required in any other case, and any fine paid was directed to be refunded.

This judgment underscores the crucial importance of a complete and unbroken chain of credible circumstantial evidence in criminal cases, particularly where there is no direct evidence. It also highlights the principle that the burden of proof always lies with the prosecution to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt, and the failure of the accused to offer an explanation cannot automatically lead to a conviction when the prosecution's own evidence is weak and inconclusive.


Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 106, Indian Evidence Act - 1872  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872