Supreme Court Overturns Husband's Murder Conviction: Lack of Evidence and Plausible Alibi Lead to Acquittal.


07 April 2025 Acquittal >> Criminal Law   |   Evidence >> Criminal Law   |   Murder Homicide >> Criminal Law  

The Supreme Court of India has set aside the conviction of a husband for the alleged murder of his young wife in Jagdish Gond Vs The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors., overturning a High Court judgment that had reversed the Trial Court's acquittal. The apex court found a lack of conclusive evidence establishing homicide and a plausible alibi provided by the husband, leading to the restoration of the Trial Court's order of acquittal.

The case arose from the death of a young woman, married for two years, in her matrimonial home. While the Trial Court concluded that her death was a suicide and acquitted her husband and in-laws, the High Court, on appeal by the State, upheld the acquittal of the in-laws but convicted the husband under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code (IPC), sentencing him to life imprisonment.


 

 

The factual background revealed that the husband, upon returning from work, found his wife deceased in their house. He promptly informed his parents and the police, who initially registered it as a case of sudden and unnatural death under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure (Cr.PC). An inquest revealed a ligature mark on the front of the deceased's neck, but no immediate suspicion of foul play was raised. However, five days later, based on a complaint by the deceased's father, an FIR was registered, and the husband and in-laws were arrested and subsequently charged under various sections of the IPC, including murder in the alternative.

During the trial, the prosecution presented eight witnesses. The Trial Court, after examining the evidence, particularly the medical testimony, concluded that the cause of death was not unequivocally established as murder. The court noted the doctor's inability to definitively state the death was due to strangulation, considering the ligature mark's location and other findings in the postmortem report. Consequently, the Trial Court acquitted all accused, deeming the death a suicide and finding no circumstances pointing to their guilt.

The High Court, however, reversed the husband's acquittal, primarily relying on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, which pertains to the burden of proving facts especially within one's knowledge. The High Court reasoned that since the husband and deceased were living together, he had a duty to explain her death. The High Court disbelieved his alibi of being at a nearby cement factory for work on the night of the incident due to a lack of corroborative evidence from his side. Based solely on the discredited alibi and their cohabitation, the High Court convicted him of murder.

The Supreme Court, while acknowledging the principles governing appeals against acquittals, expressed its concern over the High Court's reversal. The apex court reiterated that an acquittal should not be overturned unless there is manifest illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's findings. Furthermore, when two views are possible, the view favoring acquittal, if plausible, should not be lightly disturbed. The presumption of innocence is further strengthened by an acquittal.

In its analysis, the Supreme Court highlighted crucial facts. The husband was the first to inform the police about his wife's sudden and unnatural death, accompanied by a village official. His initial statement clearly mentioned his absence from the house on the night of the incident due to work at the cement factory. The Inquest Report also indicated no suspicion of foul play at the time, with the deceased's father and in-laws stating the husband was not present. This contradicted the later depositions of the deceased's relatives, who claimed to have suspected strangulation from the outset.

The Supreme Court found the High Court's reliance on Section 106 of the Evidence Act misplaced. While this section can be invoked when the prosecution establishes the deceased and accused were together shortly before the crime in their dwelling, and the accused offers no explanation or a palpably false one, it cannot be the sole basis for a murder conviction. In this case, the husband did offer an explanation – his presence at work – which was mentioned in the initial police intimation, not as an afterthought. The police, the Supreme Court noted, should have investigated this alibi.

The apex court also emphasized the lack of conclusive evidence establishing homicide. The medical opinion was not definitive, stating the cause of death as asphyxia due to possible compression of the trachea, but not clearly attributing it to strangulation or ruling out suicide. The doctor explicitly stated that no throttling marks were found, and whether the death was homicidal or suicidal was a matter of investigation.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court examined the charges under Sections 498A (cruelty) and 306 (abetment to suicide) read with Section 34 IPC. The depositions of the deceased's relatives primarily alleged complaints about her being lazy and sick, with no allegations of physical violence or any visible injuries on her body prior to the incident.

Concluding its judgment, the Supreme Court found no single circumstance, let alone a chain of circumstances, unequivocally pointing to the husband's guilt and excluding every other hypothesis. While the young woman's death was tragic, the evidence presented did not sufficiently establish it as a homicide committed by her husband. The husband had offered a plausible explanation for his absence, and the initial reaction of the deceased's relatives did not suggest foul play.

Therefore, the Supreme Court allowed the criminal appeal, setting aside the High Court's conviction and restoring the Trial Court's order of acquittal. The husband was ordered to be released forthwith if not wanted in any other case.


Section 106, Indian Evidence Act - 1872  

Indian Evidence Act, 1872  

Section 34., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 302., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 306., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Section 498A., Indian Penal Code - 1860  

Indian Penal Code, 1860  

Section 174., Code of Criminal Procedure - 1973  

Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973