Recently, the Supreme Court upheld the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife inside their matrimonial home, holding that the accused’s failure to offer a plausible explanation regarding the circumstances of death can operate as an additional link in a case based on circumstantial evidence. The Court dismissed the appeal filed against the Bombay High Court decision affirming his conviction under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC.
Brief facts:
The case stemmed from the death of a woman inside her matrimonial home in August 2015. According to the prosecution, her father was preparing to bring her to her parental home for Raksha Bandhan when he received information about her death. While the defence maintained that she had died by suicide through hanging, her family alleged that she had previously complained of harassment and ill-treatment at her matrimonial home. During the investigation, the prosecution relied upon medical evidence, injury marks found on the body and several suspicious circumstances surrounding the incident. The Trial Court ultimately convicted the husband and another family member for murder and destruction of evidence, while acquitting all the accused of offences relating to cruelty and dowry death. In appeal, the High Court extended the benefit of doubt to one of the co-convicts but affirmed the husband’s conviction for murder.
Contentions of the Appellant:
The Appellant argued that the case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and that there was no eyewitness, no proven motive and no material showing intention to commit murder. The Counsel contended that the medical evidence itself created doubt regarding the cause of death, as one opinion suggested hanging while another referred to strangulation. The defence further relied upon an alleged suicide note said to have been written by the deceased, claiming that it clearly indicated that nobody was responsible for her death. On this basis, the Counsel argued that the Appellant was entitled to the benefit of doubt and that the conviction recorded by the Trial Court and affirmed by the High Court was unsustainable.
Contentions of the Respondent:
The State opposed the appeal by contending that both the Trial Court and the High Court had thoroughly appreciated the evidence and concurrently found the Appellant guilty, warranting no interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Counsel submitted that the complete chain of circumstances, read together with the medical evidence, unmistakably pointed towards the guilt of the Appellant. The prosecution further argued that the death had occurred inside the matrimonial home and the Appellant failed to furnish any satisfactory explanation regarding the suspicious circumstances surrounding the incident. Reliance was also placed on the post-mortem findings, including fracture of the hyoid bone and trachea, to contend that the death was caused by strangulation and not suicide by hanging.
Observation of the Court:
The Court observed that the present case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence and reiterated the settled principles governing conviction in such cases. Referring to the decision in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, the Bench emphasised that every circumstance forming part of the chain must be firmly established and must point only towards the guilt of the accused. The Court quoted the “five golden principles” governing circumstantial evidence and noted that “there must be a chain of evidence so complete as not to leave any reasonable ground for the conclusion consistent with the innocence of the accused.” The Bench held that the prosecution had successfully established such an unbroken chain in the present matter.
The Bench held that the medical evidence and surrounding circumstances clearly disproved the defence theory of suicide and strongly supported the prosecution’s case of strangulation. The Bench specifically relied on the missing earrings, anklet and toe-rings of the deceased, observing that such articles were unlikely to go missing in a case of hanging. The Court further noted the existence of fresh injury marks on the cheek, along with ligature marks around the neck. Referring to these circumstances, the Bench observed that “the circumstances recorded by Trial Court and High court strongly point out the guilt towards appellant for the offence charged.” The Court also relied upon the post-mortem findings showing fracture of the hyoid bone and trachea, with the medical opinion recording the cause of death as asphyxia due to strangulation.
The Court further emphasised that the conduct of the husband immediately after the incident raised serious suspicion and formed an important circumstance against him. The Bench noted that although one doctor had declared the deceased brought dead and advised that the body be taken to a civil hospital, the family instead shifted the body to another private hospital without offering any satisfactory explanation for doing so. The Court found this conduct inconsistent with the defence theory of suicide and observed that no plausible explanation was furnished regarding the incriminating circumstances surrounding the death inside the matrimonial home. The Bench further held that the alleged suicide note relied upon by the defence did not inspire confidence and agreed with the Trial Court’s finding that the chit appeared to have been forcibly written before the strangulation incident.
The Bench held that the death having occurred inside the matrimonial home, the burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act assumed significance once the prosecution established foundational facts. Relying on Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, the Bench reiterated that in cases based on circumstantial evidence, failure of the accused to explain facts especially within his knowledge can operate as an additional incriminating circumstance. The Court observed that the appellant had “utterly failed to provide a justifiable explanation so as to discharge the burden” cast upon him under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. The Bench clarified that while Section 106 does not relieve the prosecution of its burden, the absence of any plausible explanation from the husband regarding the suspicious death inside the matrimonial home strengthened the prosecution's case.
The Court further held that the absence of motive was not fatal to the prosecution once the chain of circumstances stood firmly established. Referring to Mulakh Raj and Ors. v. Satish Kumar and Ors, the Bench observed that “failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law” and that lack of proof of motive does not break the chain connecting the accused with the crime. The Court emphasised that the prosecution had produced sufficient medical and circumstantial evidence to establish guilt beyond a reasonable doubt.
The decision of the Court:
Finding no perversity or miscarriage of justice in the appreciation of evidence by the Trial Court and the High Court, the Apex Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the IPC. The Court, however, granted liberty to the appellant to apply for premature release in accordance with the prevailing State policy.
Case Title: Chetan Dashrath Gade Vs. The State of Maharashtra
Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1063/2021
Coram: Hon'ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal, Hon'ble Mr. Justice Parsanna B. Varale
Advocate for the Petitioner: Sr Adv. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, AOR Sneha Sanjay Botwe, Adv. Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Siddhanth Kumar, Adv. Akash Tripathi
Advocate for the Respondent: AOR Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, Adv. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Bharat Bagla
Read Judgment @Latestlaws.com
