A) ABSTRACT / HEADNOTE

The decision examines the evidentiary standards applicable in cases of homicidal death occurring within the privacy of a matrimonial home. The Supreme Court was concerned with a conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860 for the murder of a wife by strangulation, where the prosecution case substantially rested on circumstantial evidence, medical testimony, and the statement of a solitary witness. The Court scrutinised whether the absence of multiple eyewitnesses, hostile witnesses, and the non-recovery of the weapon of offence could dilute the prosecution’s case.

The judgment reiterates that when a death occurs in the exclusive domain of the accused, particularly within the matrimonial household, the burden on the prosecution is comparatively lighter once foundational facts are established. In such circumstances, Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 assumes critical relevance, placing an obligation on the accused to offer a plausible explanation for the cause of death. Mere denial under Section 313 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973 was held insufficient.

The Court upheld the conviction of the husband, relying on consistent testimony of the deceased’s brother, corroborated by medical evidence indicating death by strangulation. At the same time, the Court showed sentencing sensitivity by directing the State to consider premature release after completion of fourteen years of actual imprisonment. The judgment reinforces settled principles relating to circumstantial evidence, hostile witnesses, and domestic homicide within the privacy of the home.

Keywords: Circumstantial Evidence, Strangulation, Section 106 Evidence Act, Domestic Homicide, Burden of Proof, Hostile Witnesses

B) CASE DETAILS

C) INTRODUCTION AND BACKGROUND OF JUDGEMENT

The judgment arises from a matrimonial homicide that occurred in rural Madhya Pradesh, later Chhattisgarh, highlighting the complexities involved in prosecuting crimes committed within the private confines of a household. The deceased woman was found dead on a cot inside her matrimonial home, with medical evidence pointing towards death by asphyxia due to strangulation. The prosecution alleged that the husband, along with his parents, was responsible for the offence.

The case progressed through multiple judicial stages. The Trial Court convicted all three accused under Section 302 IPC. During the pendency of appeal, the father-in-law died, leading to abatement of proceedings against him. The High Court re-appreciated the evidence and acquitted the mother-in-law but upheld the conviction of the husband. The matter then reached the Supreme Court by way of criminal appeal.

A significant feature of the case was that most prosecution witnesses turned hostile, leaving the prosecution primarily dependent on the testimony of one witness, the deceased’s brother, and the post-mortem report. The defence argued that such limited evidence was insufficient to sustain a conviction for murder. The Court was therefore required to evaluate the quality rather than the quantity of evidence and to apply settled principles governing circumstantial evidence and burden of proof.

The judgment is situated within a broader jurisprudential framework concerning deaths within matrimonial homes, where direct evidence is often unavailable. It revisits the doctrine that when incriminating facts are within the special knowledge of the accused, the evidentiary burden shifts to them to provide an explanation consistent with innocence.

D) FACTS OF THE CASE

The deceased, Sahodara Bai, was married to the appellant approximately eight years prior to the incident and had an infant son. She resided in her matrimonial home along with her husband and in-laws. A few days before her death, she had returned to her maternal home and disclosed to her brother that she was subjected to harassment by her in-laws for several months. The harassment was allegedly linked to familial discord involving the appellant’s brother and his wife.

An attempt at reconciliation followed, after which the deceased was brought back to her matrimonial home. On 24 August 1999, she was found dead on a cot inside the house. A marg intimation was lodged by her brother. Initially, the in-laws suggested that death had occurred due to a snakebite. However, the post-mortem report contradicted this version and indicated asphyxia due to strangulation, with injuries consistent with forceful compression of the neck.

An FIR was registered under Sections 302 and 34 IPC. During investigation, the accused claimed that they were working in the fields at the time of the incident and discovered the body upon returning. No independent evidence was produced to substantiate this claim.

At trial, out of nine prosecution witnesses, five turned hostile. The Trial Court nonetheless convicted all accused based on circumstantial evidence, medical opinion, and the testimony of PW-1. On appeal, the High Court acquitted the mother-in-law, finding insufficient evidence of her involvement, but upheld the conviction of the husband. The Supreme Court was thus tasked with determining whether the conviction of the husband could be sustained on the available evidence.

E) LEGAL ISSUES RAISED

i. Whether a conviction under Section 302 IPC can be sustained primarily on circumstantial evidence and medical testimony?
ii. Whether the testimony of a solitary witness, when found reliable, is sufficient for conviction?
iii. Whether failure of the accused to explain the cause of death within the matrimonial home attracts Section 106 of the Evidence Act?
iv. Whether mere denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C. satisfies the burden placed on the accused?

F) PETITIONER / APPELLANT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the appellant submitted that the chain of circumstantial evidence was incomplete and incapable of excluding every hypothesis other than guilt. It was argued that allegations of prior cruelty were unsubstantiated by independent complaints. The credibility of PW-1 was questioned on the ground that he was a step-brother and had improved his version regarding the alleged snakebite explanation.

The defence further contended that the medical opinion was inconclusive as the doctor stated that the death “may” be homicidal. The absence of recovery of the weapon of offence and the acquittal of the mother-in-law on the same evidence were relied upon to seek parity and benefit of doubt.

G) RESPONDENT’S ARGUMENTS

The counsels for the respondent State argued that the death occurred within the exclusive confines of the matrimonial home and that the accused were the only occupants. Once homicidal death was established, the burden shifted to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to explain the circumstances leading to death.

Reliance was placed on precedents where similar deaths within the home led to conviction in the absence of explanation by the accused. The State emphasised that hostile witnesses do not automatically weaken the prosecution case and that quality of evidence prevails over quantity.

H) JUDGEMENT

The Supreme Court dismissed the appeal and upheld the conviction of the appellant under Section 302 IPC. The Court held that the testimony of PW-1 was consistent and credible, notwithstanding minor omissions. The medical evidence conclusively established death by strangulation, ruling out accidental or natural causes.

The Court placed substantial reliance on the fact that the death occurred inside the matrimonial home where no outsider could have entered unnoticed. In such circumstances, the accused was under a legal obligation to offer a plausible explanation. The failure to do so, coupled with mere denial under Section 313 Cr.P.C., was held to be a strong incriminating circumstance.

While affirming the conviction, the Court directed the State to consider the appellant’s case for release after completion of fourteen years of actual imprisonment, reflecting a balanced approach towards sentencing.

a) RATIO DECIDENDI

The ratio of the decision lies in the application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act to matrimonial homicides occurring within the privacy of the home. Once the prosecution establishes homicidal death and the exclusive presence of the accused, the evidentiary burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances. Failure to discharge this burden supports an inference of guilt.

b) OBITER DICTA

The Court observed that hostility of witnesses is a recurring issue in Indian criminal trials and does not, by itself, render the prosecution case unreliable. Emphasis was laid on the absence of an effective witness protection mechanism.

c) GUIDELINES

i. In cases of death within the matrimonial home, courts may draw adverse inference from absence of explanation by the accused.
ii. Conviction can rest on a solitary witness if testimony is reliable.
iii. Medical evidence assumes heightened importance in domestic homicide cases.

I) CONCLUSION & COMMENTS

The judgment reinforces foundational principles of criminal jurisprudence relating to circumstantial evidence and burden of proof. It reflects judicial sensitivity towards the realities of domestic crimes, where direct evidence is rare. By balancing strict evidentiary scrutiny with pragmatic application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the Court strengthens accountability within the domestic sphere while maintaining procedural fairness.

J) REFERENCES

a) Important Cases Referred

1. Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, [2006] 7 Supp. SCR 156
2. Amarsingh Munnasingh Suryawanshi v. State of Maharashtra, [2007] 11 SCR 1
3. Raj Kumar Prasad Tamarkar v. State of Bihar, [2007] 1 SCR 13
4. Yanob Sheikh Alias Gagu v. State of West Bengal, [2012] 13 SCR 1150
5. Gulam Sarbar v. State of Bihar, [2013] 12 SCR 1

b) Important Statutes Referred

1. Indian Penal Code, 1860
2. Indian Evidence Act, 1872
3. Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973