Supreme Court Holds High Court Erred in Convicting Husband for Wife’s Murder; Acquittal Restored

A Bench of Justices J.B. Pardiwala and R. Mahadevan heard an appeal from the State of Maharashtra’s successful High Court challenge to a trial court acquittal, concerning the fatal asphyxiation of a wife whose body was found at home and the subsequent conviction and life sentence imposed by the Bombay High Court.

The Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court judgment and order dated 3-7-2015, and restored the position in favour of the appellant who had been acquitted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Kolhapur. The Bench held that the prosecution’s case rested exclusively on circumstantial evidence and that the High Court erred in relying on an extra-judicial confession, a disputed discovery of the alleged weapon and an invocation of Section 106 of the Evidence Act without laying necessary foundational facts. The Court emphasised that an extra-judicial confession “should be found to be true & trustworthy” and warned that “an extra-judicial confession by its very nature is rather a weak type of evidence and requires appreciation with a great deal of care and caution.” The Court, in its reasoning, observed: “The law in the aforesaid regard is well-settled. Prosecution has to prove its case beyond reasonable doubt & that too on its own legs. The initial burden of proof is always on the prosecution. However, in cases where husband is alleged to have killed his wife in the night hours & that too within the residential house, then undoubtedly the husband has to offer some explanation as to what had actually happened and if he fails to offer any plausible explanation, this can go against him. However, Section 106 of the Evidence Act is subject to one well-settled principle of law. The prosecution has to first lay the foundational facts before it seeks to invoke Section 106 of the Evidence Act. If the prosecution has not been able to lay the foundational facts for the purpose of invoking Section 106 of the Evidence Act, it cannot starightaway invoke the said Section and throw the entire burden on the accused to establish his innocence.”

Background The prosecution alleged that the appellant strangulated his wife, Lata, and concealed the body; post-mortem recorded asphyxia due to strangulation. The village Police Patil (PW-2) and other villagers discovered the body, and an iron rod was alleged to have been recovered by way of a discovery panchnama. The trial court acquitted the accused in July 1993, finding the alleged extra-judicial confession inadmissible under Section 25 of the Evidence Act and disbelieving the discovery under Section 27. The State appealed; the Bombay High Court reversed the acquittal, convicted the appellant for murder (Section 302 IPC) and for destroying evidence (Section 201 IPC), sentenced him to life imprisonment, and invoked Section 106 to shift burden to the accused. The High Court’s reasoning relied on a 2009 Full Bench decision of the Bombay High Court which held that a Village Police Patil is not a “police officer” within Section 25, making such confessions admissible.

Before this Court, the State relied on four incriminating circumstances: the extra-judicial confession, discovery of the iron rod, motive, and the fact that the incident occurred within the house. The Supreme Court, while noting the Full Bench authority, proceeded on the footing that even if the confession were admissible it must be “true & trustworthy” and free from inducement. The Court found the alleged confession omnibus and vague; panch witnesses did not support the discovery panchnama and the Investigating Officer did not adequately prove its contents; and the prosecution had failed to lay foundational facts to invoke Section 106. The Court observed that motive is a “double-edged weapon” and cannot be sole basis for conviction in a capital offence. The appeal succeeded, the High Court order was set aside, and the appellant’s bail bonds stood discharged.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No. 1718 of 2017 (2025 INSC 93) Case Title: Sadashiv Dhondiram Patil v. The State of Maharashtra Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sachin Patil, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aniruddha Joshi, Senior Advocate