Supreme Court restores acquittal in husband’s conviction for wife's death, finds no chain of circumstances pointing to guilt

A Bench of Justices Sudhanshu Dhulia and K. Vinod Chandran heard an appeal by the State challenging the acquittal of a husband and his in-laws in the death of the wife's death and the High Court’s subsequent conviction of the husband for murder under Section 302 IPC. The Court examined whether the High Court was justified in reversing the Trial Court’s finding of suicide and whether the discrediting of the accused’s alibi and application of Section 106 of the Evidence Act sufficed to sustain a conviction.

The Supreme Court allowed the Criminal Appeal, set aside the High Court's conviction and restored the Trial Court's order of acquittal. The Court held that the High Court had reversed the acquittal without demonstrating "manifest illegality or perversity" in the Trial Court’s conclusions and that the evidence did not establish a chain of circumstances excluding every hypothesis except guilt. The Court, in its reasoning, observed: "it is trite that unless it is demonstrated that there is some manifest illegality or perversity in the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court while arriving at the finding of guilt of the accused, an acquittal ordinarily should not be reversed. Where two views were possible, it is also trite, that the one taken by the Trial Court to acquit the accused, if found to be a plausible one, cannot be upset lightly by the Appellate Court. The presumption of innocence available to an accused gets further fortified by the acquittal entered by the Trial Court." The Court further recorded the operative direction: "Having found absolutely no circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court which we set aside and restore the order of acquittal of the Trial Court. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The accused shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused shall stand discharged."

Background The incident involved the death of a woman who had been married for two years and was found lying supine on a cot in the matrimonial house on 29 January 2017. The husband, who first informed the police and local elders, stated in the initial intimation that he had gone to work at a nearby cement factory on the preceding night and had returned at around 6 a.m. The inquest report noted a ligature mark on the front of the neck but recorded no suspicion at the inquest. The father of the deceased lodged a complaint five days later and an FIR was registered; three accused — the husband and his parents — were arrested and charged under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 and, in the alternative, under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC.

At trial, eight witnesses were examined, including the Patwari, the deceased's father and mother, the Tehsildar who prepared the inquest, the FIR registrar, the investigating officer and the post-mortem doctor. The Trial Court acquitted all three accused, concluding that the death was not proven to be homicidal and that there were no circumstances pointing to the guilt of the accused. The Trial Court noted the absence of a clear medical opinion establishing death by strangulation and that the ligature mark was on the front of the neck, with no noose found.

On appeal, the High Court upheld the prosecution case against the husband alone, disbelieved his alibi, and relied on Section 106 Evidence Act principles as articulated in Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra to infer culpability from the husband’s proximity and the failure to offer an explanation. The Supreme Court examined the evidence afresh and found that the accused had mentioned his presence at the cement factory in the very first intimation and that the police had not effectively investigated that alibi. The post-mortem record contained ambiguity: the doctor reported a ligature mark on the front of the neck and replied to queries that whether the mark was caused by throttling and whether the death was homicidal or suicidal "is the subject of investigation." The Court noted inconsistencies in relatives' depositions and the absence of ante-mortem injuries or evidence of physical cruelty to support charges under Sections 498A or 306. Relying on precedents including Sharad Birdhichand Sarda regarding the necessity of a chain of circumstances, the Court held that the High Court had erred in reversing acquittal on the limited basis of a disbelieved alibi and the application of Section 106 alone. The Court allowed the appeal, restored the Trial Court’s acquittal, ordered discharge of bail bonds and directed release of the accused if not wanted in any other case. Pending applications stood disposed of.

Case Details: Case No.: Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024 Case Title: Jagdish Gond v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors. Appearances: For the Petitioner(s): Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR; Mr. Niteen Sinha, Advocate; Ms. Yashika Varshney, Advocate; Ms. Palak Mathur, Advocate; Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Advocate For the Respondent(s): Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR; Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Advocate; Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Advocate