Court’s Decision
The Bombay High Court at Nagpur Bench upheld the conviction of the appellant-husband for murdering his pregnant wife with an axe but modified the sentence. The Sessions Court had imposed life imprisonment “for the remainder of his life.” The High Court ruled that such a sentence could only be imposed by the High Court or Supreme Court, relying on Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1. Thus, the sentence was altered to ordinary imprisonment for life with a fine of ₹50,000, while confirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC.
The Court held: “When a woman is found murdered inside her matrimonial home where only the husband resides with her, Section 106 of the Evidence Act places a clear burden on him to explain the circumstances of her death. Silence or false denial forms an additional link in the chain of circumstantial evidence.”
Facts
The appellant was accused of brutally murdering his wife in their matrimonial home in Wardha district. On 3 June 2016, the complainant, a Gram Panchayat member, rushed to the accused’s house upon being informed of the killing. The deceased was discovered lying in a pool of blood, with severe injuries on her head and neck. An axe was found near her body.
The investigation revealed long-standing marital discord, frequent quarrels, and allegations of ill-treatment under the influence of liquor. The deceased had earlier filed complaints, leading to police counselling and a written undertaking by the accused promising not to harass her. Despite this, on the night of the incident, a violent quarrel erupted, leading to her death. Post-mortem confirmed multiple incised and chopped wounds consistent with an axe attack. The deceased was also found to be carrying a four-month-old foetus.
Issues
- Whether the prosecution proved the charge of murder beyond reasonable doubt based solely on circumstantial evidence.
- Whether the chain of circumstances was sufficient to connect the accused with the offence.
- Whether the sentence of “life imprisonment till remainder of natural life” imposed by the Sessions Court was legally sustainable.
Petitioner’s (Appellant’s) Arguments
The defence argued that the case was based only on circumstantial evidence without any eyewitnesses. It was contended that:
- The FIR was based on hearsay.
- Panch witnesses were unreliable and their testimony inconsistent.
- The presence of the accused at the scene was not conclusively established.
- The prosecution failed to seal the weapon properly, casting doubt on forensic findings.
- Alternative hypotheses, including allegations of the deceased’s alleged affair, were suggested.
Reliance was placed on Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 817 and Karkatutu Md. Bashir v. State of Kerala (2024) 10 SCC 813, to argue that where circumstantial evidence is incomplete, benefit of doubt must go to the accused.
Respondent’s (State’s) Arguments
The prosecution submitted that:
- The deceased was last seen alive in the matrimonial house with the accused; no third person resided with them.
- Evidence of neighbours and relatives confirmed prior ill-treatment and quarrels.
- Counselling records established the accused’s history of harassment and his undertaking not to repeat such conduct.
- Post-mortem clearly established homicidal death due to axe injuries.
- Chemical Analysis (CA) reports proved the presence of the deceased’s blood group on the accused’s clothes and on the seized axe.
- Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, the accused was obliged to explain how his wife died inside their home, but he offered no explanation.
Thus, the chain of circumstances was complete and unerringly pointed to the accused’s guilt.
Analysis of the Law
The Court reiterated the settled principles of circumstantial evidence: the chain must be complete, inconsistent with innocence, and incapable of any explanation other than guilt.
- It noted that the deceased’s prior complaints, counselling sessions, and the accused’s written undertaking corroborated the strained marital relationship.
- Medical evidence proved the homicidal nature of death.
- Forensic evidence tied the accused directly to the crime.
- Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, since the murder occurred in the matrimonial house, the accused bore the burden of explanation. His failure to do so constituted an incriminating factor.
The Court stressed that judges must ensure not only that no innocent person is punished but also that guilty persons do not escape.
Precedent Analysis
- Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) ALL MR (Cri) 3510 – Held that when offences occur in secrecy within a house, the burden shifts to the inmates to explain. Relied upon to justify application of Section 106 Evidence Act.
- Stirland v. Director of Public Prosecutions (1944 AC 315) – Cited to emphasize that prosecution is not expected to lead impossible evidence in cases of private crimes within homes.
- Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1 – Constitution Bench decision holding that only High Courts and the Supreme Court can impose life imprisonment till the remainder of natural life. Applied to modify the sentence imposed by Sessions Court.
- Shiva Kumar v. State of Karnataka (2023) 9 SCC 817 & Karkatutu Md. Bashir v. State of Kerala (2024) 10 SCC 813) – Relied upon by defence, but distinguished as the facts in those cases lacked such a strong chain of circumstantial evidence.
Court’s Reasoning
The Court found that:
- The death was clearly homicidal, proved by medical testimony.
- The accused and deceased resided together separately from his parents, ruling out third-party involvement.
- Witnesses confirmed regular quarrels and violence.
- The accused’s clothes bore the deceased’s bloodstains, an unexplained circumstance.
- The accused’s conduct of absconding and later being found unconscious after consuming poison indicated guilt.
- Defence witnesses, including his own father, corroborated his violent behaviour.
The Court concluded: “The circumstances unerringly point to the guilt of the accused and are inconsistent with his innocence.”
Conclusion
The High Court partly allowed the appeal. While confirming the conviction under Section 302 IPC, it modified the sentence to simple “life imprisonment” instead of “life till remainder of natural life.” The accused must also pay ₹50,000 as fine, with two years’ rigorous imprisonment in default.
Implications
This judgment underscores that in cases of domestic homicide within the matrimonial home, the husband cannot escape liability by silence. Section 106 of the Evidence Act casts a burden on him to explain the circumstances. It also clarifies sentencing powers, reaffirming that only constitutional courts can impose remainder-of-life imprisonment.
The ruling strengthens protection of married women against domestic violence escalating to homicide, while ensuring sentencing jurisprudence aligns with constitutional principles.
FAQs
Q1. Why did the Bombay High Court modify the life sentence in this case?
Because only High Courts and the Supreme Court can impose life imprisonment “for the remainder of natural life,” not trial courts, as held in Union of India v. V. Sriharan (2016) 7 SCC 1.
Q2. What role did Section 106 of the Evidence Act play in the judgment?
It placed the burden on the husband, as the offence occurred inside the matrimonial home. His failure to explain how his wife died added to the chain of circumstances establishing guilt.
Q3. Why was circumstantial evidence sufficient here despite absence of eyewitnesses?
The Court held that the complete chain of evidence—motive, prior harassment, forensic proof, and the accused’s conduct—left no reasonable doubt of his guilt.
