Appeal
Hon’ble High Court upheld the conviction and dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant (accused no.1)
1. The present appeal arises from the impugned judgement dated 15.03.2021 passed by the High Court of judicature at Bombay, in Criminal Appeal No. 1557 of 2018 whereby the High Court dismissed the appeal preferred by the appellant and upheld the judgement of Additional Sessions Judge, Nashik wherein the appellant was convicted for the offences under sections 302,201r/w 34 of the Indian penal code,1860(For short, IPC), and sentenced to undergone life imprisonment and to pay fine ofRs.1,000/- in default to suffer two months simple imprisonment.
Factual matrix
Deceased Rupali was got married to the present appellant
3. Rupali daughter of Babasaheb Kumbharkar (P.W.1) got married to the present appellant on 24th April, 2012. That, she was living in her matrimonial home along with her husband, her in-laws and the appellant no.2 accused no.3 (younger brother of accused no.1). In November 2012, she had conceived pregnancy. Unfortunately, on 28th June 2013, there was intrauterine death of the foetus due to lack of blood supply as has been disclosed byP.W.3 Dr. Sunil Jadhav. In March 2015, she had given birth to a baby boy in a private hospital at Pimpalgaon, Baswant.
Father of the deceased was informed that the deceased Rupali was attempted to commit suicide and was taken to the hospital and there she died
4. On 23rd August 2015, father of the deceased Rupali i.e.P.W.1 had called upon her father-in-law Dashrath and intimated to him that he would come to Shindvad to fetch Rupali to her maternal house on the occasion of Raksha Bandhan. However, at about 1.30 pm, accused no.3/appellant no.2 Akshay informedP.W.1 that his sister-in-law i.e. Rupali is no more. At about 2.50pm, the father of the appellant Dashrath Gade approached Vani Police Station and informed that he had been to Khambala to participate in the 10th day rituals of his relatives. At about 11.00am, his elder son Chetan had informed him that his wife Rupali had attempted suicide by hanging in their residential house but he suspected that she had not died and therefore, he is taking her to the Doctor. Dashrath Gade had then reached Vani Hospital and he was informed that Rupali had died. On the basis of his report, A.D.No.38/2015 is registered at Vani Police Station. The said report is marked at Exh.152.
Fresh injury mark on the right side of her cheek and a ligature on her neck and previous ill treatment by her relatives was disclosed by her parents
5. One of the relatives of P.W.1 Mr. Pawar who is resident of the same village informed P.W.1 that Rupali had committed suicide. The parents and relatives of Rupali had gone to the residence of Rupali and upon inquiry, they had learnt that she was taken to Primary Health Centre at Vani Government Hospital. They had been to the Hospital and they had seen that there was a fresh injury mark on the right side of her cheek and there was a ligature mark on her neck. Due to disclosure made by Rupali to her mother on the earlier occasions that she was being harassed and ill-treated for failure to fetch one Tola Gold from her parents. P.W.1approached Vani Police Station and lodged a report on the basis of which Crime No.99 of 2015 was registered at Vani Police Station at about 22.30. At the trial, prosecution examined as many as 12witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.
Harassment was due to demand of purchase of a pick-up vehicle subsequently FIR was registered
6. According to P.W.1, the accused was demanding Rs. 1 Lakh for purchase of a pick-up vehicle and that Rupali was being harassed on that count. According to P.W.1, in the second week of January, he had handed over Rs.1 Lakh to the father-in-law of Rupali. From the tenor of the cross-examination, it appears thatP.W.1 had verified the economic condition of the appellants prior to the marriage and only on realizing that their economic condition was sound they had got Rupali married to the appellant no.1. It is also elicited in the cross- examination that they had a wine-yard in their agricultural land. That, they were possessing Swift car.P.W.1 has also admitted that his economic condition was equally good. The suggestion extended to P.W.1 shows that according to the accused, Rupali had committed suicide. P.W.1 has deposed in consonance with the FIR. It is testified before the Court by P.W.1that when they saw the dead body at Vani Hospital, P.W.1 had noticed that the earrings of her left ear, anklet of right leg and toerings in both legs were missing.
Investigation, Trial and Appeal: Conviction confirmed
7. After completion of investigation, a charge-sheet was filed and the Trial Court framed the charges under Sections 498 A302/34 of the IPC against the appellant. The Trial Court after appreciating the entire evidence by holding appellant guilty, convicted the appellant for the offences under Sections 302 and201 r/w 34 of the IPC. The appeal of appellant challenging his conviction was also in vain, and the High Court affirmed the findings of the Trial Court against appellant.
Hon’ble Trial and High Courts have confirmed the death as homicidal rather than suicidal and convicted the appellant under section 302 IPC
8. The learned Sessions Court, upon appreciation of the evidence on record, convicted accused Nos. 1 and 3 for the offence punishable under Section 302 read with Section 34 IPC, holding that the death of the deceased was homicidal and that they had committed her murder in furtherance of their common intention, while acquitting all the accused of the charges under Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC on the ground that the prosecution failed to establish cruelty or dowry demand; the conviction thus rested on circumstantial evidence which, in the view of the Trial Court, formed a sufficient basis for guilt. In appeal, the High Court partly allowed the appeal by acquitting accused No. 3 but affirmed the conviction and sentence of accused No. 1 under Section 302 IPC, concurring that the death was homicidal rather than suicidal and relying on medical evidence to infer strangulation, and held that the circumstances were sufficient to sustain the conviction, thereby maintaining the finding of guilt against accused No. 15 while extending benefit of doubt to the co-accused for offence of murder. High court has convicted accused no. 2 for an offence punishable under section 201 of IPC and is sentenced to suffer RI for three years. Now the accused no.1 is the appellant herein filing the present appeal.
Analysis
13. We have carefully considered the submissions advanced by learned counsels. The question that falls for our consideration is whether the trial court and High Court rightly convicted the appellant for offences under section 302 of IPC on the basis of circumstantial evidence.
Missing articles is very strong circumstantial for strangulation besides injury on cheek and ligature mark is supported by medical evidence
16. It is not in dispute the deceased died in the matrimonial home and the death is unnatural. Specific case of prosecution is death by strangulation. Both Trial Court and High Court after thorough scrutiny of evidence on record held the circumstances and the medical evidence are strongly suggesting strangulation they mainly relied on circumstances of missing left ear ring, right leg anklet and toe-rings from the fingers of the legs. As rightly recorded by Trial Court and High Court in case of hanging chance of missing these articles is very remote and missing of these articles is a strong circumstance for strangulation. The Trial Court and High Court also considered the fact that there was a fresh injury on cheek besides ligature mark which is clearly supported by medical evidence. Therefore, the circumstances recorded by Trial court and High court strongly point out the guilt towards appellant for the offence charged.
Appellant did not provide satisfactory explanation either for injury marks found on the deceased wife
19. Though an attempt was made to submit that the allegation of strangulation is unsustainable and the strangulation itself is doubtful, the evidence referred to above clearly suggest that it was not the case of an act of suicide, particularly, in view of the injury marks found on the body of Rupali. It is also important to note that though at the very first instance when Rupali was brought to Mauli Clinic and PW-6 on examination of Rupali declared the patient dead and asked the appellant as well as Akshay Gade to take the body to civil hospital, the body was again taken to another private hospital. There is no satisfactory explanation provided by the appellant either for the injury marks found on the body of Rupali or for bringing body to another hospital in spite of the declaration by PW-6. The learned Trial Court had scrutinized the material evidence thoroughly and particularly, the medical evidence is assessed on all possible angles.
Death of Rupali was in suspicious circumstances and this fact was within the special knowledge of the accused and failed to provide justifiable explanation
20. The learned Trial Court also considered the statement of the accused under Section 313 of Cr.P.C. which needless to state provides an opportunity to the accused to explain his stand qua the accusations made against him. In the statement under Section 313 Cr.P.C., there is no explanation leave aside any satisfactory explanation in respect of the material evidence against the appellant. In defence, though an attempt was made to submit that Rupali committed suicide with the help of one chit, the Trial Court on appreciation of the evidence particularly, the hand writing expert’s opinion found that the so-called chit had got written by the accused forcibly prior to the strangulation. The Trial Court also found that the material evidence brought before the Court clearly indicated that the appellant have caused distraction of the evidence of the offence and provided a false information that Rupali committed suicide. It may not be out of place to state that Rupali after her marriage was residing at her in-laws place. Death of Rupali was in suspicious circumstances and this fact was within the special knowledge of the appellant being her husband and the appellant utterly failed to provide a justifiable explanation so as to discharge the burden and this was an additional factor for the Trial Court for holding the appellant guilty and recording the order of conviction. The High Court in appeal could not find any error in the judgment and order of the Trial Court as such and affirmed the judgment and order on appreciation.
Burden of proof: section 106 IEA
21. At the cost of repetition as already discussed in the preceding paragraph the appellant could not displace the burden cast upon him under 106 Indian Evidence Act.
22. This Court in Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar held thus:
“22. Section 106 of the Evidence Act will apply to those cases where the prosecution has succeeded in establishing the facts from which a reasonable inference can be drawn regarding the existence of certain other facts which are within the special knowledge of the accused. When the accused fails to offer proper explanation about the existence of said other facts, the court can always draw an appropriate inference.
When a case is resting on circumstantial evidence, if the accused fails to offer a reasonable explanation in discharge of burden placed on him by virtue of Section 106 of the Evidence Act, such a failure may provide an additional link to the chain of circumstances. In a case governed by circumstantial evidence, if the chain of circumstances which is required to be established by the prosecution is not established, the failure of the accused to discharge the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act is not relevant at all. When the chain is not complete, falsity of the defence is no ground to convict the accused.”
23. It is trite law in the cases of circumstantial evidence when the chain of circumstances have been adequately proved to link to the culpability of the accused, motive is irrelevant this principle is further echoed in the case of Mulakh Raj and Others v. SatishKumar and Others whereas in it was held as thus:
“17….. Undoubtedly in cases of circumstantial evidences motive bears important significance. Motive always locks up in the mind of the accused and some time it is difficult to unlock. People do not act wholly without motive. The failure to discover the motive of an offence does not signify its non-existence. The failure to prove motive is not fatal as a matter of law. Proof of motive is never an indispensable for conviction. When facts are clear it is immaterial that no motive has been proved. Therefore, absence of proof of motive does not break the link in the chain of circumstances connecting the accused with the crime, nor militates against the prosecution case”
Conclusion
25. We don’t find any grounds to interfere with the concurrent findings based on evidence.
26. In view of the foregoing discussion, we are of the considered opinion that the prosecution has successfully established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances which unerringly points towards the guilt of the appellant and is wholly inconsistent with any hypothesis of innocence. The medical evidence, the attending circumstances surrounding the death of the deceased within the matrimonial home, the conduct of the appellant subsequent to the incident, the false defence sought to be projected through the alleged suicide note, and the failure of the appellant to furnish any plausible explanation in discharge of the burden cast upon him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, cumulatively form a chain so complete as to leave no reasonable ground for doubt. The principles governing conviction on circumstantial evidence as enunciated in Sharad Birdhichand Sarda (Supra) stand fully satisfied in the facts of the present case. We find no perversity, illegality, or miscarriage of justice in the appreciation of evidence by the learned Trial Court, as affirmed by the High Court, warranting interference by this Court in exercise of jurisdiction under Article 136 of the Constitution of India.
27. Consequently, the appeal being devoid of merit is dismissed. The conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant under Sections 302 and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, as affirmed by the High Court, are hereby upheld.
28. The appellant is at liberty to submit an application for premature release as per the state policy and if such application is submitted the authority to consider the same as per the prevalent state policy.
References
Judgments
- Mekala Sivaiah v. State of Andhra Pradesh [(2022) 8 SCC 253]
- Brief: Cited to establish the scope of the Supreme Court’s interference under Article 136 of the Constitution. The Court noted that it is not the standard practice to re-appreciate evidence to overturn concurrent findings of fact by the Trial Court and the High Court unless there is a manifest illegality, misreading of material evidence, or grave miscarriage of justice.
- Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra [(1984) 4 SCC 116]
- Brief: A landmark judgment cited for the “five golden principles” (the panchsheels) of circumstantial evidence. It lays down that the circumstances from which guilt is drawn must be fully established, conclusively point only toward the guilt of the accused, and form a complete chain of evidence that excludes any reasonable hypothesis of innocence.
- Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar [(2021) 10 SCC 72]
- Brief: Generally cited in the context of cases relying on circumstantial evidence, particularly concerning unnatural deaths occurring within the privacy of a matrimonial home and the failure of the accused to offer a satisfactory explanation under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
- Mulakh Raj and Others v. Satish Kumar and Others [(1992) 3 SCC 43]
- Brief: Cited regarding the evaluation of circumstantial evidence and the adverse inference drawn when an accused fails to explain or offers a false explanation for an unnatural death occurring in a place where they were present or had custody of the victim.
Acts and sections involved and mentioned in the judgment
Indian Penal Code, 1860 (IPC)
- Section 302: Punishment for murder.
- Section 201: Causing disappearance of evidence of offence, or giving false information to screen offender.
- Section 34: Acts done by several persons in furtherance of common intention.
- (Note: The appellant was initially convicted under Sections 302 and 201 read with 34, though the final upholding in paragraph 27 specifically mentions Sections 302 and 201).
Indian Evidence Act, 1872
- Section 106: Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge (referenced regarding the appellant’s failure to furnish a plausible explanation for the events within the matrimonial home).
Constitution of India
- Article 136: Special leave to appeal by the Supreme Court (referenced regarding the Court’s jurisdiction and its decision not to interfere with the lower courts’ appreciation of evidence).
Party
Chetan Dashrath Gade versus The State of Maharashtra - Criminal Appeal No. 1063/2021 - 2026 INSC 522 - May 21, 2026 – Hon’ble Mr. Justice Pankaj Mithal and Hon’ble Mr. Justice Prasanna B. Varale.
