SupremeToday Landscape Ad
Back
Next
Judicial Analysis Court Copy Headnote Facts Arguments Court observation
Listen Audio Icon Pause Audio Icon
judgment-img

2026 Supreme(SC) 568

SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
Pankaj Mithal, Prasanna B. Varale, JJ.
Chetan Dashrath Gade – Appellant
Versus
The State of Maharashtra – Respondent
Criminal Appeal No. 1063 of 2021
Decided On : 21-05-2026

Advocates appeared:
For the Appellant(s) : Mr. Ardhendumauli Kumar Prasad, Sr Adv, Adv. Mr. Siddharth S. Chapalgaonkar, Adv. Ms. Sneha Sanjay Botwe, AOR Mr. Siddhanth Kumar, Adv. Mr. Akash Tripathi, Adv.
For the Respondent(s): Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv.

Conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when the chain of events proves guilt exclusively and the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for an unnatural death occurring within their private, exclusive control.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34 - Conviction based on circumstantial evidence - Requirements for proving guilt - Circumstances must form an unbroken chain, be consistent with the guilt of the accused, and exclude any other hypothesis - Failure to provide explanation for unnatural death within the premises of the accused shifts burden under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. (Paras 15, 16, 21, 22)

(B) Appellate Jurisdiction - Scope of interference - Supreme Court will not re-appreciate evidence unless the judgment below is marked by manifest illegality, perversity, or grave miscarriage of justice - Concurrent findings of courts below should be exercised with restraint. (Paras 14, 25)

(C) Evidence - Medical testimony - Inconsistent or contradictory expert opinions must be weighed against corroborative evidence and surrounding facts to establish the cause of death; injury marks, ligatures, and missing articles are central to proving homicide over suicide. (Paras 16, 19)

Facts of the case:
The victim was found dead at her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that the victim was murdered following domestic disputes, with the primary evidence being circumstantial, including medical findings of strangulation instead of suicide and the absence of personal ornaments from the body upon discovery. The defense claimed the victim had committed suicide, supported by an alleged note, which the prosecution argued was coerced. The lower courts rejected the suicide theory based on medical evidence and the conduct of the accused.

Findings of Court:
The court found that the prosecution established a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances. The medical evidence concluding asphyxia by strangulation, the unnatural nature of the death in a private setting, and the intentional distraction/misinformation provided by the accused clearly pointed toward a homicidal intent. The failure of the accused to provide a credible explanation for the unnatural death specifically within their home further strengthened the case.

Issues: Whether the conviction based solely on circumstantial evidence is sustainable despite the absence of eyewitnesses, and whether the burden of proof under the Evidence Act was adequately discharged by the accused regarding an unnatural death occurring in their private residence.

Ratio Decidendi: In cases of circumstantial evidence, the non-existence of a proven motive is not fatal if the chain of evidence is complete and points unerringly to the guilt of the accused. When a death occurs under suspicious circumstances within the domestic sphere of the accused, the burden shifts under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to provide a plausible explanation, the failure of which serves as an additional link in the chain of incriminating circumstances.

Result: Appeal dismissed; conviction and sentence upheld.

Judgement Key Points

Key Points: - The judgment holds that conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable when there is a complete and unbroken chain of circumstances pointing to guilt and the accused fails to provide a plausible explanation for an unnatural death in their private home (!) (!) (!) . - It applies Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act to require the accused to explain the unnatural death within his private residence; failure to provide a plausible explanation strengthens the chain of incriminating circumstances (!) (!) . - The Supreme Court declines to re-appreciate evidence under Article 136 except in rare, exceptional cases of grave miscarriage of justice or manifest illegality/misreading of material evidence; concurrent findings by trial and High Court are to be accorded restraint (!) (!) . - The medical evidence indicating asphyxia due to strangulation, along with circumstances such as missing ornaments and injuries, supports a homicidal inference rather than suicide (!) (!) (!) . - The court affirms the conviction and sentence under IPC Sections 302 and 201 and dismisses the appeal; the appellant may seek premature release as per state policy (!) (!) .

What is the sufficiency of a complete and unbroken chain of circumstantial evidence to sustain a conviction under IPC Sections 302 and 201 r/w 34?

What are the circumstances under which a burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act in cases of unnatural death within the accused’s private residence?

What is the scope of appellate interference in a case based on circumstantial evidence when the trial court and High Court have concurrently found guilt?


Table of Content
1. factual overview of the case and the legal history. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. summary of rival arguments on evidence and cause of death. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. scope of judicial interference in concurrent findings under article 136. (Para 13 , 14)
4. application of principles governing circumstantial evidence and medical findings. (Para 16 , 17 , 18 , 19 , 23)
5. burden of proof on the accused under section 106 of the evidence act. (Para 20 , 21 , 22)
6. final confirmation of conviction due to established chain of circumstances. (Para 24 , 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

JUDGMENT :

PRASANNA B. VARALE, J.

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 302,201 r/w 34 of the Indian penal code,1860(For short, IPC), and sentenced to undergone life imprisonment and to pay fine of Rs.1,000/- in default to suffer two months simple imprisonment.

2. For convenience it is to be noted that the present appeal is filed by the accused no. 1, who is the appellant here.

FACTUAL MATRIX

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 by P.W.3 Dr. Sunil Jadhav. In March 2015, she had given birth to a baby boy in a private hospital at Pimpalgaon, Baswant.

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 informed P.W.1 that his sister-in-law i.e. Rupali is no more. At about 2.50 pm, 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 11.00 am, 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.

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.1 approached 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 12 witnesses to bring home the guilt of the accused.

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

      Click Here to Read the rest of this document
      1
      2
      3
      4
      5
      6
      7
      8
      9
      10
      11
      SupremeToday Portrait Ad
      supreme today icon
      logo-black

      An indispensable Tool for Legal Professionals, Endorsed by Various High Court and Judicial Officers

      Please visit our Training & Support
      Center or Contact Us for assistance

      qr

      Scan Me!

      India’s Legal research and Law Firm App, Download now!

      For Daily Legal Updates, Join us on :

      whatsapp-icon Back to top