In cases of circumstantial evidence, when the prosecution establishes a complete chain of incriminating facts—particularly where an unnatural death occurs within the matrimonial home—the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Evidence Act to provide a credible explanation, failing which their guilt may be inferred.

Headnote:(A) Indian Penal Code, 1860 - Sections 302, 201 r/w 34 - Indian Evidence Act - Section 106 - Murder - Death in matrimonial home - Circumstantial evidence - Appreciation of evidence - Conviction upheld where chain of circumstances is complete and consistent only with guilt - Medical evidence showing asphyxia due to strangulation contradicts suicide - Burden of proof under Section 106 of Evidence Act not discharged by appellant - Absence of motive is not fatal when facts are clear. (Paras 16, 17, 20, 21, 23, 26)

(B) Supreme Court jurisdiction - Article 136 - Concurrent findings - Unless there is manifest illegality or grave miscarriage of justice, Court will not interfere with concurrent findings of fact as established by Trial Court and High Court. (Paras 14, 15, 26)

Facts of the case:
The deceased died under unnatural circumstances in her matrimonial home. The prosecution alleged that the appellant murdered his wife and subsequently attempted to destroy evidence, projecting it as a suicide. The medical reports indicated strangulation, and several ornaments belonging to the deceased were missing. The trial court convicted the appellant for murder and destruction of evidence, which was affirmed by the High Court. The appellant challenged this on grounds of lack of motive, inconsistent medical testimony, and reliance on a suicide note.

Findings of Court:
The court held that the circumstantial evidence, including the medical opinion detailing death by strangulation, the missing jewelry, and the failure of the appellant to provide a justifiable explanation for the death within the matrimonial home, formed a complete chain pointing to the appellant's guilt. The court rejected the suicide defense, noting the handwriting expert found the suicide note was written under duress.

Issues: Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence and concurrent findings of lower courts was sustainable, and whether the burden under Section 106 of the Evidence Act was properly satisfied.

Ratio Decidendi: When the death occurs in the matrimonial home, the burden lies on the husband to explain the circumstances of death under Section 106 of the Evidence Act. Failure to provide a plausible explanation, combined with a complete chain of circumstantial evidence pointing to guilt, justifies conviction.

Result: Appeal dismissed.

Table of Content
1. summary of trial proceedings and factual background of the case. (Para 1 , 2 , 3 , 4 , 5 , 6 , 7 , 8)
2. primary arguments presented by appellant and state counsel. (Para 9 , 10 , 11 , 12)
3. criteria and thresholds for appellate intervention in criminal convictions. (Para 13 , 14 , 15 , 16)
4. evidentiary analysis, circumstantial reliance, and burden of proof under s.106 evidence act. (Para 17 , 18 , 19 , 20 , 21 , 22 , 23 , 24)
5. final affirmation of conviction based on complete chain of circumstances. (Para 25 , 26 , 27 , 28 , 29)

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 tenor of the cross-examination, it appears that P.W.1 had verified the eco

Click Here to Read the rest of this document

2026 Supreme(Online)(SC) 1740

Prasanna B. Varale, JChetan Dashrath Gade – AppellantVersusState Of Maharashtra – RespondentCRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1063/2021

Cases Referred (4)

Prasanna B. Varale, J
Chetan Dashrath Gade – Appellant
Versus
State Of Maharashtra – Respondent
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO. 1063/2021