Madras HC Frees Wife in Murder Case: No Automatic 'Home Together' Assumption for Spouses

In a significant ruling on circumstantial evidence , the Madurai Bench of the Madras High Court acquitted Selvi, a woman convicted of murdering her husband Chellapandi, overturning a life sentence imposed by the trial court. Justices N. Anand Venkatesh and P. Dhanabal emphasized that marriage alone doesn't prove a wife was present at a crime scene inside their home, rejecting the trial court's reliance on Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act without foundational proof.

Shadows of Suspicion in a Village Home

The case unfolded in Kurandi Village, Virudhunagar district, on September 29, 2017 . Chellapandi, a coolie who had returned from Tiruppur after learning of his wife Selvi's (A1) alleged affair with another man (A2), was found dead in their home at around 2 a.m. A postmortem revealed fatal head injuries from a grinding stone (MO2), with lacerations on the face, knee, elbow, back, and bleeding from nostril and ear—cause of death: head and brain trauma.

Prosecution alleged motive from the illicit relationship and prior scoldings. Selvi informed her father-in-law (PW1) post-incident, leading to FIR No. 177/2017 under Section 302 IPC at Aviyur Police Station. Trial in S.C. No. 63/2018 convicted Selvi of murder, acquitting A2 and dropping other charges like 302 r/w 34, 201, and 202 IPC . She appealed under Section 374(2) CrPC .

Prosecution's Chain: Motive, Silence, and Suspicion

The State leaned on circumstantial links:

- Motive : Strained marriage due to Selvi's affair, confirmed partially by her mother (PW4).

- Last seen/conduct : Claimed Selvi lived with the deceased; post-2 a.m. incident, she didn't disclose it to PW5 at 6 a.m. or when he visited at 7 a.m.

- Recovery : Grinding stone found 100m away, blood-wiped but later FSL-tested as deceased's Group B blood (Ex.P18); bloodstained bedsheets and cement pieces recovered.

Most witnesses (PW1,2,3,6-9) turned hostile. PW4 spoke of tensions but noted Selvi claimed "someone killed" her husband. PW5's account of early-morning money queries seemed unnatural to the bench.

Appellant's counsel argued no proof Selvi was home pre-incident, blocking Section 106 application. Cited precedents like Anjalai v. State (Madras HC DB) and Manharan Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh (SC), stressing prosecution must prove basics before shifting burden.

The High Court's Scalpel: Dismantling Presumptions

The bench dissected the " last seen theory ," a prosecution cornerstone. No witness placed Selvi with Chellapandi immediately before 2 a.m. PW4 and PW5 only covered post-incident conduct, relevant under Section 8 Evidence Act at best—but PW5's testimony lacked credibility.

Medical evidence matched MO2 to injuries, but without linking Selvi to the scene, chains broke. The bench invoked Section 106 limits: "Section 106 of the Act is not intended to relieve the prosecution from discharging its duty to prove the guilt... only thereafter Section 106 can be resorted to."

Precedents reinforced:

- Satye Singh v. State of Uttarakhand (2022 SCC (Cri) 379): Burden basics first.

- Anjalai v. State (2023 MWN (Cri) 582 DB): No last seen proof, no S.106 .

- Manharan Rajwade v. State of Chhattisgarh (2024 SAR (Cri) 1145): Same for spousal cases.

Marriage ≠ constant cohabitation. "Just because A1 happened to be the wife of the deceased, it cannot be assumed that she will always be present... Some witness had to necessarily speak about her presence."

News reports echoed this, noting the bench's rejection of "likely present" assumptions in marital murder probes.

Key Observations

"Just because A1 happened to be the wife of the deceased, it cannot be assumed that she will always be present with the deceased inside the house. Some witness had to necessarily speak about her presence in the house prior to the incident or atleast the previous day since the incident is said to have taken place early in the morning at 2.00 a.m."

"The above judgments are consistent by declaring that Section 106 of the Evidence Act will come into play only if the prosecution is able to prove the theory of last seen together."

"In the case on hand, there is no material available to establish the fact that A1 and the deceased were last seen together before the incident. In such an event, an adverse inference cannot be drawn against A1."

Acquittal: A Reset for Circumstantial Standards

The appeal succeeded: "The criminal appeal stands allowed... The appellant is acquitted from all the charges and she is set at liberty." Dated March 4, 2026 (2026:MHC:961), this sets a precedent—prosecution can't leap to S.106 on marital status alone. Future cases demand witness-proof for "last seen," safeguarding against weak inferences in private-space crimes, especially intra-family ones.