Mere Suspicion Cannot Lead to Conviction’: Supreme Court Slams High Court for Reversing Acquittal Without Proof of Homicide, Frees Man in Wife’s Death Case
Isabella Mariam
The Supreme Court of India, Division Bench comprising Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran, set aside the conviction of a man previously sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of his wife. Reversing the High Court's conviction under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, the apex court restored the acquittal originally recorded by the Trial Court, citing insufficient evidence to conclusively establish homicide.
The incident stemmed from the death of a young woman who had been married for two years. Her husband discovered her lying supine on the cot upon returning from work on the morning of January 29, 2017. He immediately informed his parents and the local police at Mulmula Police Station, District Janjgir-Champa. The incident was recorded the same day under Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure as a case of sudden and unnatural death.
An inquest noted a ligature mark on the front of the neck, but initially, no suspicion of foul play was raised. Subsequently, on February 3, 2017, based on a complaint lodged by the deceased's father, a First Information Report (FIR) was registered. The husband and his in-laws were arrested, and charges were framed under Sections 498A and 306 read with Section 34 of the IPC, and alternatively under Section 302 read with Section 34.
During the trial, eight prosecution witnesses were examined. The Trial Court found no evidence of culpability and observed that the cause of death remained uncertain. Citing the lack of a clear medical opinion and the ligature mark’s location, the court concluded that there was no indication of strangulation or hanging and acquitted all accused.
The High Court, hearing the State’s appeal, upheld the acquittal of the in-laws but convicted the husband under Section 302. It reasoned that, since the accused and deceased were cohabiting, he was obligated to explain the cause of her death under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act. The husband's claim of being at work was dismissed due to lack of substantiating evidence.
The Supreme Court closely examined the circumstances. It noted that the first intimation of the death came from the husband, accompanied by the Village Kotwar, and that this statement included his work schedule and absence from the house. The inquest report and early witness testimonies contained no allegation of foul play.
PW-2 (father), PW-4 (mother), and PW-6 (cousin) of the deceased provided later testimony alleging suspicion of strangulation based on a ligature mark; however, this was inconsistent with earlier statements. During cross-examination, PW-4 acknowledged that she was informed of the husband's absence at the time of the incident. The Supreme Court found the High Court's dismissal of the alibi and reliance on Section 106 without further corroborative evidence to be erroneous.
The Supreme Court stated the importance of restraint in reversing acquittals: "Unless it is demonstrated that there is some manifest illegality or perversity in the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court... an acquittal ordinarily should not be reversed."
It further noted: "Where two views were possible... the one taken by the Trial Court to acquit the accused, if found to be a plausible one, cannot be upset lightly by the Appellate Court."
The Bench recorded that the High Court relied solely on the failure of the alibi and lack of explanation from the accused, stating: "The High Court unfortunately reversed the acquittal without anything other than a finding on alibi having not been proved."
Quoting from Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, the court recognized that proximity or cohabitation can be circumstantial evidence, but added: "However, it cannot be the sole circumstance leading to the conclusion of guilt on the part of the accused husband."
The Bench also stated that the husband's explanation was not fabricated, as it appeared in the initial police report: "The explanation was not one offered as an after-thought nor can it be termed to be false or even an improbable one."
Regarding medical findings, the court stated: "There was no clarity as to whether the death was homicidal. We would not venture, as far as the Trial Court did, to find the death to be a suicide. But the fact remains that it has not been established to be homicide."
Postmortem findings indicated only a ligature mark on the front of the neck. The Doctor’s report (PW-8) noted the absence of marks consistent with throttling or hanging and replied to police queries: "The mark found on the body of deceased is caused by noose and mark of throttling has not been found. Noose was not found on the body of deceased. So, the death of deceased was homicidal or suicidal is the subject of investigation."
Further, the Court noted the absence of evidence under Section 498A or 306 IPC: "There is absolutely no allegation of any physical violence... Nor are there any injuries found on the body... which could lead to such an allegation."
The judgment concluded:
"We do not find a single circumstance pointing to the guilt of the accused, leave alone, a chain of circumstances fully establishing the guilt of the accused and excluding every possible hypothesis, except that of guilt."
The Court passed the following final orders:
"Having found absolutely no circumstance leading to the guilt of the accused, we are unable to sustain the order of the High Court which we set aside and restore the order of acquittal of the Trial Court. The Criminal Appeal stands allowed. The accused shall be set free forthwith, if not wanted in any other case. The bail bonds, if any, executed by the accused shall stand discharged."
Advocates Representing the Parties
For the Appellant: Sameer Shrivastava, Advocate-on-Record, Niteen Sinha, Advocate, Yashika Varshney, Advocate, Palak Mathur, Advocate, Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Advocate
For the Respondents: Apoorv Shukla, Advocate-on-Record, Prabhleen A. Shukla, Advocate, Ayush Acharjee, Advocate
Case Title: Jagdish Gond v. The State of Chhattisgarh & Ors.
Neutral Citation: 2025 INSC 460
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2605 of 2024
Bench: Justice Sudhanshu Dhulia and Justice K. Vinod Chandran
[Read/Download order]
