Husband's Failure To Explain Wife's Death In Matrimonial Home Draws Adverse Inference u/s 106 Evidence Act: Supreme Court Upholds Conviction

The Supreme Court on Thursday (May 21) upheld the conviction of a husband for strangulating his wife to death, observing that once the prosecution establishes that certain incriminating facts were especially within the accused's personal knowledge, the burden shifts to him under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872, to offer a credible explanation.

The Court noted that the husband's failure to explain the circumstances surrounding the death within the matrimonial home constituted a significant incriminating circumstance against him.

“…the failure of the appellant (husband) 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.”, observed a bench of Justice Pankaj Mithal and Justice Prasanna B. Varale.

The case arose from the death of a lady, who had married the appellant on April 24, 2012. The prosecution alleged that the deceased had been subjected to harassment over demands for gold and money. According to the evidence of the deceased's father, the accused had demanded Rs. 1 lakh for the purchase of a pick-up vehicle, which was later paid by the complainant's family.

On August 23, 2015, the accused allegedly informed his father that the deceased had attempted suicide by hanging. She was first taken to a private clinic and later to another hospital, where she was declared “brought dead.”

When the deceased's father saw the body, he noticed fresh injury marks on her face, ligature marks around her neck, and missing ornaments, including an earring, anklet, and toe rings. An FIR was subsequently lodged.

While the Trial Court acquitted all accused persons of offences under Sections 498A and 304B IPC for want of sufficient proof of cruelty and dowry death, the husband was convicted for murder based entirely on circumstantial evidence. The conviction was later affirmed by the Bombay High Court, leading to an appeal before the Supreme Court.

Refusing to interfere with the impugned findings, the judgment authored by Justice Varale noted that since the death had occurred inside the matrimonial home and the appellant failed to provide any satisfactory explanation, during his examination under Section 313 Cr.P.C., regarding the circumstances in which his wife suffered fatal injuries, including the injuries, missing ornaments, and events leading to death, led to draw an adverse inference against him.

“…the appellant could not displace the burden cast upon him under 106 Indian Evidence Act.”, the court said.

“...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.”, the court held.

In terms of the aforesaid, the appeal was dismissed, and the conviction was affirmed.

Headnote

Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 — Burden of proving fact especially within knowledge — Matrimonial Home Death — Circumstantial Evidence — Appeal against the concurrent findings of the Trial Court and High Court convicting the appellant-husband under Sections 302 and 201 read with Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, for the murder of his wife - The deceased died an unnatural death inside her matrimonial home - The prosecution's case rested entirely on circumstantial evidence - The medical reports and autopsy indicated the cause of death as "asphyxia due to strangulation" based on a fractured hyoid bone and trachea, a fresh bruise mark on the cheek, and multiple ligature marks - A critical circumstance relied upon was that the deceased's left earring, right leg anklet, and toe rings were missing—articles unlikely to be displaced in a case of suicide by hanging - The appellant set up a defense of suicide based on a recovered chit (suicide note) - handwriting experts and evidence established that the chit was forcibly written by the accused prior to the strangulation - The appellant also failed to explain why, after being told by the first doctor that the victim was dead, he rushed her to another private clinic instead of a civil hospital – Held that the death occurred under suspicious circumstances inside the matrimonial home where the appellant-husband resided with the deceased - This fact was within the special knowledge of the appellant under Section 106 of the Evidence Act - The appellant utterly failed to provide any justifiable or plausible explanation to discharge this statutory burden - When a case rests on circumstantial evidence, the failure of the accused to offer a reasonable explanation under Section 106 provides an additional link to the chain of circumstances established by the prosecution - The prosecution successfully established a complete, unbroken chain of circumstances pointing unerringly to the guilt of the appellant - No interference is warranted under Article 136 of the Constitution of India against concurrent findings of fact. Appeal dismissed. [Relied on Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116; Nagendra Sah v. State of Bihar, (2021) 10 SCC 725; Mulakh Raj and Others v. Satish Kumar and Others, (1992) 3 SCC 43; Paras 16, 19 - 26]

Cause Title: CHETAN DASHRATH GADE VERSUS THE STATE OF MAHARASHTRA

Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 526

Click here to download judgment

Appearance:

For 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 Respondent(s) :Mr. Siddharth Dharmadhikari, Adv. Mr. Aaditya Aniruddha Pande, AOR Mr. Shrirang B. Varma, Adv. Mr. Bharat Bagla, Adv. Mr. Sourav Singh, Adv. Mr. Aditya Krishna, Adv. Mr. Adarsh Dubey, Adv. Ms. Chitransha Singh Sikarwar, Adv.