Supreme Court Upholds Husband's Conviction For Wife's Murder, Finds Extra Marital Affair Motive Established
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 20) upheld the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife, holding that the substantial number of call exchanges with his lover constituted valid circumstantial evidence establishing both the existence of an affair and the motive to remove the wife as a barrier to their relationship.A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra...
The Supreme Court on Monday (July 20) upheld the conviction of a husband for the murder of his wife, holding that the substantial number of call exchanges with his lover constituted valid circumstantial evidence establishing both the existence of an affair and the motive to remove the wife as a barrier to their relationship.
A bench of Justice Dipankar Datta and Justice Satish Chandra Sharma dismissed the appeals filed by Piyush Shyamdasani (A1, husband), Renu @ Akhilesh Kanaujiya and Sonu Kashyap against their conviction, while also rejecting the State of Uttar Pradesh's appeal challenging the acquittal of Manisha Makhija(A2, alleged lover of A1).
The court noted that the longstanding marital discord between the Appellant and deceased-wife, and the deceased's opposition to the illicit relationship between A1 and A2 formed a motive for the Appellant to kill the deceased wife.
“…the motive was only to kill the deceased. An act of this nature, without any prior enmity and without any intention to extract money or property, could only be explained from the lens of A1's marital discord with the deceased and his long, and rather unusual, association with A2. Moreover, it is not difficult to infer that A1 and A2 were to benefit from the removal of the obstacle that the deceased was. The prosecution has, therefore, satisfactorily explained the aspect of motive.”, the Court observed.
The case pertains to the event of July 2014.
The prosecution alleged that the appellant-husband conspired to murder his wife during a planned dinner outing. The dinner was arranged as part of the execution of the conspiracy. The appellant remained in constant touch with his co-accused using a fake SIM card. According to the prosecution's case, while the appellant was driving home with his wife, 7-8 unknown persons would ambush the car from the front. They would then pull the appellant out of the vehicle, beat him, and abduct his wife along with the car. Subsequently, the car was found abandoned with the deceased's body inside.
The plot became successful, leading to the death of the Appellant's wife.
The trial court convicted all the six accused persons for the offences committed under Sections 302, 364, 201, 203 and 404 read with 120-B of the Indian Penal Code, 1860. The High Court confirmed the conviction; however, it acquitted the Appellant's paramour (A2) for want of sufficient evidence.
Against the conviction, the husband and co-convicts appealed to the Supreme Court.
Refusing to interfere with the conviction, the judgment authored by Justice SC Sharma noted that the accused persons were in constant touch, establishing the sufficient nexus between them to commit the crime.
“The call details reveal that the accused persons were in constant touch with each other using these numbers, irrespective of the persons in whose names the numbers were officially registered. The evidence on record has indicated sufficient nexus between the numbers reflected in the call detail records and the accused persons.”, the Court observed.
Further, the Court noted despite the prosecution managing to bring on record the incriminating connection between the accused persons, their failure to rebut the prosecution's incriminating material led to an adverse inference against them under Section 106 of the Evidence Act.
“At this point, it is important to underscore that on the basis of above evidence, the prosecution managed to bring home a strong incriminating connection between the accused persons and it was for the accused persons only to explain their connection. However, instead of offering any plausible explanation, the accused persons attempted to deny their connection. The failure of the accused persons to explain any circumstance, which could only be explained from the personal knowledge of the accused persons, leads to a direct adverse inference against them.”, the Court observed.
Moreover, the Court upheld the exoneration of the Appellant's paramour, noting that although the high number of calls between the Appellant and her paramour “may be used to infer the existence of a relationship between A1 and A2, however, it cannot be made the basis to infer that A2 was a part of the criminal conspiracy to kill the deceased.”
The Bench further found the Appellan's conduct after the incident to be highly incriminating. It noted that although he claimed to have been assaulted during the alleged abduction, he suffered no injuries, abruptly left the hospital before medical examination and waited for nearly an hour before approaching the police. The Court described it as "highly unnatural" and "abhorrent" to believe that a husband whose wife had been abducted would emerge completely unhurt and delay informing the police, observing that the delay appeared intended to enable the assailants to complete the murder without police intervention.
The Court also relied on recoveries made pursuant to disclosure statements, including blood-stained articles, knives, jewellery belonging to the deceased, clothes worn by the accused and the mobile phones used during the conspiracy. It noted that CCTV footage and invoices from a shopping mall corroborated the prosecution's case that the murder weapon had been purchased by the accused before the crime.
The Court also dismissed the submission that Section 34 of the Indian Penal Code had been wrongly invoked because more than five persons were involved. It clarified that the actual murder was committed by four assailants and that Piyush's participation from behind the scenes was sufficient to attract Section 34, which does not require physical presence during the commission of the offence.
At the same time, the Bench upheld the acquittal of Manisha Makhija(A2. It held that although the unusually high volume of calls exchanged between her and Piyush could indicate the existence of a relationship, it could not establish her participation in the criminal conspiracy. The Court found no evidence linking her with the other accused or demonstrating that she had participated in planning the murder, observing that there was a "clear break" in the chain of circumstantial evidence insofar as she was concerned.
In light of the aforesaid, the appeals were dismissed.
Headnote
Indian Penal Code, 1860 — Section 34 vs. Section 141 — Common Intention vs. Unlawful Assembly — Physical Presence Not Mandatory For Section 34 IPC - The Supreme Court clarified the distinction between active participation under Section 34 IPC and physical participation under Section 141 IPC – The Supreme Court held that to invoke the provisions of an unlawful assembly under Section 141 IPC, it is necessary that five or more persons physically participate in the actual commission of the offence - Section 34 IPC requires mere active participation in furtherance of a common intention which can occur behind the scenes and does not mandate physical presence at the actual spot of execution. [Para 23-26]
Criminal Jurisprudence — Circumstantial Evidence — Role and Absence of Motive - The role of motive in a criminal trial based entirely on circumstantial evidence is limited - The absence of a motive does not ipso facto break the chain of evidence or automatically lead to the acquittal of the accused if the remaining evidence on record is sufficient to prove guilt - A complete absence of motive is merely a factor that may be weighed in favour of the accused during the judicial sifting and balancing of favourable and unfavourable circumstances. [Relied On Vaibhav v. State of Maharashtra, 2025 INSC 800; Paras 24, 25]
Indian Evidence Act, 1872 — Section 106 & Section 27 — Appreciation of Technical Evidence — Call Detail Records (CDRs) & Adverse Inference - Where the prosecution successfully establishes a strong incriminating nexus through Call Detail Records (CDRs) and location data proving that the accused persons were in constant communication and present around the crime scene, the burden shifts to the accused to explain these facts - The failure or refusal of the accused to offer a plausible explanation for circumstances uniquely within their exclusive personal knowledge leads to a direct adverse inference against them. Furthermore, utilizing fake SIM cards registered under third-party names to evade surveillance constitutes an additional incriminating circumstance if left unrebutted. [Paras 17- 20, 22-28]
Criminal Procedure — Appeal Against Acquittal vs. Appeal Against Conviction — Qualitative Differences in Appellate Review - While the appellate court possesses identical statutory powers to review and reappreciate evidence in both categories of appeals, there are qualitative differences in their execution - Appeal Against Acquittal - A higher threshold is applied for reversal because an acquittal reinforces the presumption of innocence - Under the "two-views theory," if the view favoring acquittal is a plausible one, it must not be disturbed - The presumption of innocence is displaced the moment a conviction is recorded - The prosecution's case is further reinforced when concurrent findings of conviction are rendered by both the Trial Court and the High Court, though the appellate court's power to scrutinize every aspect remains absolute. [Relied on Mallappa & Ors. v. State of Karnataka, 2024 INSC 104]
Cause Title: PIYUSH SHYAMDASANI VERSUS STATE OF UTTAR PRADESH (with connected matters)
Citation : 2026 LiveLaw (SC) 699
Click here to download judgment
Appearance:
For Appellant(s) : Mr. Prabhat Ranjan Raj, AOR Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Mayank Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Arunabh Chowdhury, Sr. Adv. Mr. Sushil Shukla, Sr. Adv. Mr. Nikhil Sharma, Adv. Mr. Anil Kumar, Adv. Mr. Gunjesh Ranjan, Adv. Mr. Prakash Kumar Mangalam, Adv. Ms. Anshala Verma, Adv. Mr. Sharique Ahmed, Adv. Mr. Shantanu Sagar, AOR
For Respondent(s) : Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR Mr. Navin Pahwa, Sr. Adv. Mr. Mahesh Agarwal, Adv. Mr. Ankur Saigal, Adv. Mr. Gautam Khazanchi, Adv. Ms. Sanjivani Pattjoshi, Adv. Ms. Shivani Agarwal, Adv. Mr. E. C. Agrawala, AOR Mr. Ankit Goel, AOR Mr. Ajay Singh, Adv. Mr. Mayank Tiwari, Adv. Mr. Manish Kumar, Adv. Mr. Ashutosh Ghade, AOR