The Allahabad High Court on Thursday acquitted a man who had been sentenced to life imprisonment for the alleged murder of his wife in 1979 after finding that there was an unexplained delay of more than 4 years in lodging the FIR, coupled with contradictory medical evidence regarding the cause of death.

Observing that the prosecution had not been able to establish the guilt of the accused-Triveni beyond a reasonable doubt, a Bench of Justice Atul Sreedharan and Justice Jai Krishna Upadhyay set aside his conviction and granted him the benefit of doubt.

According to the prosecution's case, the deceased was married to the accused-appellant (Triveni) in 1978. It was alleged that her husband and in-laws were dissatisfied with the dowry and demanded a motorcycle.

Owing to the non-fulfilment of the demand, she was allegedly subjected to cruelty and harassment before her death on June 30, 1979. Although the incident occurred in 1979, the FIR was lodged only in November 1983.

In May 1987, the Trial court found the accused-appellants [Chhote Lal, Triveni and Shanti] guilty and convicted and sentenced them to life imprisonment under Section 302 r/w 34 IPC.

Challenging their conviction, they moved the High Court, contending that the FIR was lodged after an unexplained delay of about four years and six months, and that there was substantial evidence against the appellants.

It was also contended that it could not be proved that in all human probability the crime had been committed by the appellants.

It was further submitted that the appellant-husband Triveni was not present at the home at the time of the incident and that it was actually a case of accidental death and that the Medical evidence does not support the prosecution case.

During the pendency of the appeal, the husband's parents died and hence, the appeal stood abated qua them. The Court only addressed the husband's appeal.

Examining the material on record, the Bench first addressed what it described as the "glaring delay" in registration of the FIR.

The Court observed that while delay in lodging an FIR is not invariably fatal if satisfactorily explained, an abnormal and unexplained delay casts a grave shadow of doubt on the prosecution's case.

It noted that delay often results in embellishment and raises the risk of a coloured version, an exaggerated account, or a concocted story, requiring courts to evaluate the evidence with greater caution.

Holding that no satisfactory explanation had been offered for the delay of more than four years, the Bench observed:

"In the present case, delay of about four years and six months severely shakes the credibility of the prosecution's case right from its beginning. No satisfactory explanation for such a long delay has been given by the prosecution".

The High Court also considered the medical evidence and found that the prosecution had failed to establish the foundational fact that the deceased's death was homicidal.

The State Medico Legal Expert opined that the burns were more likely caused after pouring an inflammable substance. However, the doctor who conducted the post-mortem recorded extensive electric burns and found entry and exit electric burn marks.

Referring to Parikh's Textbook of Medical Jurisprudence, Forensic Medicine and Toxicology, the Bench noted that such marks are indicative of electrocution and not burns caused by an inflammable substance.

The Court found that neither medical opinion conclusively established the nature of death and held:

"It is a settled legal proposition that where the core question whether the death was homicidal, accidental or suicidal remains shrouded in doubt, the prosecution's case necessarily fails. The conviction of the accused cannot be based on mere presumption of homicide. If the evidence leaves room for the possibility of a suicidal or accidental death, the benefit of the doubt inevitably goes to the accused".

Rejecting the State's contention that there was no electricity supply from 1:45 a.m. onwards on the date of the incident, the Bench observed that the occurrence had taken place during the intervening night of June 29-30, 1979, and it was "very much possible" that it occurred before the power outage commenced.

The Bench also found that the prosecution failed to prove the appellant's presence at the place of occurrence beyond reasonable doubt. It noted that even if his presence was assumed, no specific role had been assigned to him by any prosecution witness.

The Court stressed that in cases resting on circumstantial evidence, mere suspicion cannot form the basis of conviction. The Court found that the chain of circumstances was not consistent only with the hypothesis of the appellant's guilt.

Considering the cumulative effect of the unexplained FIR delay, contradictory medical opinions, uncertainty regarding the homicidal nature of the death and the incomplete chain of circumstantial evidence, the High Court concluded that the prosecution had failed to prove the charges beyond reasonable doubt.

Accordingly, it allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction and sentence imposed upon the appellant and acquitted him of all charges.

Case Title - Triveni And Other vs. State 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 503

Case citation: 2026 LiveLaw (AB) 503

Click Here To Read/Download Judgment