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.

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.