Full Judgment Text
2025 INSC 1229
REPORTABLE
IN THE SUPREME COURT OF INDIA
CRIMINAL APPELLATE JURISDICTION
CRIMINAL APPEAL NO.460 OF 2014
STATE OF MADHYA PRADESH APPELLANT
VERSUS
JANVED SINGH RESPONDENT
JUDGMENT
ALOK ARADHE, J.
The law often steps into homes not to witness celebration,
but to lift the veil from grief. The present appeal arises from such
a home where warmth of a hearth turned into cold silence of
death. The State challenges the acquittal of two men, the
husband and father-in-law of young woman whose life ended in
Signature Not Verified
Digitally signed by
babita pandey
Date: 2025.10.14
16:12:03 IST
Reason:
mysterious, yet telling circumstances.
1
2. This appeal by the State is directed against judgment and
order dated 06.04.2010 in Criminal Appeal No. 66 of 2000,
whereby High Court of Madhya Pradesh, Bench at Gwalior, has
set aside the conviction and sentence of both the respondents,
recorded by Sessions Judge for offences under Sections 302,
304B, 498A and 201 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and has
acquitted them.
PROSECUTION CASE
3. The deceased Smt. Pushpa was married to accused No.2,
Mahesh. The marriage however was beset with discord. The
deceased was subjected to harassment and cruelty at the hands
of her husband (A-2) and father-in-law Janved Singh (A-1), on
account of demand for dowry.
st
4. On 31 December, 1997, accused No.1 lodged a report at
Police Station, Gormi stating that when he returned from the
agricultural field, he found the deceased lying dead and she died
due to electrocution while ironing the clothes. On the basis of
said intimation, the Police registered Merg report (Ex.P-16) under
Section 174 of the Code of Criminal Procedure, 1973. After the
preliminary inquiry, the Police converted the Merg into a regular
2
Criminal Case and registered Crime No. 9/1998 for offences
under Sections 302, 498-A, 193 and 201 read with Section 34 of
the Indian Penal Code, 1860 (for short “IPC”).
5. During the investigation, Police found discrepancies in the
scene of occurrence and the condition of the body of the
deceased. The post-mortem examination conducted by Dr.
Devendra Khare, revealed that cause of death was asphyxia due
to strangulation and burn marks on the body were post-mortem.
On completion of the investigation, the Police filed chargesheet
for offences under Sections 498-A, 304-B and in the alternative
302 read with Section 149 and Section 147 of the IPC against five
accused persons namely, Janved Singh (father-in-law), Mahesh
Singh (husband), Ramkali (mother-in-law), Sharda (sister-in-law),
and Ahivaran Singh (brother-in-law) of the deceased.
TRIAL AND CONVICTION
6. The prosecution during the course of the Trial examined as
many as 20 witnesses and produced documentary evidence
namely, Exhibits P-1 to P-19. The parents of the deceased
Pushpa and her uncle namely, Sobran Singh (PW-2), Ilaychi Bai
(PW-19) and Ramesh (PW-4) were examined. Ramesh (PW-4), the
3
maternal uncle of deceased, corroborated the statements of the
parents of the deceased. The Investigating Officer (PW-18)
described the details of the recovery of material evidence and
sequence of investigation. The defence examined one witness Shri
Ram Singh (DW-1), who in his statement stated that deceased
Pushpa’s death was purely accidental which was caused by
electric shock while she was ironing the clothes and the accused
have been falsely implicated.
th
7. The Sessions Court vide judgment dated 11 of January,
2000, on the basis of appreciation of evidence on record, held
that theory of electrocution was wholly fabricated and deceased
Pushpa’s death was homicidal in nature. The court further held
that Mahesh Singh, the husband, was guilty of offences under
Sections 304-B and 498-A of the IPC. It was also held that
Janved Singh, the father-in-law, actively participated in the
murder, fabricated a false report and attempted to cause
disappearance of evidence. Accordingly, he was convicted under
Sections 302, 498-A and 201 of the IPC and they both were
sentenced to undergo rigorous imprisonment for ten years and
rigorous imprisonment for life, respectively. The remaining co-
4
accused namely, Ramkali (mother-in-law), Sharda (sister-in-law)
and Ahivaran Singh (brother-in-law) were acquitted.
HIGH COURT’S VIEW
8. On appeal by the accused persons, the High Court reversed
the conviction and set aside the judgment of the Trial Court. The
High Court vide judgment dated 06.04.2010 inter alia held that
prosecution has failed to establish that death occurred within 7
years of the marriage and testimonies of PW-2 and PW-19
namely, the father and mother of the deceased, were recorded
after a delay of 6 to 10 months and therefore their credibility was
diminished. It was further held that Lagan Patrika (Ex. P-3) was
seized nearly a year later which lacked the names of bride and
groom and was inadmissible. It was further held that there was
no evidence that Janved Singh was present at the time of scene
of occurrence. Accordingly, the High Court allowed the appeal
and acquitted both the accused in respect of all the charges
levelled against them.
9. Being aggrieved by the aforesaid judgment of acquittal, this
appeal has been filed by the State of Madhya Pradesh. A Bench of
this Court by an order dated 05.08.2011 dismissed this appeal
5
in so far as Mahesh Singh namely, the husband of the deceased.
The scope of the appeal is confined only to the acquittal of
respondent No.1 namely, Janved Singh i.e. father-in-law of the
deceased.
SUBMISSIONS
10. Learned counsel for the State submitted that High Court
fundamentally erred in reappreciating the evidence and in
discarding credible testimony of the witnesses. It is contended
that from the deposition of Sobran Singh (PW-2), Ilaychi Bai
(PW-19) and Ramesh (PW-4) namely, parents and uncle of
deceased Pushpa, it is evident that the facts of persistent
harassment and cruelty inflicted upon Pushpa in connection with
demand of dowry were well established. From the statements of
aforesaid witness, it is also clear that deceased, shortly before her
death, was ill treated and was beaten up. It is also urged that
autopsy report clearly proved that Pushpa was first strangulated
and thereafter subjected to electric current in order to disguise
the death as accidental electrocution.
11. On the other hand, learned counsel for respondent
submitted that there is no direct or circumstantial evidence
6
connecting the respondent from the alleged offences. It is
submitted that the statements of the prosecution witnesses (PW-
2, PW-19 and PW-4) have been recorded belatedly and they are
related to each other and therefore, cannot be relied upon. It is
also contended that prosecution has failed to establish the exact
year or date of marriage, an essential ingredient to attract an
offence under Section 304-B of the IPC. It is also contended that
there is no material to show that Janved Singh was present at
the time of death and no motive or any overt act has been
attributed to him. It is therefore, submitted that the impugned
judgment does not call for any interference in this appeal.
THE LEGAL POSITION
12. It is trite law that a conviction for murder can solely rest on
circumstantial evidence if the chain of circumstances is complete
1
and consistent only with hypothesis of the guilt of the accused .
13. Section 106 of the Evidence Act, 1872 lays down a general
rule that in a criminal case the burden of proof is on the
prosecution and Section 106 is not intended to relieve the
prosecution of its duty to prove the case. On the contrary, it is
1
Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra (1984) 4 SCC 116
7
designed to meet exceptional cases in which it would be
impossible, or at any rate, disproportionately difficult for the
prosecution to establish facts within the knowledge of the
accused which he can prove without any difficulty or
inconvenience. The word “especially” used in Section 106 of the
Evidence Act means the facts which are pre-eminently or
2
exceptionally within the knowledge of the accused . The
traditional rule relating to burden of proof of the prosecution
cannot be allowed to be wrapped in a pedantic coverage, the
offenders in serious offences would be the major beneficiaries
3
and the society would be the casualty .
14. It is well settled in law that when an accused offers a false
explanation regarding the cause of death which takes place
within the confines of his house, such falsity becomes an
additional link in the chain of circumstances pointing to the guilt
4
of the accused.
2
Shambu Nath Mehra v. State of Ajmer (1956) 1 SCC 337
3
State of West Bengal v. Mir Mohammad Omar & Others (2000) 8 SCC 382
4
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra (2006) 10 SCC 681
8
15. It is equally well settled legal proposition that while dealing
with an appeal against the acquittal the reasons which weighed
with the Trial Court must be dealt with. The normal presumption
of innocence gets reinforced with an order of acquittal. If two
views are possible from the evidence on record, the appellate
court must be extremely slow in interfering with an appeal
5
against an order of acquittal.
THE REAPPRAISAL
16. In the backdrop of aforesaid well settled legal principles, we
may advert to the facts of the case in hand. We are conscious of
the fact that we are dealing with an appeal against an order of an
acquittal. The post-mortem report and evidence of Dr. Devendra
Khare (PW-1) leaves no manner of doubt that death of the
deceased was homicidal. The aforesaid witness has deposed that
there were ligature marks around the neck consistent with
strangulation. There was an injury on the body and the burn
injuries were post-mortem.
5
Sanjeev & Anr. v. State of Himachal Pradesh (2022) 6 SCC 294
9
17. The version given by the accused No.1 namely, father-in-law
to the Police that deceased died of electrocution while ironing the
clothes stands falsified by medical evidence. The deceased died in
a room on the first floor. The incident had taken place 5.00 am in
the morning. The accused No.1 was at home on the date of
incident and had lodged false report that deceased died of electric
shock. The explanation offered by the accused No.1 that he
returned from the field to find the deceased dead is not supported
by any witness. Neither any neighbour nor any person, employed
by him in the field, has been examined by the accused No.1 to
corroborate his claim.
18. From the statement of the parents of the deceased
namely, Sobran Singh (PW-2), Ilaychi Bai (PW-19), and uncle
Ramesh (PW-4), it is axiomatic that accused persons used to beat
the deceased and made demands of dowry.
19. From the evidence adduced by the prosecution, it has
established the complete chain of circumstances namely, (i) the
unnatural death of the deceased which was not accidental but
homicidal as established from the medical evidence, (ii) the death
occurred inside the house occupied by accused No.1 which was
10
under his control, (iii) the FIR lodged by accused No.1 himself
establishes his presence in the house at the relevant time, (iv) the
version of the accused No.1 that he had gone to the field is wholly
unsubstantiated by any witness or independent corroboration, (v)
the deliberate lodging of a false report of electrocution and an
attempt to mislead the investigation, (vi) the strained relations
between son of accused No.1 and his daughter-in-law and
persistent demands for dowry. Each link fits seamlessly with the
next, forming a continuous chain which points unerringly to the
guilt of accused No.1 and excludes all reasonable hypothesis of
innocence. Once the aforesaid circumstances pointing out the
guilt of the accused No.1 was proved, the burden was on the
accused No.1 to explain the circumstances under which the
deceased died in the house occupied by him. The accused No.1
has miserably failed to discharge the aforesaid burden.
20. The High Court has not considered the material evidence
on record and has failed to take into account the reasons which
weighed with the Trial Court for convicting the accused Janved
Singh. The findings recorded by the High Court suffers from
serious infirmity.
11
CONCLUSION
21. In view of foregoing discussion, the prosecution has proved
beyond reasonable doubt that the accused No. 1-Janved Singh
caused the death of deceased by strangulation and attempted to
mislead the investigation by fabricating a false story of
electrocution.
ORDER
22. For the aforementioned reasons, we set aside the impugned
judgment and order of the High Court and restore the judgment
of the Trial Court in so far as it pertains to conviction and
sentence of Janved Singh. Janved Singh shall be taken into
custody forthwith to serve out the remainder of the sentence.
23. Accordingly, the appeal is partly allowed.
……………….……………J.
[SANJAY KUMAR]
..…….…………………….J.
[ALOK ARADHE]
NEW DELHI,
OCTOBER 14, 2025.
12