Supreme Court Upholds Husband’s Murder Conviction, Rejecting His Claim That His Wife Died Of An Epileptic Fit During Sex

Vimalbai married Ramkishan on 12 May 1995 and died by strangulation at the matrimonial home on 1 February 1996, within nine months of the marriage.

The prosecution alleged that she had been persistently harassed and subjected to cruelty over dowry demands.

Ramkishan claimed that she died after suffering a seizure during sexual intercourse; medical evidence rejected that explanation.

The trial court convicted Ramkishan, his father Digambar and his brother Venkat under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC, but acquitted them of murder.

On the State’s appeal, the High Court convicted Ramkishan under Section 302 IPC and otherwise upheld the relevant convictions.

Digambar died during the pendency of the appeals before the Supreme Court, and his appeal abated as against him.

Section 302 IPC criminalises murder; Sections 498-A and 304-B IPC address, respectively, cruelty by a husband or his relatives and dowry death, with Section 304-B applying where a woman dies unnaturally within seven years of marriage and was subjected soon before her death to cruelty or harassment in connection with a dowry demand.

Section 34 IPC provides for joint liability for a criminal act done in furtherance of a common intention.

Under Section 106 of the Evidence Act, a fact especially within an accused’s knowledge must be explained by that accused; in a murder committed in the privacy of a home, this does not displace the prosecution’s initial burden but requires the relevant inmate to offer a cogent explanation.

A false explanation may provide an additional incriminating link when considered with the other evidence.

The Court relied on *Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra*, (2006) 10 SCC 681, for these principles.

Section 113-B of the Evidence Act requires the court to presume that the accused caused a dowry death once the statutory foundational facts are established; the accused may rebut that presumption.

The post-mortem evidence established death by throttling and injuries inconsistent with an epileptic seizure.

Ramkishan was with Vimalbai when she died and gave a defence account that the medical evidence disproved; the Court treated his failure to provide a credible explanation, together with the other circumstances, as an additional link supporting his conviction for murder.

The evidence of Vimalbai’s brother, father, marriage mediator and neighbours supported the finding that she had been subjected to persistent physical and mental cruelty over dowry demands.

Because she died unnaturally within nine months of marriage, the Court held that the requirements for the statutory presumption under Section 113-B were met and found that the accused had not rebutted it.

It therefore found no basis to disturb the convictions under Sections 498-A and 304-B read with Section 34 IPC.

The appellants who had been released on bail were directed to surrender within four weeks to serve the remaining sentences, failing which the trial court was directed to take steps to secure their custody.