<p>The Supreme Court allowed the appeal filed by the husband against his conviction by the High Court under Section 302 of IPC -- The Trial Court had acquitted all three accused including the husband and in-laws finding the death to be suicide -- The High Court reversed the acquittal of the husband and convicted him under Section 302 of IPC -- The Supreme Court held that the High Court erred in reversing the acquittal without demonstrating any manifest illegality or perversity in the Trial Court's conclusions -- The Court found that the High Court placed undue reliance on Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 and that mere suspicion cannot lead to conviction -- The medical evidence did not clearly establish the cause of death and the prosecution failed to establish a chain of circumstances -- The accused had offered explanation about his absence which was mentioned in the first intimation and was not disproved -- The Court restored the acquittal by the Trial Court</p>
Criminal Law-- Indian Penal Code, 1860-Sections 302, 498A and 306-- Code of criminal Procedure, 1973- Section 378-- Cruelty and harassment-- Murder-- Acquittal of In-laws and husband of deceased by session court-- Judgment of acquittal was challenged by state in an appeal before high court--High court was pleased to confirm the acquittal of in-laws of deceased However reversed the acquittal of appellant/husband and convicted him u/s 302 of IPC-- Aggrieved-- Challenged by appellant husband before supreme court-- Case of circumstantial evidence-- Limited scope of interference in an appeal against acquittal-- Presumption of innocense in favour of accused in an appeal against acquittal-- Appellant himself lodged the complaint after seen his wife lying supine on her cot-- Presence of appellant at the time of incident not establised as per depostions of witnesses-- As per medical evidence ligture mark was only found on front part of neck-- No clarity as to whether the death was homicial-- No allegation of any physical violence on the deceased-- No evidence as to presence of appellant/husband on ill-fated night-- Plausible explanation by appellant that he was on duty at the time of incident-- No suspicion of homicidal death raised by relatives of deceased-- Conviction set aside- Appeal Allowed
Para-- 6, 7, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14
The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the conviction of the husband under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 by the High Court, and restored the acquittal by the Trial Court
Citation: 2025 LawText (SC) (4) 19
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No.2605 of 2024
Date of Decision: 2025-04-07
Case Title: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the husband by the Trial Court and convicting him under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
Before Judge: K. Vinod Chandran J. , Sudhanshu Dhulia J.
Equivalent Citations: 2025 INSC 460
Advocate(s): ppellant(s) : Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR Mr. Niteen Sinha, Adv. Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv. Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv. Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv. For Respondent(s) : Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv. Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv.
Appellant: Jagdish Gond
Respondent: The State of Chhattisgarh and Ors.
Nature of Litigation: Criminal appeal against conviction by High Court under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
Remedy Sought: Appellant husband seeking setting aside of conviction by High Court and restoration of acquittal by Trial Court
Filing Reason: High Court reversed Trial Court's acquittal and convicted husband under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
Previous Decisions: Trial Court acquitted all three accused finding death to be suicide -- High Court upheld acquittal of in-laws but convicted husband under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860
Issues: Whether the High Court was justified in reversing the acquittal of the husband by the Trial Court Whether the conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 was sustainable based on available evidence Whether Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 could be sole basis for conviction
Submissions/Arguments: The High Court erred in reversing acquittal without demonstrating manifest illegality or perversity in Trial Court's conclusions The High Court placed undue reliance on Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 which cannot be sole circumstance for conviction The medical evidence did not clearly establish cause of death and prosecution failed to establish chain of circumstances The accused had offered explanation about his absence which was mentioned in first intimation and was not disproved
Ratio Decidendi: An appeal against acquittal requires demonstration of manifest illegality or perversity in Trial Court's conclusions -- When two views are possible, the one taken by Trial Court to acquit cannot be lightly upset -- Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 cannot be sole circumstance for conviction -- Prosecution must establish chain of circumstances for conviction based on circumstantial evidence -- Presumption of innocence gets fortified by acquittal entered by Trial Court
Judgment Excerpts: It is trite that unless it is demonstrated that there is some manifest illegality or perversity in the conclusions recorded by the Trial Court while arriving at the finding of guilt of the accused, an acquittal ordinarily should not be reversed However, it cannot be the sole circumstance leading to the conclusion of guilt on the part of the accused husband
Procedural History: Death occurred on 29.01.2017 -- FIR registered on 03.02.2017 -- Trial Court acquitted all accused on 29.01.2017 -- High Court convicted husband under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 on appeal by State -- Supreme Court heard appeal against High Court conviction
