Bombay High Court Upholds Life Conviction of Wife for Murder of Husband Based on Circumstantial Evidence. Last seen theory and failure to explain death under Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 led to conviction under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860.

High Court: Bombay High Court Bench: AURANGABAD In Favour of Prosecution
  • 6
Judgement Image
Font size:
Print

Case Note & Summary

The appellant, Jaishree Devkar, was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai, for the murder of her husband Rajabhau Devkar under Section 302 of the Indian Penal Code, 1860, and sentenced to life imprisonment and a fine of Rs.1000. The prosecution case was that on the night of the incident, the deceased was last seen with the appellant in their house. The next morning, the deceased was found dead with injuries. The appellant did not inform anyone about the death and gave contradictory statements. The motive was alleged to be a quarrel over money. The appellant challenged the conviction in the High Court. The court examined the circumstantial evidence, including the last seen theory, motive, and the appellant's failure to explain the death under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and pointed only to the guilt of the appellant. The appeal was dismissed, and the conviction and sentence were upheld.

Headnote

A) Criminal Law - Murder - Circumstantial Evidence - Last Seen Theory - The appellant was convicted under Section 302 of Indian Penal Code, 1860 for murder of her husband. The prosecution relied on circumstantial evidence including last seen together, motive, and failure to explain death. The court held that the chain of circumstances was complete and consistent only with guilt of the accused. (Paras 1-10)

B) Evidence Act - Burden of Proof - Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act, 1872 - When the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and died in her custody, the burden shifts to the accused to explain the circumstances. The appellant failed to provide any explanation, leading to an inference of guilt. (Paras 5-8)

Subscribe to unlock Headnote Subscribe Now

Issue of Consideration

Whether the conviction of the appellant for murder of her husband based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable.

Subscribe to unlock Issue of Consideration Subscribe Now

Final Decision

Appeal dismissed. Conviction and sentence upheld.

Law Points

  • Circumstantial evidence
  • last seen theory
  • motive
  • Section 106 of Indian Evidence Act
  • 1872
  • Section 302 of Indian Penal Code
  • 1860
Subscribe to unlock Law Points Subscribe Now

Case Details

2017 LawText (BOM) (07) 45

Criminal Appeal No.318 of 2013

2017-07-31

S.S. Shinde, S.M. Gavhane

Mr.S.J. Salunke for appellant, Mr.K.D. Munde APP for respondent/State, Mr.V.B. Deshmukh Advocate Assist to APP

Jaishree W/o. Rajabhau Devkar

The State of Maharashtra

Subscribe to unlock Case Details (Citation, Judge, Date & more) Subscribe Now

Nature of Litigation

Criminal appeal against conviction for murder

Remedy Sought

Appellant sought to set aside conviction and sentence

Filing Reason

Appellant convicted for murder of her husband

Previous Decisions

Conviction by Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai in Sessions Case No.102 of 2011 on 02.08.2013

Issues

Whether the conviction based on circumstantial evidence is sustainable

Submissions/Arguments

Appellant argued that evidence was insufficient State argued that chain of circumstances was complete

Ratio Decidendi

When the deceased was last seen in the company of the accused and died in her custody, the burden shifts to the accused under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act, 1872 to explain the circumstances. Failure to provide explanation leads to an inference of guilt.

Judgment Excerpts

The appellant accused who has been convicted and sentenced to suffer imprisonment for life and to pay fine of Rs.1000/... Briefly stated the prosecution case is as under:

Procedural History

The appellant was convicted by the Additional Sessions Judge, Ambejogai in Sessions Case No.102 of 2011 on 02.08.2013. She appealed to the High Court.

Acts & Sections

  • Indian Penal Code, 1860: 302
  • Indian Evidence Act, 1872: 106
Subscribe to unlock full Legal Analysis Subscribe Now
Related Judgement
High Court Bombay High Court Sets Aside Ex-Parte Order of Debts Recovery Tribunal in Cooperative Bank Case. The Court held that an ex-parte order passed without hearing the petitioner is liable to be set aside in the interest of justice.
Related Judgement
High Court High Court of Karnataka Acquits Accused in Corruption Case Due to Lack of Credible Evidence and Uncorroborated Trap Proceedings. Demand and Acceptance of Bribe Not Proved Beyond Reasonable Doubt Under Sections 7, 13(1)(d) and 13(2) of Prevention of C...