Jagdish Gond v. State of Chhattisgarh

Read Judgment : https://lawyerslibrary.in/books/gzur/

Citation: 2025 (4) KLR (SC) 40 : 2025 INSC 460
Court: Supreme Court of India, Criminal Appellate Jurisdiction
Judges: Sudhanshu Dhulia, J.; K. Vinod Chandran, J.
Case Number: Criminal Appeal No. 2605 of 2024
Date of Judgment: April 7, 2025
Parties: Jagdish Gond v. The State of Chhattisgarh and Others

Criminal Law – Murder – Acquittal – Reversal by High Court – Section 302 IPC – Section 106, Indian Evidence Act, 1872 – Burden of Proof – Alibi – Circumstantial Evidence

Deceased, married for two years, found dead with ligature mark on neck – Trial Court acquitted husband and in-laws, finding death to be suicide – High Court convicted husband under Section 302 IPC, citing failure to explain death under Section 106 and disbelief in alibi

Table of Contents

Held

High Court erred in reversing acquittal without evidence of manifest illegality or perversity in Trial Court’s findings – Medical evidence inconclusive on homicidal death – Prosecution failed to disprove husband’s plausible alibi of being at work, supported by initial police intimation – Section 106 inapplicable absent prima facie evidence of guilt – No chain of circumstances established guilt unequivocally – Allegations under Sections 498A, 306 IPC unsubstantiated – Conviction set aside, Trial Court’s acquittal restored – Appeal allowed.

Counsel:

For Appellant: Mr. Sameer Shrivastava, AOR; Mr. Niteen Sinha, Adv.; Ms. Yashika Varshney, Adv.; Ms. Palak Mathur, Adv.; Dr. Sangeeta Verma, Adv.
For Respondent: Mr. Apoorv Shukla, AOR; Ms. Prabhleen A. Shukla, Adv.; Mr. Ayush Acharjee, Adv.

Facts

The case involves the death of a young woman, married for two years, which was initially recorded as a sudden and unnatural death under Section 174 of the Cr.PC on January 29, 2017. The appellant, Jagdish Gond, the deceased’s husband, informed the police and his parents after finding his wife lying supine on a cot in their home upon returning from work. An inquest noted a ligature mark on the front of the deceased’s neck, but no suspicion of foul play was raised initially. On February 3, 2017, the deceased’s father lodged a complaint, leading to an FIR and the arrest of the appellant and his parents. Charges were framed under Sections 498A, 306, and 302 read with Section 34 of the IPC. The Trial Court acquitted all accused, concluding the death was a suicide, citing insufficient evidence of homicide. The High Court, on the State’s appeal, upheld the acquittal of the in-laws but convicted the appellant under Section 302 IPC, sentencing him to life imprisonment, primarily due to his failure to explain the death under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act and disbelief in his alibi of being at work.

Issues

Whether the High Court erred in reversing the Trial Court’s acquittal of the appellant under Section 302 IPC.
Whether the prosecution established the death as homicidal and the appellant’s guilt beyond reasonable doubt.
Whether the appellant’s alibi and explanation under Section 106 of the Indian Evidence Act were sufficient to avoid conviction.

Holdings

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, set aside the High Court’s conviction, and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal. The Court held:

The High Court’s reversal of the acquittal was unsustainable due to a lack of manifest illegality or perversity in the Trial Court’s findings.
The prosecution failed to establish the death as homicidal, as the medical evidence was inconclusive, and no chain of circumstances pointed unequivocally to the appellant’s guilt.
The appellant’s alibi, supported by his initial intimation to the police, was plausible, and the prosecution failed to disprove it. Section 106 of the Evidence Act did not impose a burden on the appellant to prove his absence, given the lack of evidence establishing his presence at the time of death.

Reasoning

Standard for Reversing Acquittal: The Court reiterated that an acquittal should not be reversed unless the Trial Court’s findings are perverse or manifestly illegal. The Trial Court’s view, being plausible, fortified the presumption of innocence.
Medical Evidence: The postmortem report and testimony of PW-8 (the doctor) indicated a ligature mark on the front of the neck but did not confirm strangulation or homicide. The absence of marks around the neck and the doctor’s inconclusive opinion on whether the death was homicidal or suicidal supported the Trial Court’s finding.
Section 106 of the Evidence Act: The High Court misapplied Section 106, which requires an accused to explain facts within their special knowledge only when the prosecution establishes a prima facie case. Here, the appellant’s explanation of being at work, recorded in the initial police intimation, was consistent and not disproven by the prosecution. The Court distinguished Trimukh Maroti Kirkan, noting that an unexplained death alone cannot establish guilt without other incriminating circumstances.
Alibi and Investigation: The appellant’s claim of being at a cement factory was noted in the first intimation, accompanied by the Village Kotwar. The prosecution’s failure to investigate his presence at the factory weakened the case. Testimonies from the deceased’s relatives were inconsistent, and the initial inquest report recorded no suspicion of foul play.
Lack of Circumstantial Evidence: No chain of circumstances excluded the possibility of suicide or pointed solely to the appellant’s guilt. Allegations under Sections 498A and 306 IPC were unsubstantiated, as no evidence of physical violence or severe harassment was presented.
Delay in Complaint: The deceased’s father’s complaint, filed five days after the death, lacked initial suspicion of homicide, undermining its credibility.

Disposition

The Supreme Court allowed the appeal, quashed the High Court’s conviction under Section 302 IPC, and restored the Trial Court’s acquittal. The appellant was ordered to be set free forthwith, with bail bonds discharged if not required in other cases.

Key Precedents Cited

Sharad Birdhichand Sarda v. State of Maharashtra, (1984) 4 SCC 116: A conviction requires a chain of circumstances unequivocally pointing to guilt, excluding all other hypotheses.
Trimukh Maroti Kirkan v. State of Maharashtra, (2006) 10 SCC 681: An accused’s failure to explain a death in their home is a strong circumstance but not sufficient alone to establish guilt.